Dad I think those women's views are also influenced by the constant message that men want sex all the time and are always up for it.
So in their minds, by paying a man to shag them they're doing him a favour - he would do it for free anyway, the thinking goes. (It's not thinking I agree with because I don't buy the myth that men are always up for sex - I don't think they would have been able to rule the world if they were such slaves to it - but that ridiculous attitude is extremely widespread and encouraged by a media which appears to believe that it's desirable for everyone to believe that men are more obsessed with sex than women are.)
Interesting stuff Basil but that was not my partners thinking at all, her thinking was that if you cant get good sexual satisfaction for free its morally OK and sexually satisfying to pay for an arousing and competent lover who, though otherwise uninterested in sex, could 'fuck you properly' (her words). What you talk about is a woman who chooses (like a proportion of men who frequent female prostitutes) to delude herself that their paid partner enjoys the act.
I am aware that women more commonly think men are always up for sex, I know that because I see messages from women around the net who express utter surprise bordering on incredulity when in an otherwise healthy relationship they discover their mans sexual drive is less than their own. However they are, as far as I can judge, significantly fewer than men who discover the same about their female partners. I think the thinking that men 'are always up for it' has a good basis in reality, if not that one particular man then, collectively, that next one in line will be 'up for it'.
Whereas men who are OK with paying for sex are having their ideas and attitudes shaped in a society which sends out very different messages about women. Women aren'tsupposedto enjoy sex, just gatekeep it. Except when theyaresupposed to enjoy it otherwise they're fridid. Or something. So the implications of them handing over money to a woman for sex, are different. Some men get positively turned on by the idea that the woman they are using actively dislikes what they're doing, while others kid themselves the women they use enjoy it because that fiction preserves their sense of themselves as decent men.
I wonder if the women you knew who were OK with the idea of buying sex for themselves, would be quite so keen on the idea if presented with the notion that they would probably be buying it from a young man who had been raped or sexually abused, was emotionally vulnerable and really didn't want to do it but was forcing himself to for the money. Not such a turn on for most women, while for many male punters, not such a problem?
Hrmmm. What you talk about goes to the darkest heart of prostitution, men who use women and dont care a damn what the woman feels or even pretends to feel, or even if she feels at all. Basically rape 'consent' obtained with money. Yes, I think men as a gender would be much more commonly inclined to 'use' a woman to that base level than visa-versa. How common that is within prostitution I don't know.
In general terms I think there is a different mind-trick going on women Vs me, if a male prostitute uses 'pornography in his head' during the sex to maintain an erection the erection itself to the female client can be seen as tangible and near undeniable proof of her sexual desirability and the mans enthusiastic compliance, in a far more effective way than all the fake moans and orgasms of a woman being used by a man.
Random passing thought- I think the idea of sex rejection between the genders is out of whack on both sides but in different ways. I think women take lack of desire for them more personally- 'its not that he does not desire, its that he does not desire me'. Men in the same situation seem to feel that their partner has just lost desire per se, they dont as commonly see it as attached to their desirability unless they feel they have lost the ability to perform intercourse. Or I could be off in thinking that.
!