so i'm sitting in sociology today, and we're talking about prostitution.

[UpsideDownFlag]

discussing its causes, how it relates to other social problems, etc. there's a few girls talking about how it demeans women, and we're nodding, and then the professor says "well, really, prostitutes are like any other woman. they all trade something for sex, and they do it pretty well."

silence.

I went to talk to him about it afterwards, and he was serious. so, a question for anyone who knows (and i dont mean to sound stupid, this just seems like a demeaning notion to me) women DONT trade sex for 'x', right? they do it b/c of love and pleasure, like me. did I miss something in my Sex Ed classes a while back?

again, if i sound like a stupid boy just tell me.
...but it wasnt too long ago that i was a stupid boy, so its not all out of my system.

[sangh0]

1. Statements like that are usually

more revealing of the speaker, than of the actual world. He sounds as if he doesn't understand what love is about. How sad.

[UpsideDownFlag]

5. that's what i was thinking.

i mean, talk about writing off a whole gender.

[Eloriel]

78. He's a misogynist

That's a cruel, unfair and inaccurate "assessment" of, as you point out, a whole gender.

But let's take the sociological view of his comment. Not all that many years ago, women were powerless EXCEPT for what society relegated to them as their personal sphere of influence: almost exclusively marriage, home and family. Their economical survival was largely dependent on finding a man to marry -- notice I didn't say "the right man," I said "a man."

Women who had to support themselves because they didn't marry were almost exclusively confined to low paying jobs in the helping professions: nursing, domestic work for others (incl. hotels, etc.), teaching (mostly grade and high schools and if higher education were almost never allowed to be department heads let alone hold more responsible, fun and well paying jobs), "stewardesses," secretaries and other clerical workers. Some of these jobs you could survive on comfortably but spartanly, and some would not lift you above poverty level. And I'm just talking about supporting yourself, not children after being widowed or careing for sick parents, etc.

In such an environment, women are forced to compete with each other for the available men, and esp. for the "good men" with better income prospects.

As a side note I get SO upset with anyone who blames "the other woman" for breaking up a marriage, for several reasons. One, it puts the blame on her when it's HIS responsibility to keep his vows. Second, no one can break up a marriage if one of the partners of that marriage (i.e., the male) doesn't make it possible and again, HE gets off the hook in the deal (double standard, again). And finally, it reinfoces the ancient and outmoded "women have to compete with other women for men" rule that once upon a time was operative, but cerainly isn't in any way necessary any longer.

Okay, back to the competition. If you had to compete for your economic and possibly physical survival by attracting someone to marry, wouldn't you be tempted to use sex to do so in one way or another if you were a woman, ESPECIALLY if you were taught precisely that mode of manipulation by the entire society you grew up in?

In a sense, the way marriage USED to work (when "good girls" had to remain virgins, and bad girls didn't get good mates), it often WAS a trade of sexual and domestic service in exchange for economic survival. And sometimes, given the taboo against divorce and the prevalence of domestic abuse, that's the best many marriages ever were. And yeah, I'd call that a form a prostitution too, with women as always not free to be full agents in charge of their own lives.

BUT, the Sexual and Women's Liberations movements should have changed all that. Women were free to have sex before marriage too (and why not? Are we somehow less "entitled" to the same pleasure as men? -- thank the Goddess for the Pill!!!! which freed women from the wages of their sins) and women no longer had to compete for the best men because they too could o to good schools, get great jobs and take care of themselves.

Of course, many of the old mythologies and old societal rules and taboos still lurk, and your teacher is a perfect (maddening) example.
Only a cynical misogynist in this day and age sees women primarily or only as sexual beings who "want something" from him in exchange for having sex with him. The poster had it right that his comment says far more about his own sick and twisted mind.

Now, prostitutes. I haven't read the rest of the thread, so I don't know if he got it right about prostitutes or not (and an educated guess makes me believe NOT).

Overwhelmingly, women who become prostitutes or other sex industry workers were sexually abused as children (and who did THAT? Rarely any of the woman in their lives. Most often their own fathers, uncles, brothers or family friends). NO one grows up saying "Gee, I'd like to be a prostitute when I grow up."

Very young prostitutes have often run away from home precisely because of the sexual abuse and incest, and/or have to support themselves -- and often their habits, by this time, to dull the unending pain of the unimaginable self-loathing and sense of abject worthlessness as a human that they feel not just because of the sexual abuse they endured (What, I'm not good enough even to have control over my own body?) but also because of the continued self-abuse and abuse at the hands of society inherent in working in such a soul-killing "profession."

And SURE some of them say they love it, that it's a great job, yadayada. Some of them make great money, but if they truly believe in their own conscious minds that they are happy and fulfilled as human beings working anywhere in the sex industry, they're simply lying to themselves to cover up the overwhelming pain. There is no more degrading job on earth, bar none.

I think I hate your teacher.

[Cleita]

89. Just a little correction. Since I grew up in that era, you said

that women would use sex to attract a man. The truth is sex was the last thing you used or you would get a reputation. More realistically, your competition with other women was how well you dressed and how well groomed your hair was, how perfect your make-up.

The men, on the other hand, didn't have to do anything but pay for the date. There was always the little innuendos about which girls were the ones men had fun with and which ones were the girl that they married.

[Eloriel]

92. Okay, let's put it this way

The potential for sexual activity, and the promise of sex after marriage to one of the "good girls." It still puts sex at the heart of the debate, whether that sex is "going all the way" (now or later, after marriage), or something in between.

I phrased it less than adequately.

[Cleita]

96. Oh, I agree with that entirely.

It was the promise, the carrot dangled. I wonder how Lynne and Dick played the game? I throw up thinking about it.

[jdj]

155. I tend to believe women trade out their wombs for financial support

As well.

What a nimrod professor.

And please don't forget ancient history. The biggest lie in history is "it's always been this way" followed by "until recently".

There has been unbelievable variation of every concievable kind in history. Anyone attempting to focus on one manifestation of human sexuality in a culture and say that's how it always was is ALWAYS lying and usually guilty of propaganda.

And we comply if we swallow the lie and repeat it.

[Toots]

129. Does the name Lysatrata (sp) mean anything to you?

:shrug: Sex has been used for gain for ever.

[mandyky]

112. Personally I agree with your professor

Women who have sex because they like it are called sluts. There still is a double standard. I don't like him using the all women approach. Since I wasn't there it's hard to gauge what he actually meant. Maybe he said it for shock value...

[patcox2]

143. Maybe he is not attacking a gender, but defending prostitutes

Rhetorically, he is making a challenging statement to anyone who has a victorian, "sex is sinful, prostitutes are sinful" mindset. You seem to have that mindset, because you take it as an insult, as "writing off" a gender, to be compared to or called a prostitute. Why should that be, after all?

Anyway, I discuss this way down the thread a little bit more. You interpret him as saying "all women are as bad as prostitutes." Maybe he was saying "prostitutes aren't any worse than anyone else."

Try to remember also that, even if he is as old as dirt, liberal attitudes towards sex and gender are even older than him. Havelock Ellis would probably be 150 years old today, or more. To a professional sociologist, who looks at gender roles and sexual activities from an academic perspective, there is no moral condemnation in being a prostitute.

[artslave43]

9. You project

too much.....

[sangh0]

13. Exactly!!

Your way is much better and shorter.

[artslave43]

20. But....

the professor said nothing about love.

[sangh0]

23. Exactly my point!

.

[merh]

2. Your professor sounds like he has been burned by a female

and rather than lick his wounds and go on, he has decided that all women are evil and trade sex for something.

What a sap. I would transfer to another professor and lodge a complaint. When in college and high school, I never put up with instructors that were more "educated" but less intelligent and who professed to be wiser by spreading their ignorance as if it were the facts.

Tell professor sore loser to grow up and move on. Not all women trade sex for favors, possessions, postions, etc.

[artslave43]

12. Now you are projecting

WAY too much....geez. This is a classroom. People are suppose to have their heads played with. Enlightened....have some kind of thinking going on....etc. lodge a complaint? hello? school? learning?

[UpsideDownFlag]

19. i did lodge a complaint.

with DU.


nothing's gonna happen to this prof, he has permanent double-time spiffaroo tenure.

[artslave43]

25. You lodged a complaint

with DU...

What's that? I don't get it...

[UpsideDownFlag]

27. ..(im complaining to other Duers because im not ballsy enough to do

anything else).

[artslave43]

44. that made me laugh at least!

Were you actually complaining about this or just wanting feedback?

[UpsideDownFlag]

45. both. i wanted to see like-minded people's opinions.

and i did it in a complaining manner.

[patcox2]

149. I am deeply offended by your sexism

Suggesting that "balls" are necessary for courage, by implication, you are writing off a whole gender and perpetuating pernicious gender stereotypes.

[jdj]

167. breasts are balls too.

[merh]

21. Yes, lodge a complaint - sexism in the classroom by the

professor is not acceptable. A thinker would challenge the sexist remark -- challenge it and report it. A college classroom is a place to prepare the student for life in the real world. If the supervisor or employer made this type of sexist remark, the woman does not and should not put up with it.

[artslave43]

33. gee....how lucky for you

this only happened in the classroom. You "heard" something that was sexist?

Do you really have an experience of what the real stuff was about? When you lose your job because you refuse to go with your boss into his office "to talk?".....or you refuse to "date" their important friends when you've been sent to do a business project with them and THEN you lose your job? That is sexual harrassment, btw.(this DID happen to me)

How everybody can, without proof, say that this professor is a sexist, divorced, bitter man is incredible....why bother having professors if everyone already knows all the answers?

[Sparkly]

41. Sexist ideas can feed into sexual harrassment

I don't see how the reality of sexual harrassment makes it wrong to challenge a prof who's espousing sexist ideas.

(And I've experienced sexual harrassment, too.)

I do agree that we can't know the rest of the prof's story.

[merh]

48. When the "professor" is there as a SOCIOLOGIST - a professional

and he pontificates that "ALL women sell/trade sex for favors" then yes, that is sexual harassment. His expertise is society, so his opinions have weight and intermingle with known facts, thus giving them greater credibility than say a math professor.

To answer your very personal inquiries, yes, I have been sexually harassed, have challenged the behavior and have had the "harasser" put in his place or reprimanded. On the other hand, I too have lost positions because I would not be put in the position of the hapless, don't make waves female.

Interestingly enough, I have also taught various professionals courses relative to the definition of and legal ramifications related to sexual harassment.

[salin]

202. is it allowable to you,

to state that were I to hear the statement in a class, that I would find it exceptionally obnoxious? Given that the suggestion of "all" women exclusively using sex to get something (implication being material rather than 'satisfaction' given the comparison to prostitution). What a frickin obnoxious (and incorrect) statement.

[Eloriel]

79. The woman involved

would most likely have been his mother, the first time around (though not involving sex, at least not usually). Or maybe this was his father's attitude.

And since we draw intimate partners into our lives who will repeat the same patterns we had with our parent(s) until we learn how to do it BETTER than the old model we grew up with, he probably has had a series of girlfriends/wives who did fit that model, at least in his mind and maybe objectively as well.

No excuse, IMO. He's a misogynist and a danger to society, esp. since he teaches at the college level molding young minds.

[BiggJawn]

3. Some women do, sadly. And some men, also...

This will get me flamed, but he's right. Politically Incorrect, but right.

We're all prostitutes to one degree or another. Think about it. How many of us TRULY love what we do for a living? No? So aren't you "selling" yourself in order to survive? I am.

[merh]

7. But are you selling sex?

His comment, as I read it, was not that we are all prostitutes, selling our lives for what we want, need, require, et cetera.

His comment is that all women trade sex to get what they want. There is a big difference.

He is not correct - imho!

[artslave43]

18. correction

what the professor said is related through this poster, you didn't HEAR what he actually said, so none of us actually know for sure how it was said....all we can critique is what the poster said....or heard.

And don't think because we live in the new millenium that men and women have changed.

[Terran]

80. So why not enlighten us all then

as to the essential inner characteristics that all men and women have. Since you imply that you know what those are. :eyes:

[Blue Wally]

47. Biologically he is right

During the evolution of the human species, the fact that the human child remains relatively helpless for years required the adaptation that caused a male to remain constantly with a female to provide for and to assist in rearing the child(ren). For this reason, human females are alsways "in season" unlike lesser mammals. Essentially, "cave woman" was "selling sex" in order to get food and protection from "cave man". Modern society, technology, and economics have reduced this need to the point where a woman can "make it" without a man in her life.

[Eloriel]

82. Oh, bullshit

Essentially, "cave woman" was "selling sex" in order to get food and protection from "cave man".

Yeah, like her only value, the only thing she brought to the table, was her sexuality.

You've completely erased any and all possible contributions by the female to the "family" or tribe. Like SHE wasn't busting her chops hunting and gathering (you think they ONLY ate mastodon meat, no fruits and nuts and herbs?), cooking, making clothes and cooking utensils, learning and teaching herbcraft, etc. But all that is totally worthless, it's all just SEX, SEX, SEX.

(THIS, ladies, is how women's achievements and contributions to humankind were erased, forgotten, minimized, trivialized and just outright goddamned ignored for millennia -- and why we didn't get into the history books, either, until we put our own selves in.)

It wasn't until the male of the species took OWNERSHIP over the famle and her progeny AND property (and limited her sexuality along with most other freedoms with all sorts of ugly, anti-woman, cruel and draconian taboos) that women were forced into a position to compete with other women and often use their sexuality for their very survival. And believe me, that wasn't OUR choice. It was forced on us, thoroughly ingrained into all of society until we forgot or never knew any other way of being.

[Blue Wally]

111. Get off your "Earth Goddess" revisionism.........

"Cave man" could take care of himself. "Cave woman" could probably take care of herself. "Cave woman" could not take care of herself and her child by herself. That is quite a bit for humans to have evolved sex so that men come around more often than "mating seasons". Human communities did evolve as more efficient ways of "hunting and gathering" with some tasks becoming specialized (and being allocated to women as more doable when burdened with children), the only reason that human males hung around long enough to form communities was the constant availability of sex. Notice that human herds are formed by "pairing off" rather than by a herd arrangement with adult males being driven off by the "king of the herd".

[slappypan]

117. Flintstones, meet the Flintstones!

On what do you base these ideas about hunter-gatherer societies? Nothing I have ever read about such societies, either prehistoric or modern, suggests that they were organized with "man the bread-winner" at the head of a nuclear family. Thought they were always tribal entities based on clans or some type of extended kinship group. Survival was precarious and depended on everyone's labor, including that of small children. Never seen this "men only stuck around for the sex" theory before. Humans are complex social animals as are wolves, elephants, chimpanzees, etc.

[Tansy_Gold]

123. Earth Goddess Revisionism 101

Just FYI --

The female deity which is sometimes disparagingly referred to as the "earth goddess" or "great mother" was around for many, many, many THOUSANDS of years of human prehistory.

Male gods evolved only in the past 5000-7000 years or so, at most. And they evolved from the earlier goddesses.

Human beings worshipped the female principle of birth, generation, and sustenance long before they worshipped the male principle of domination and conquest.

[patcox2]

128. So you're suggesting that there may be truth in a flippant comment?

That although it sounded crude, and did indeed oversimplify and use imprecise language, nevertheless it is not outrageous for a sociologist to suggest that the female of a species may have adapted a survival strategy in which the availability of constant sex (unique among animal species) ensures the constant presence of males and the formation of groups, which enhance the chances of survival?

But, but, if this is reality, and yet it conflicts with current ideas of political correctness, won't it have to be suppressed?

[slappypan]

132. constant sex and formation of groups/pairs

Still can't see any provable correlation between availability of sex and continuous presence of males in a social group. Humans are social animals, males and females form societies, not solitary hunters like some feline species. There are also many species of animals that pair-bond for life despite only seasonal mating habits. None of this "males stick around for the constant sex" talk sounds remotely scientific yet.

[salin]

203. the statement made, as I read it, seems to fall into the category

of gross generalization. (gross as in "blanket application on all" as opposed to "yuck" - though to some of us, there is a bit of a yuck factor present as well... especially given the infered blanket application.)

[Pithlet]

135. Wow. Asserting that women

have actually involved and are thinking sentient beings rather than the product of their evolution. Imagine that?

[FizzFuzz]

199. would you please explain why some other "lesser" animals pair off for life

Ducks, Geese come to mind. I'm sure there are others, and they don't follow the "SEX! Open for business! 24/7, 365" model you put forth.

[Nikia]

200. Men have an interest in monagamy too

Even assuming that humans, especially men, were more solitary, men have an interest in sticking around too. He has an interst in assuring the success of his children. Even though he can physically mate with many women, practically that was not often the case. In addition to many women not wanting to have sex with whoever came around, physically stronger men could prevent the matings as well. There are animals where only the strongest males mate, but humans aren't one of those. Even if the lesser male mates and runs, it is well known that many mammals, including humans to some extent (if you look at child abuse rates for stepfathers verses biological fathers), inflict violence, neglect, and death upon young offspring that they know that aren't his. It is in a man's interest to stick around too, even from a purely biological standpoint.

[BiggJawn]

99. Hah! I wish...

I can't even GIVE it away (sorry, old joke)

Does it really make a difference what the commodity being traded is? People of both sexes "marry for money, marry for security" all the time, and it hardly gets a notice, but let the letters S-E-X enter the equation, and all of a sudden it's a horse of a different colour.

He's not 100% correct, and he's not 100% wrong, either, no matter how much anyone wishes it so.

I wish I had gotten a blow job for every time I was promised one in trade for some task. How about you?

Hmmm...On second thought, that was pretty insulting of her, wasn't it? "Honey, I'll give you a blow job if you move the piano into the family room..."

[artslave43]

14. yep

Better to KNOW it than to NOT know it, dontcha think? I do. But then, I tend to be a bit more cynical than most.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

60. Jawnn that isn't the point the prof was making

and yeah some women trade sex for security the same way some men trade all their self respect and property just to get laid...if they're the whore then that makes the male the desperate John so lacking in value that he must hunt for a co-signer to get what he needs......

[BiggJawn]

100. I didn't say it was a desirable state of affairs, did I?

And what when it's the MALE who's being the "whore"?

Gotta tell you, it's a real laugh being told (in front of her friends) "I'm gonna have to trade you in on a younger model..."

The professor was probably being a dick-head. I work at a University, trust me, I know PLENTY of over-paid dickheads....:P

[Pithlet]

134. He was not right.

Women aren't all a bunch of selfish, conniving women who only use sex as a tool to get what they want. He was just plain wrong. No politically incorrect about it.

If he meant that we're all doing things we don't want to do in order to get by, then why didn't he say that? There is a huge difference between your last sentence and the professor's statement.

[artslave43]

4. trading sex (or trading sexes for transvestites)

It is an old argument...and that is what a professor is supposed to do....open up your eyes to old and new arguments. Let's face it, some people do trade (and not just women....men too...straight or gay). Better to just sit back and say, hmmm....what would I do? (or if you are religious, which I am NOT, WWJD?)

I think it is not TOO cynical to say we all trade our dignity for something or other....until we wise up. I work in advertising, which I've often says makes ME a whore.....

[Demobrat]

6. Well....they have been known to attempt to trade sex

for love. Not smart, but it happens. Your teacher, though, sounds like a bitter little man who needs to keep his personal feelings out of the classroom.

[Sparkly]

8. My hair stands up at most sentences beginning with "They all..."

Your professor sees sex as something women "have" and men "get." Thus we can only "trade" what we have. That's centuries-old nonsense.

On the other hand, I'd be willing to agree that some women who aren't prostitutes -- some -- trade sex for something else besides money, yet society considers them more respectable than those who are paid in direct cash. But your prof said "all," and that just isn't so.

[mzmolly]

10. This guy is a *teacher* Wadda clod!

:eyes:

He's got issues. Women are sexual creatures and have sex for "sexual" reasons. :hi:

[UpsideDownFlag]

16. he's one of t hose campus dinosaurs, been around longer than anyone else

its 'his' school.

[Warpy]

11. The guy sounds like he's been though the divorce mill

at least once. This "all women are prostitutes" went out with employment outside the home. We can buy our own food, pay our own rent, and even buy our own damn Valentine's Day candy.

Tell him his attitude went out with the Victorians.

[sangh0]

26. Wait a minute!!

You buy Valentine's Day candy for yourself, also? :-)

[SoCalDem]

108. I go one better than that... I wait til Feb 15 and get it half price

:)

The "teacher" is probably just rattling some cages.. It's early in the school year, and he's just an old fart who's trying to stimulate a back and forth discussion in class..

Even though I am older than dirt, I can still remember that some girls were a bit shallow, and would "put out" for trinkets..jewelry, clothes from the "boyfriend", etc...but did they do it FOR the trinkets, or did the guy give the trinkets willingly??

[dave123williams]

15. Politically incorrect...

Yeah; nobody ever heard of a woman withholding sex when she doesn't get what she wants...that never happens...

[UpsideDownFlag]

17. that's different, though- they wouldn't wanna do it if theyre mad at you.

that's a strawman, and not what the guy was saying.

[Demobrat]

36. You're pretty smart for your age.

Some girl is going to be lucky to get you.

[UpsideDownFlag]

40. lol, thanks. n/t.

[cally]

81. Thank you

The woman you love will be very lucky.

[Sparkly]

24. "Withholding?"

What, does it belong to somebody else? :eyes:

Main point: lots of things "happen." But saying "ALL" women do something or other is usually a problem, imho.

[Skittles]

31. I would question how much good sex she is having

if she's doing that

[sangh0]

32. If she's "witholdling"

I'd guess "very little".

:evilgrin:

[Tansy_Gold]

124. Then again, those who are "withholding"

may be having better sex than those who aren't.


:evilgrin:

[Book Lover]

55. Because it does happen does not mean it happens every time

and that is what the poster says the professor says. As BigJ said above, women and men do it at times in their lives. But to say it happens every time, or that every woman does it, well, that is sexist, yes.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

72. So if he says all men are rapists is that then valid as well?

Yeah..nobody ever heard of a man forcing the issue when he doesn't get what he wants...that never happens either. :eyes:

Now I know how Bush got in the White House....lots of thoughtlessness and and that thinking which remains is conclusionary.

[dave123williams]

104. Hold on there...

Funny; I suggest that it's possible for *a* woman to behave that way, and you go and put words in my mouth. Nobody said anything about 'all women'.

The post in question didn't say that all women were prostitutes. He suggested that prostitutes and non-prostitutes have something in common. You know very well that some women can and do 'prostitute' themselves for MB's, tennis-bracelets, and McMansions. Ah, to lead the life of the materially wealthy, spiritually bankrupt, loveless country-club ho...

There is certainly a good case to be made that sex isn't just a commodity; it's the oldest one.

Be ginger with that word 'thoughtless', please. It might look to some like you're projecting your own intellectual rigidity.

Maybe you should think about that, and share your conclusions with us.

[Tsiyu]

107. KEYWORDS: READ OP

Prostitutes are like ANY OTHER WOMEN

[dave123williams]

150. Basic grammar rodeo...

Let's review use of common similes:

Like: adv. one similar to or like another.

One would have use the verb 'to be' were the thought to be expressed as 'All women ARE prostitutes'.

But that's not what he said, now is it. He said that prostitutes are LIKE any other women.

It might help you to make a list...

Here's a homework assignment; make two columns, and try to list all the similarities between prostitutes and non-prostitutes. Then list their differences.

As both parties are human beings, I think you'll quickly find that they have far more similarities than differences. They both have hands, and feet, and hearts. They both breathe air, consume food and in a good state of health, are ambulatory.

An example of a difference between them is that one party accepts money for sex, while the other does not. That, plus the taste in clothing, but that's kind of subjective....

Go on; try it. You'll find that comparing and contrasting things is a good incubator for thought; and thinking is a good thing.

[Tsiyu]

153. George Bush is just like any other man

They are all violent, ignorant psychopaths who should be put out of their misery.

Okay, I tried it.

Hmmmmm. Still seems like generalization to moi.

[dave123williams]

161. Blindness...

You tried nothing. List the similarites that non-prostitutes and prostitutes have. You might try doing the same thing where Bush is concerned, and you'd be less likely to underestimate him.

Well, at least we can see where you're coming from.

[Tsiyu]

164. Maybe you have time to waste on parlour games?

I don't. Enjoy your delusions, my friend!

[smirkymonkey]

179. Thinking? Please!

So far, your posts have done nothing but support this misogynistic bullshit under the headings of "free speech" and "thinking."

Here, let's try one of your cute little "thinking" games:

"Well, really, (insert minority group here) "welfare bums" are just like any other minority, they all take advantage of the system and they do it pretty well."

"Here's a homework assignment; make two columns, and try to list all the similarities between and (minority group)"welfare bums". Then list their differences.

As both parties are human beings, I think you'll quickly find that they have far more similarities than differences. They both have hands, and feet, and hearts. They both breathe air, consume food and in a good state of health, are ambulatory (???).

An example of a difference between them is that one party sucks off the tax dollars of others, while the other does not. That, plus the taste in big gold chains, but that's kind of subjective....

Go on; try it. You'll find that comparing and contrasting things is a good incubator for thought; and thinking is a good thing."

Sounds a lot like the arguments used by right-wing hate mongerers.

What was said in my above example is called racism and it doesn't belong in the classroom or anywhere else for that matter. In an institution of higher education, that type of comment can and should be reported to the administration.

It has NOTHING to do with fostering "thinking" and everything to do with fostering a hostile learning envronment for women and some men, like our original poster.

[Cleita]

22. Is he middle aged or older?

It's a concept that was widely held by most men before feminism, that married women traded sex for security, like prostitutes did for money. It was really a sexist notion.

[UpsideDownFlag]

30. he's as old as the sun.

well, in his late 60's.

[Cleita]

34. Thought so. There's your answer.n/t

[Eloriel]

83. Uh, just a minute

He's STILL a dinasaur. He shoulda learned better during 2nd Wave Feminism, but obviously chose to hold out. Shame on him.

[bloom]

77. Reminds me of an Art class

I took a life drawing class with an old guy.

I'll never forget him saying that pregnant women used to not go out of the house because it was considered replusive - and he still thought that it was. (He also only liked to see women drawn in a totally stylized rather than realistic fashion.)


Feminism has done more than people realize.

[artslave43]

46. You must be young....

One of my best friends made that bargain....so if you are from "before" feminism you don't belong to the catagorie of "all women" ? I don't get it. Look, I don't like the concept of what the professor said any better than anyone else....but I defend his right to say it without being reported for sexist remarks....challenge the guy in class. Maybe he'd be up for it, who knows....

but mark my words, everyone prostitutes themselves in their lives for something....male or female.

[Eloriel]

86. I'm not at all comfortable with you defending sexists

This man's attitude would be bad enough were it NEVER expressed in public, but to have it offered up as "wisdom" to young minds is unconscionable. It's a slur against ALL women, and as I've alluded elsewhere, also relegates them to little more than sexual objects to which HE feels entitled somehow.

Sick AND sexist. And it's really jarring to see you defending that, esp. on a so-called progressive disucssion forum.

[Fovea]

28. The paradigm of romantic love leading to marriage

is a creation of the late Victorian era. Before then, marriage, regardless of class was more about economics.

Now, do I think that in modern times women trade sex for money or favors?
No more often than men trade money or favors for sex.
Both groups of cynical assholes get pretty much what they deserve-- superficial, unfeeling sex.

In the real world of work, both women and men prostitute themselves for money-- even in the non-sexual industries as well.

But based on the phrasing, I would say that your prof is more likely to be a misogynist, than a sociologist, per se.

[merh]

39. I love your post!

Thank you for your insight!

[depakid]

29. Did the professor get you thinking about the issue?

it sounds like he did- which might have been his intent.

Sometimes a controversial statement like that is more thought provoking in ways that a better reasoned one might not be.

Of course, your prof could just be a narrow minded cad! ;-)

[DURHAM D]

35. Are you attending a private or public school? n/t

[HootieMcBoob]

37. Your professor is an ass.

There's no nicer way to put it. You should take everything he tells you from now on with that in mind.

[UpsideDownFlag]

43. i definitely will. it'll make paper-writing interesting.

[GreenPartyVoter]

38. Well, how direct a trade are we talking here? like a blatant

"I'll do you if you give me XYZ?"

Or is it more like, give him some cuddle time and get him in a good mood, then ask for whatever. Because I think the second one does in fact happen. (Ok, I admit it. I know it for a fact. Been there done that, and I won't lie about it.)

[artslave43]

42. actually, it is pretty complimentary to PROSTITUTES

the professor says "well, really, prostitutes are like any other woman. they all trade something for sex, and they do it pretty well."

HOW DOES THIS DESERVE TO BE "REPORTED".....IT SOUNDS LIKE AMERICAN LEARNING INSTITUTIONS ARE TURNING INTO SOVIETSPEAK....

DAMN, I'M GLAD I WENT TO ART SCHOOL....where we got to draw prostitutes instead of reporting our professors. You guys scare me.

[Tsiyu]

49. What part about

"This is an inappropriate comment" don't you get?

If women were all about "trading" I'd say we'd all have a lot more shit. And power. And influence.

This is just a testy old man who probably needs pharm-assistance to even feel desire. Bitter, provocative and best dealt with by watching and learning.

You can break down these sorts of arguments; you only have to listen to what he is REALLY saying....it's a challenge. And don't allow ANYONE to support a hypothesis with another hypothesis....

[artslave43]

51. we all trade....

I was hoping people would break down the whole thing....tell me why it was inappropriate. In your eyes. I mean, what should that professor have said to get the point across? And who cares if he needs pharm assistance? it is all still projection about HIM instead of asking what it was he was really saying....and can anyone honestly say it is TRUE or NOT TRUE? uh uh...no way....my problem is the KGB attitudes of condemnation for his saying it. Way to politically correct, and I am from the feminist generation ..... but I would sell the feminists down river to protect freedom of speech.

[Tsiyu]

54. Gee

I thought it was a given (to all intelligent people at least) that generalizing about one class of human ( or one gender, or one race, blah blah blah) is an intellectually bereft, sophomoric act. A professor can have his personal opinion, and this one obviously does, but it will stand in the way of HIS learning ability and therefor will negatively impact his students.

His statement was not factual. AS a teacher of others, he states his personal opinion as fact.

Imagine if he had said, "All Jews ( Arabs, Blacks, Browns, Reds.....) do this-that-or-the-other." Would we need to parse that for you, too?

Somehow, even among the most well-meaning, attacks on one gender or the other are allowed to go unchallenged, as if those GENERALIZATIONS were the given.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

63. YOu don't know that that is what he was doing..now YOU are projecting

and, in fact, his paragraph indicates that when he approached him at the end of class the guy was sincere in his statement.

You can pretend it was this "neat little exercise" but in fact it was no less prejudicial than saying all AA's are __________ )fill in the bigoted response)

One does not attend a higher education to get their head shoved further up their ass with stereotypes but to expand beyond what one presumes they know.

[Tsiyu]

65. Sincere and stupid

You've got that right!!!!

[Pithlet]

142. But

If someone made such a statement about AAs, couldn't we just assume that they were really saying that anthropologically speaking, from an evolutionary standpoint, people are coded to favor people from their own tribe for survival? </sarcasm>

[Blue Wally]

170. but I could say

AA are most likely to be Democratics voters. I can't say, "This man is AA, therefore he is D" because that particular AA might be Thomnas Sowell. I am on much better ground drawing inferences about behaviors of identifiable groups than I am on drawing inferences on the behaviors of a single member of the group.

[Eloriel]

88. Obviously:

I would sell the feminists down river to protect freedom of speech.

Plain enough for all to see.

Edited to add: and your concept of "free speech" is as warped as your idea about women, men, sex, etc. To equate the upliftment of oppressed groups via societal sanctions on langauge which oppresses them with KDB mentality is appalling.

[Djinn]

98. while I agree the ol' bastard has some issues regarding women

I'm kinda with artslave43 on the issue of reporting someone for a comment no matter how sexist/racist/vile whatever it is. I like to challenge people if they say something innappropriate, explain why I beleive it is so. I understand that some people find this difficult (never been a problem for a smartarse loudmouth like myself!) but surely there was atleast one perosn in the class comfortable enough to say to the prof "excuse me, but I think that by attributing a behaviour of SOME women (and men) onto ALL women and NO men is sexist and demeaning" if you say stuff politely people tend not to get instantly defensive which they do when called into a superiors office a few weeks after the event.

I don't like it when Daniel Pipes and his merry band of arab haters dob in professors for remarks that come across in their screwed little heads as "anti-semitic" so I couldn't really support it with regard to another issue.

If after questioning the prof, he does not clarify what he meant, or apologise, or belittles or yells at you THEN you make a complaint. I really think people need the practice at standing up for themselves.

[FighttheFuture]

57. Well.... it's a two way street...

First, men trade also. It could be sex, or earning ability, or wealth, or aggressiveness, or passivity, etc. Millions of people, millions of combinations.

Secondly, it's not just sex being traded. The professors statement was pretty narrow. Sex, however, is high on the list. The reason that more "shit, power, influence" is not available is because it is not a precious unchanging commodity, like, gold.

Sex is available, and once obtained, can, and often does loose value with the one who sought it. That is why other attributes are also important if a relationship is to be sustained. Then, much can be obtained by the woman through her mate while simultaneously strengthening her mate and relationship.

For example, Hillary Clinton. Laura Bush. Lynne Cheney. They all have much influence and power that they would not otherwise have if not for their husbands. Note: I think Hillary would have still gone far, just not as far if she was not with Bill.

[Tsiyu]

62. what about single people?

Or I should say: single WOMEN.

If we are celibate, i guess we're just out of the game altogether? Wow. Who knew? I am NOTHING if I ain't "givin' a man some."

Whew!
This sounds like freepertalk to me....

[FighttheFuture]

71. No, your're trading your celibacy, and by implication virgintiy...

[Tsiyu]

85. I'm not trading anything

If I have sex, it is because I, ( now, don't get frightened, okay?) ENJOY sex! What a concept!

[FighttheFuture]

93. Then you are not celibate, are you?! Regardless, if you are...

having sex with another you are then I could argue you are trading sex for simple physical/mental enjoyment. Hmmmm....

Also, you are choosing to go with that partner vs. others. Considerations come into play and the connections and choices are made. Trading and trade offs are performed.

This is not wrong, nor right, it is simply what it is at its most basic. Now you can add layers of human interconnection, or love, or "it tingles" or whatever and claim some more noble purpose. That is fine, and, in fact, a correct thing to do from how you understand the interaction.

The problems occur when people condem a certain free choice behavior (e.g. sex for money) while condoning another (e.g. sex for love) without regard to the underlying motivations and reasons. This condemnation is, in many cases, particularly cruel and unreasonable and hits hardest those most disenfranchised with society.

In the meantime, creatures like the Bush clan wreak havoc on society and are continually rewarded for it.

So, try to understand, there is nothing inherently wrong with prostitution. In fact, it serves many purposes (e.g. Sex in wars, the WWII Hawaiian brothels run by the military, or Vietnam brothels, etc. for troop morale). The problem is how society, or elements of it, judge it and condem without true debate.

[Tsiyu]

102. Okay

Me cut to chase...


Thread is NOT about prostitution, no matter how badly you want to turn it into your own personal prostitution apology thread.

If you like prostitutes, bully for you.

I never said i was celibate, because the thread was not about my sex life, no matter how fascinated you might be with THAT topic.

The thread was ostensibly from a young man who wanted to know if it was appropriate for a professor to make a blanket comment about women trading sex for most everything.

Blanket statements are made by intellectual frauds, farceurs. They have no basis in fact.

You might say, "all women have eyes." Well, no they don't.

Hoooey, as they say in the hills, the lengths people go through sometimes to avoid staring logic in the face. ARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

[FighttheFuture]

137. Okay Dokey. Nice dodge once again...

I agree with your general statement about what this forum topic is.

However, this sub-topic is from your blanket statement about women should have a lot more if they were trading for sex. Follow the thread. It is okay to expand from the original topic, just so you know. I realize with over 500 posts, you may not yet realize that!

Oh, I am really not fascinated with your sex life that you seem to keep bring up in an attempt to make some point. I am amused with the rope-a-dopes you employ to avoid my arguments, however. :P

[Tsiyu]

147. When you grow up a bit

You might turn into a halfway decent guy.

What am I dodging? Your response about relationships dodges the question of: what about celibate or single people? You never answered that question except to say one was then TRADING virginity or whatever. Huh?

Your stance on prostitution is noted though I was commenting on the professor's comments, not prostitution's legality or morality.

I did not bring up my sexual status. None of your business. You brought it up, honey, because men have been conditioned to do this for generations. Guess what? When you grow up and have a satisfied life, you really don't give a red rat's ass about other people's sex lives. Only dissatisfied people are obsessed with what OTHERS are doing. I brought up the reason I, as a female, might have sex.

I'm just one of those zany people who thinks of it as a spiritual, physical experience rather than a mercenary one, which pretty much disproves the prof. Although others have said "Ahah, you "trade" for the physical pleasure!" as if this is their eureka moment. Well, duh, the prof was talking about goods and services, not the act itself.

Although you assumed I was not celibate, I never indicated whether I was celibate or not. Again, none of your business.

Finally, your dig about my 500 posts is truly hilarious. Not an issue, frankly. But I bet it made you feel a little better.
Nice try, by the way.

[smirkymonkey]

178. Why do you assume that women "trade"

sex for love? Has it ever occurred to you that they might just have sex BECUASE they are in love, or BECAUSE they are horny, or BECAUSE they just damn well feel like it?

I am sick of this idea that women always use sex as a barganing chip.

And your statement that prostitution "serves many purposes" (all for men of course) is insulting. What about the women who have to do this "serving".

I guarantee that if they had the opportunity to make the same amount of money doing something less degrading, they would leap at the opportunity. Prostitution is the last resort of an economically marginalized woman.

[FizzFuzz]

204. interesting note here: the ONE job where women outearn men--

the sex trade.

Sad.

(hi smirky :hi: )

[smirkymonkey]

177. ???????

:eyes:

[Blue Wally]

171. Not out of the "game"........

There are other facets of the game than sex. There is as much interaction and power application in a unisex arena. When you introduce heterosexual (or homosexual) sex into the "marketplace", other facets get submerged.

[FlaGranny]

126. Turn that last paragraph right around.

Maybe these men would not have the influence and power THEY have were it not for their choice of wives. Hmmmm?

[FighttheFuture]

145. Quite true... the "power behind the throne"

In many of these relationships, it shows adage the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

56. Too bad you didn't major in LOGIC

First of all his statement WAS sexist...equating women with prostitutes via the construct of marriage is a completely sexist statement. The only thing you are correct about is whether the statement was actually made. If he were making it to provoke controversy or thought it might be another thing...neither of us can tell from the post, but if he made the statement genuinely then yes, I DO believe it is worth reporting ...it would be interesting to see how women are graded in his classes...maybe they have to put out to get a passing grade.

[PassingFair]

101. I don't think that artslave

knows that prostitutes are people. Or that women are, for that matter. I recommend that you pick up a book called "The Second Sex" by Simone DeBouvier (sp?).
You would gain much wisdom from it.

[smirkymonkey]

176. Delete - replied to wrong post

[FizzFuzz]

201. maybe what you are trying to say is, confront the prof in class

before reporting. That, I could support--be sure you see ample proof of where the guy is coming from before doing something irrevocable.

If that's not at the heart of what you're saying, if you are actually defending shitty sexist labeling of women, then I am angry at you. I thought artists were better than that.

Oh, scuse me, they are--the female ones, anyway. ;)

[FighttheFuture]

50. Ok, you're a stupid boy!!

In relationships there is always trading, especially in the beginning. That is the selfish aspects of it. Even people who are very giving are often trying to satisfy an internal need. Oh, you can convince yourself this is not so in order to avoid critical self-judgment, but you are probably deceiving yourself.

Now, relationships it does not have to be all about selfishness. Relationships can also move into selflessness. This is love, sacrifice, etc. Then you are no longer trading, but creating. It does not always happen, or it may happen to an extent. Selfishness vs. selflessness is not an on/off either/or situation. They usually co-exist.

I do not mean to dis self-deception. It is often a good thing as it creates a fog within for new actions that, if you just did a rational, here-and-now analysis, you might reject. This rejection can crimp much unseen future potentials.

Sex is just one of many, and more obvious commodities sought by men.

As for prostitution, there is nothing inherently wrong with a woman, or man, offering a service for compensation. The real problems with it is how our society handles it vs. sexual issues. Many societies handle it much better with less problems.

[artslave43]

52. BRAVO!

Prostitutes are realists!

[smirkymonkey]

180. Oh, please!

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[Pithlet]

166. Because it is a "commodity"

does not mean that it is never given freely.

And you ignore that, regardless of what your position on prostitution is, it is generally considered an insult. Most who make the statement that that professor did are not painting women in a positive light on purpose. It is implying that we women never give anything freely to another out of love for that person. It is only out of sense of a bargain, or to gain something. That is not altogether flattering, either. It also doesn't paint men in a very rosy light. It's assuming they are only takers of a "commodity" as you put it, and that they are never giving out of love for their partner, either.

People who are making a statement anthropologically will usually make that clear. Otherwise, they know they risk insulting half the world's population, and rightly so.

[Bridget Burke]

53. The professor needs students who will actually ask questions.

Rather than "report" him--he needs to be challenged in person.

Does the class size foster questions & comments? Is he going through the introductory material by rote & not thinking anybody is actually listening--they're just trying to get another elective out of the way?

Yes, women do it for love and/or pleasure. Perhaps the prof isn't aware that women are capable of orgasms, too.

[HFishbine]

58. Do you think a blanket gerneralization can apply?

Some do, some don't.

[Nordic]

74. I think one could argue that all sex (except rape) is a transaction

you gain something, you give something up.

Whether male or female.

[Eloriel]

90. No, that's a completely foreign -- AND, I might add

REPUGNANT idea to me. But it certainly helps clarify how a lot of men see sex (as if I needed further "clarification" of the sad state of men's minds on the subject).

[smirkymonkey]

181. It's unfortunate that, for many men, sex is all about power

which is why they view it as "getting something/giving something up."

I find this attitude toward sex extremely unenlightened and depressing. No wonder so many people have miserable sex lives.

[Catherine Vincent]

59. You should have added that men trade stuff for sex too.

They do it all the time.

[Nordic]

61. at the risk of being flamed, from a purely intellectual point of view, he'

right.

Sociologists and anthropologists have to look at it this way. It's a basic Darwinian question: Why do women have sex with men, if it's not for procreation?

One could argue that one trades one's sexual favors for pleasure.

Or for love.

Or for protection.

Or for a father of her children.

I could easily see an intellectual professor saying what he said without there being any sexist connotations to it whatsoever.

Or he might be an ass.

I'm just saying that we don't know.

[Tsiyu]

64. See post # 54

And what about celibate women? Jeez, this is really scaring me. I think I've made a mistake and I'm in ....no, it still says DU in the URL bar.


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Nordic]

69. well it doesn't say "PC Underground" either

but some people seem to want it that way.

I'll ask you this. Have you ever taken a college-level anthropology or sociology class?

One of my best friends is an anthropologist and has won two fullbrights and recently got her phD. She would easily say something like this. She would also say that men trade things for sex as well.

Every "transaction" if you will has some give and some take.

[Tsiyu]

87. Only politicians would worry

about being politically correct ( a code word for anti-bigoted, I've sometimes found).

A professor has the duty to be INTELLECTUALLY correct.

Yeah, I took a physical anthropology class and the dweeb who taught it came off the first week talking about what filthy pigs Native Americans were.

I didn't need a forum to tell me he was a cretin. And I don't need a phD to tell you that anyone who comes off with a generalization about all men or all women is an intellectual farce.

[Pithlet]

136. Newsflash

Coating something in the guise of unPC doesn't make it correct.

Another newsflash: Women are thinking beings who aren't ruled solely by anthorpology.

If your BFWIAA staets that women only use sex to trade for favors, then your BFWIAA is wrong.

[Sparkly]

66. At the risk of splitting hairs

"They all trade something for sex..." That's where it's wrong.

They don't "all" even *have* sex.
They don't all have sex with men (or women).

If he'd said, "Women have sex with men for a reason, but the reasons vary," then I'd go with what you're saying.

[Tsiyu]

67. Yes, we were asked to parse it

assuming the prof had some academic training, and I'd say you parsed it pretty well.....Thanks Sparkly, and thanks Jibjab for bringing another cretin to our attention. Sorry you landed a prof like that. Just watch and learn what kind of man NOT to be!!!!!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

70. From a purely intellectual point of view he would have presented it as an

inquiry not a fact. One could argue anything....using valid and sound statements is a whole other thing.

[Nordic]

73. well, I wasn't there. I don't know the guy. I'm devil's advocate here

And I'll freely admit it.

I don't like to judge people quickly.

I like to give them time before I condemn them to the hellfires of asshole-ness.

Many professors are living in their own weird little intellectual world. I know people like this. The guy might be totally baffled as to why what he said would offend anyone.

Or, like I said, he might be an asshole. I'm just saying I see a lot of people quick to judge someone they've never even seen in person.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

76. We're both only judging the facts as we have them and believe them to be

If, in fact, he made the statement and left it at that and is not going to return to it next class and clarify nor expand the inquiry, then it was a sexist statement. The statement was in essence, "All women are whores." If, as a professor of sociology, he returns to class, takes it a step further and inquires beyond the "hunter, gatherer" statement he made...then perhaps he was pulling a "gotcha."
I made NO judgements about HIM, my judgements were limited to his statement. If his statement were in earnest and I (being female) were in his class...he'd have hell to pay.

[OldCurmudgeon]

125. anthropologists

have their own way of looking at things, it's true.

Suppose, purely hypothetically, that the sociology professor's comments were about chimpanzees, not humans.

Would that get you up in arms? How about gorillas?

Sometimes one has to take off ones culture-specific or even species-specific blinders to really understand something.

Even if your prof is a sexist old fart.

[Nlighten1]

158. Ever see the movie...

Why do dogs smile and Chimpanzees cry? We all trade things for emotional or physical health and safety.

[smirkymonkey]

183. This is just getting depressing...

"It's a basic Darwinian question: Why do women have sex with men.....?"

You know something, I am beginning to wonder the same thing.


:shrug:

[Cheswick2.0]

68. ask him what men trade sex for

what a pig

[theboss]

94. I've been giving it away for years

Just sayin'...

[Blue Wally]

172. And......

Me father makes book on the corner
Me mother sells second hand gin
Me sister makes love for five dollars
My Gawd how the money rolls in

Rolls in, rolls in, my Gawd how the money rolls in.

My grandmother sells prophylacitcs
She punctures their head with a pin
My grnadfather's rich from abortions
My Gawd how the money rolls in

Rolls in, rolls in, my Gawd how the money rolls in.

My brother's a street missionary
He saves fallen women from sin
He'll save you a blonde for five dollars
My Gawd how the money rolls in

Rolls in, rolls in, my Gawd how the money rolls in.

[Jacobin]

75. Renting or Buying?

:evilgrin:

[mike_c]

84. you know, notwithstanding all the excellent comments that...

...many have made in this thread, I think it also should be noted that some people-- regardless of gender-- will trade whatever they feel empowered to trade in order to manipulate others. That does NOT generalize to "all women" or "all men," and neither does it mean that manipulation is always a bad thing. But sex can be a tool as well as a means of expressing love, just as providing protection and resources for one's offspring can be both a means of manipulating their mother and an expression of commitment to her best interests. Just a tiny difference in motive makes all the difference, doesn't it?

Of course, a cynic like myself is the LAST person who's comments about gender relations should ever be heeded!

[davsand]

91. If it made you uncomfortable did you call him on it?

I realize it is not easy to ever contradict somebody who is in "control" of you (he's gonna grade you in that class) but sometimes it it a part of growing as a person and part of your political growth.

If it made you uncomfortable for him to generalize by saying "all" women do this--then you need to speak out. Seems to me, that some groups--say nuns--are probably not trading sex for much of anything. Others may be. Either way any statement that says ALL when it comes to human behavior is just flawed, IMO.

If I'd been sitting in that class at 18 I'd probably have been a bit timid about offering much in the way of criticism. Sitting here now as an old lady of 44 I'd probably have had a high old time contradicting him...

Debate of issues is something a lot of folks never do gain much comfort with--is it possible you are uneasy with it now but WANT to become more adept at? Is that part of the reason you came here with it?

If you want rebuttal items I'm sure you have gained a lot of them in this thread. If you seek a better understanding of the female perspective--you probably got an intro to that as well.

Frankly, I'd think that a lot of real teachers would be delighted to have somebody offer up a rebuttal to a categorical statement like that one--maybe I'm just an optimist, however.

Good luck on the class-and if this keeps up you are gonna form some very solid opinions over the course of the semester--either in agreement or in rebuttal. Have fun with it if you decide to argue!


Laura

BTW, I think a lot of women have sex for pleasure--not for any compensation. :)

[theboss]

95. That's a really stupid way of phrasing it

He could just a fool. But he may be trying to explain how women are traditionally the "gatekeepers" in a sexual relationship. (And I emphasize traditionally).

But he could really just hate women. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[MissB]

97. Viewpoints like your professor's

ignore the reality that women can and do enjoy sex and want it. Regularly.

I'd have a hard time taking a class from your professor.

.

[rman]

103. So, he has never experienced 'loving sex', all he knows is

sex where he and his partner don't love one another, where his partner doesn't really want sex with him, but goes along for some reason other then love.
To bad fo him.

[Cronus Protagonist]

105. I think he was alluding to the power of the almighty pussy

Not that he's right or anything, but it is powerful and women do use that power.

Swiftboat Veterans for Bush - TRUTH!!!

JFK - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - FUCK BUSH
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[DaveSZ]

106. My first reaction was to think he is sexist, and he may be but,

Do you think Anna Nicole Smith married that old guy with an oxygen tank for love?

;)

[Tsiyu]

109. Who cares?

Is she like any other woman? If so, Lawd hepp us.

[kayell]

113. So powerful that it has been blamed for more through history than the

almighty Clenis. And just about as much responsible for all the ills of the world as the Clenis is. :eyes:

[Swamp Rat]

110. Man, I'd be willing to take his job for half his salary rate.

I am not quite a sociologist but I certainly could talk about Emile Durkheim or Max Weber for an hour without being a total butt-head.

[DaveSZ]

114. All I'm saying:

Both men and women will do things they wouldn't ordinarily if a diamond ring or Mercedes is waved under their respective noses.

[Tsiyu]

154. All women? All men?

You hang with a fun crowd!

[Nobody]

115. What I think is offensive is the idea that sex is an obligation for women

and that women would never do it if they didn't get something tangible out of it, like a kid or economic security.

Some women enjoy sex for sex's sake. Some women don't. The same is true of men.

If sex in marriage is an obligation for women, isn't it also an obligation for men, too?

[Tesha]

116. Your teacher did the right thing!

Its not the job of a sociology teacher to just fill your head with facts. Any teacher worth his tenure is really teaching when he makes a sutdent question themselves and their society.

At the very simplist level men trade their strength to protect us for sex and offspring.

Most of us here have built on that a bit.. but then we're Democrats!

[jdonaldball]

118. Irony Alert: The Professor was quoting a line from Chef in "South Park"

The teacher's line was a quote, ver batim, by Chef in an episode of South Park. (In that episode, Chef is singing along with James Taylor).
It was a joke.
If it was delivered deadpan - as if the professor were serious - then it was probably an attempt to make a dry, deadpan reference to a South Park episode.
A bad joke perhaps. But still, it was a line from South Park, not a statement of academic opinion.
Now take your irony supplements... :-)

[ProfessorGAC]

122. It Wasn't THE Professor

It was A professor. I am THE Professor, 'round these parts.
The Professor

[FizzFuzz]

206. NO, South Park used that exact phrase because the phrase is a MEME

Its been batted about for decades and longer, by those who denigrate women. It is understood not just for the meaning of the words, but for the accumulated contempt it communicates about women. It is used by misogynists who believe it carries power, as a talisman or invocation which is invested with multiple layers of meaning.

The teacher was not quoting Chef. SouthPark (Trevor and who? I forget their names) was using Chef to comically draw attention to an ignorant piece of sexism. SouthPark does this all the time, intone stereotyped stuff in order to exagerate and point out the bullshit.

[phylny]

119. Sex is fun

Personally, I don't "trade" - I enjoy sex with my husband of 23 years because I love him, because we're giddy, because we're lonely, sad, happy, playful.

Plus, as I said, it's fun :)

[Dogmudgeon]

120. You're ALL a bunch of dummies!

Can't anyone see that a) the professor is basically correct, because 2) this is the way that sexism got built into the capitalist system?

When sexuality becomes the basis of trade, people are commodified. From there, all the demonic benefits of sexism grow. Women universally become whores, and men universally become rapists -- each of whom must be controlled, punished, and hated. Sexual behavior then acquires the taint of evil, guilt and sin.

The elite is in on the trick, though, which is why elites are usually "decadent".

Wanna end sexism and the various backlashes that have grown up around it? Get clear that The Man wants you to believe you're a piece of ass and nothing but a piece of ass.

Until feminists understand how this works, feminism is doomed.

NEWSFLASH: Most feminists actually DO understand how this works.

--bkl

[Tsiyu]

160. EUREKA!!!!!!!!!!JACKPOT!!!!!!!

Thank you

Thank you


:yourock:

[smirkymonkey]

186. According to Marxist feminist theory regarding prostitution,

"Prostitution is a form of labor and therefore has been specifically noted as falling under the designation of a corruption of wage labor. Marx himself asserted that “prostitution is only a specific expression of the general prostitution of the laborer.” Prostitution, therefore, can be seen as standing as a symbol of all that is wrong with world policies in society."

"Prostitutes may feel that they are free, but looking at the larger economic picture in Marxist terms, they are in reality oppressed workers reinforcing and perpetuating an exploitative capitalistic scheme."

"What appears to have gone unnoticed in Marxism, Marxist feminism, and radical feminism is that there is the perception that in the capitalist system there is a stripping away of the spiritual qualities of life as a person is reduced to being a mere cog in a machine."

However, not all women see sexual relations as a basis of trade and those of us who actively resist this type of commodification and do not view OURSELVES in the way "The Man" wants us to see ourselves, we are freed from this oppresive model of human sexuality.

As Martin Buber spoke of, there is an I-It dynamic in sexual relationships under this paradigm, as opposed to the I-Thou dynamic of more spritually evolved partners.

"According to Buber, human beings may adopt two attitudes toward the world: I-Thou or I-It. I-Thou is a relation of subject-to-subject, while I-It is a relation of subject-to-object. In the I-Thou relationship, human beings are aware of each oher as having a unity of being. In the I-Thou relationship, human beings do not perceive each other as consisting of specific, isolated qualities, but engage in a dialogue involving each other's whole being. In the I-It relationship, on the other hand, human beings perceive each other as consisting of specific, isolated qualities, and view themselves as part of a world which consists of things. I-Thou is a relationship of mutuality and reciprocity, while I-It is a relationship of separateness and detachment."

[The Flaming Red Head]

121. I think they should legalize prostitution.

I have never understood why prostitution is illegal or considered immoral. If you have a commodity or particular talent that you want to trade for goods, then why shouldn’t you be able to do that? Why is it illegal, anyway?

[Gold Metal Flake]

127. Shame, guilt, humiliation, legal punishment, loss of social stature...

These are all powerful tools of social control.

[patcox2]

130. Oscar Wilde made the point so much more elegantly.

At the party, when he turned to the beautiful woman, pointed out the well known and very wealthy man across the room, and asked her if she would marry him if he asked her, to which she said she supposed she would. he then asked her if she would have sex with him for a dollar. She responded "just what kind of woman do you think I am, to which he replied "We have already established that, my dear, now we are just haggling over price."

I perceive a certain kind of crude egalitarianism in both Wilde's and the professor's comments. If everyone is a whore, then noone is a whore, if you get my drift. The outrage over this is just another example of how pervasive is american prudishness and paternalism. The assumption that it is insulting or implies something morally foul to suggest that someone exchanges sex for some other benefit is ridiculous to begin with. The "levelling" aspect of both statements is, I beleive, meant more to point out the absurdity and the wrongness of morally condemning prostitutes, than it is insult all other women by saying they are prostitutes too. In other words, it is a shocking way of saying "how dare any of us condemn or criticize a prostitute" and is therefore a relatively enlightened thing to say.

[jdonaldball]

133. Good point. Jesus taught something similar

Your post has just reminded me of how Jesus befriended prostitutes and made no distinction between them and any other imperfect humans.
I take your post to mean (and correct me if I am wrong) something like that, like how Jesus said (in paraphrase) "which one of you thinks he or she is better than a prostitute?" And everyone realised that no one is morally superior to a prostitute - ergo, for us to be outraged over this remark about prostitutes, is really hypocritical if we want to call ourselves Humanists (OR "feminists").
Another way to say this, perhaps: If any of us (including feminists) are offended by the idea that prostitutes are morally equal to other women (and to other Humans categorically), then we're missing the point of both Feminism and Humanism.
Do I understand your point correctly?
Good point!

[patcox2]

141. Exactly.

The original poster at one point said "way to take down a whole gender" or something similar. That statement shows that this person buys into the victorian moral condemnation of the prostitute, that its an insult to be called a prostitute or compared to a prostitute. It is indeed shocking and insulting to one who buys into that prudish voctorian "sex is sinful" mindset to have someone suggest that everyone is a prostitute. But I think the ultimate message is that "noone is better than a prostitute", rather than "everyone is as bad as a prostitute." These are very different statements.

[jdonaldball]

144. Ah, a logical person! Thank you.

Thanks for affirming that I understood your post.
I think, perhaps, that when some thinkers (whether professional teachers or students or anyone else) say provocative things like
"prostitutes are just like all other women", at least SOME of them (like Chef in South Park, where this quote comes from, see my prior post which has been overlooked) are talking more about Humanity than about "women", and trying to provoke some re-thinking about all of us, all of our compromises.
Slavery. It's not just a Black thing. We're all slaves in some ways, despite what we might prefer to be. Governor Bush is a slave in many ways. Even the Queen of Britain is a slave in many ways.
Prostitution. It's not just a Woman thing. We're all prostitutes in some ways, making economic compromises against our better ideals.
A slight digression from that note - and I hope it doesn't attract flames - more broadly, this reminds me of one of my favorite movies,
"Glory", about the first Black regiment (54th Mass) to serve in combat in the US Army (in the Civil War.) A great scene there, where one former slave in the Union Army (played by Denzel Washington) tells his White commander: "Nobody's clean in this." (Meaning, the whole country is mixed up in the mess, in the crime of slavery.)
"But it would be nice to get clean." :-)
Extending that to Feminist issues: No one is pure, historically.
The repression of women for thousands of years, has involved the complicity of both genders. Everyone shares some guilt.
But "it would be nice to get clean" - and isn't that the American dream, really, what distinguishes America from the rest, ideally? :-)
So I think, a provocative suggestion that prostitutes are just like the rest of us, can be taken as a call to think more about how we have all been compromised, and to try to get clean... :-)

[Pithlet]

174. No, it shows that the person

knows an insult when they hear one. I don't buy into the moral condemnation of prostitutes. But, if someone called me one, I'd take it as an insult because, unless they clarified that they had some deep anthropological meaning in calling me so, I can generally assume they meant it as an insult. They'd better be pretty damn convincing, too. And, if a professor is going use such terminology when discussing anthropology and use it to make a blanket statement, it wouldn't be too hard to clarify that is what he meant. Just saying "All women are prostitutes" without qualifying it is an insult to all women.

[Tsiyu]

157. Jesus. well he said more than that

Since there are other things he said relating to this issue that most would disagree with.

Example: a man who looks on a woman with lust commits adultery with her in his heart. He was more into the spiritual aspect of sex than the mercenary one.

Gee, spiritual sex vs. mercenary sex. What a concept....

[FighttheFuture]

139. Elegantly stated. Thanks.

[smirkymonkey]

184. What about the woman who would neither marry nor have

sex with the wealthy man across the room. Women like that do exist, you know.

Why do so many people assume that women have no integrity? Like we are not evolved enough to decide that, no thanks, I'll take care of myself and sleep with a man if I have the impulse.

No one here is condemning prostitutes themselves, we are objecting to the sweeping generalization that ALL women act in a prescribed way with regard to sex. (i.e., as a barganing chip to get what they want.)

[jdonaldball]

131. You could balance this by saying it about Men....

This is easy to balance. Just say:
"A (male) prostitute is like any other man, men all sell themselves for cash..."

[MallRat]

138. Sounds to me like your professor just wanted to stir things up.

Were people dozing off during the lecture? I've known professors to say some really obnoxious shit, just to wake everyone up and fuel a discussion.

I suppose they're not much different than radio talk show hosts in that respect. :-)

-MR

[ElsewheresDaughter]

140. i do it b/c of love and pleasure..your prof. has issues with his mom

[skygazer]

146. Bottom line, IMO

Is that this guy was out of line BECAUSE as a professor, he is in a position of authority, giving his words and opinions a veneer of - well, authority. In other words, what a teacher tells you, you have a tendency to take as established fact. To throw out a remark like that without some sort of qualifier - "do you think perhaps this is indicative of ALL women?" - is wrong. It comes across as somehow academically accepted when in reality it is his own opinion.

Someone earlier in the thread was talking about cavemen and their social habits - are we still cave dwellers? That's a depressing thought.

[patcox2]

148. Outlaw hyperbole, great idea.

We can outlaw humor, irony, and anything else that requires half a brain to interpret correctly. That'd be great, after all, its much more important to protect the delicate sensibilities of the stupid than to permit free and sometimes offensive discourse.

As I have pionted out above, only a prude, locked in a victorian moral mindset which equates sex with sin, would make the moral judgment necessary to find the statement offensive. If my calling you a prostitute offends you, it means you think prostitutes are immoral or bad, doesn't it? Otherwise, why be offended, just debate the facts. As I have said, I don't think the guy was saying all women are as bad as prostitutes, I think he was saying prostitutes are no worse than anyone else. You can interpret this is dragging women down only if you beleive prostitutes are "down."

A nation of wussies, is what we are becoming.

[skygazer]

152. Oh for Pete's sake!

The guy's a teacher with a captive audience! If he's going to make sweeping remarks like that, they ought to be in some sort of context not put out there like they are established fact. It would be one thing if this was a discussion around the water cooler at work. It's not. I'm not trying to outlaw anything nor am I a prude or stupid, thank you very much. I just feel that it's an improper venue for the remark he made.

Beside,what makes you so sure that you know what he meant but I don't?

[Tsiyu]

159. All prostitutes aside

My sexuality isn't for sale. It is the TRUTH of the statement, not the moral or immoral status ( or my opinion) of prostitutes. That debate is for another thread.

But if you make a blanket statement about all men, women, dogs, dirt or vacuum cleaners, you will get called on it.

It's not the pejorative. It's the untruthfulness. It's simply an untrue statement. Bottom line.

Truth is what's missing, my friend. Not bravery or humour or open- mindedness.

I do not paint all men with the same broad brush. I anxiously await the day when the men I communicate with refuse to pick up that brush, too.

[patcox2]

162. Sociologists by their nature speak in generalities, seek trends.

And they speak a language subtly different from common usage when they speak of behavioral traits, survival strategies, and gender roles. Beginning on this suspect terrain, what is a harmless hyperbolic statement to a sociologist is likely to be misinterpreted.

Do you expect nothing whatsoever from your lovers? Have you no "standards?" Are there not conditions you place on sex, such that you will not engage in sex with people who fail to meet those conditions? I mean things like, do you expect exclusivity, faithfulness? Do you expect love? A sociologist might use what appears to be cold terminology for this, and say that you "trade" sexual "availability" for "security" or "emotional needs," whereas you might say I only engage in intimate relations with someone I love in a committed, long term, monogamous relationship. If someone fails to meet the conditions of your "exchange," by failing to provide you the exclusivity or emotional support you require, (i.e., by "cheating" or "being a jerk") you will of course "withdraw your sexual availability," which is to say, "break up with him."

As you can see, the language of sociology is often transactional. And in the context of sex, this seems to offend those who harbor this received prudish moral judgment that there is somehow something bad or immoral about prostitution. Your response is filled with the scorn of the victorian prude towards the prostitute. "Well, I never. Harrumph. Nose in the air. How dare you."

And in the absence of this moral outrage over the "insult to your honor," all that is left is, as you say, a debate over the truth or falsity (or more realistically, relative truth or relative falsity)of the professors statement, and noone would ever have posted if thats all enyone were worried about. "I was shocked, today my professor made a statement about the mating behavior of ocelots that suggested that all female ocelots prefer males with pendulus gonads, whereas in truth only the majority of female ocelots show that tendency. Boy that would have gotten the board going just as much as this did, right, because its all about truth.

[Tsiyu]

163. Methinks you doth protest too much

Charming psychoanalysis. Now let's get past the personal attack, shall we? And discuss the issue?

If a sociologist makes a sweeping generalization he is wrong. And this one bears that "prudish" attitude you so detest.

In plain English: sex is engaged in ( or eschewed) for a number of reasons. It feels good. Pleasant way to conceive a child. Distraction. Pays the bills. Addiction. Or one might be celibate or attend those "Sex Without partners" meetings.

But all women to not trade sex, nor do all women manipulate with it nor do all have this complicated forethought involving spreadsheets and amortization schedules prior to copulation.

Some women have sex because they desire physical release through touch and orgasm. This has horrified and frightened men for so long, they try to tell themselves that we gals have to be getting something of value besides the activity itself. If men tell themselves that women don't really like sex ( that we "give in' for something else, as this prof says) it comforts them. Perhaps their woman will be faithful. "Hopefully women don't have any sexual fantasies like we men do." Well, this is the prudish attitude that has kept men from understanding women for freaking ever.

The male prof's "wink wink" is the one that you should choose to worry about.

[smirkymonkey]

188. I think you hit the nail on the head...

what men fear most is that women might actually have sex BECAUSE THEY LIKE IT, because they are driven toward it just like men are!

This upsets their notion that only THEY have the means to control female sexuality by possesing the "things" (money, power, influence, possesions) that women want and that they alone are in the position to offer in exchange for sexual favors.

What a lot of people, as usual, are missing on this thread is that considering prostitution a negative thing has something to do with prudishness or repressed sexual hangups. It does not. It has to to with gender/power/economic dynamics that are too complicated to go into here.

It's not about selling your body, it's about selling your soul that is the tragedy.

[Tsiyu]

194. Okay, I know many of you wish this one would go away

I only wanted to say that I am so proud that this thread did not get locked out. When it comes to gender issues, we all tend to get overzealous and demanding and insulting sometimes. I fully expected the same here, but even the "wrong" (IMHO) responses had some intelligence behind them, however misguided(lol).

Any man who wants to read how REAL women feel should read this thread. And I am proud of all who were brave enough to post here. May it be the first of many "communications" between the genders and may we all continue to try to understand one another....without prejudice.



:yourock:

[NashVegas]

151. I'm A Woman and Say Your Teacher Was Dead On

A woman who's honest with herself understands the nature of sex as mutual exchange and makes a choice whether or not to engage. Doesn't matter whether it's love, money, thrills or something else you're looking for. Those who engage without this understanding (men and women both) are either potential doormats, or potential abusers / sociopaths, IMO.

You always hear about how compromise is necessary in lasting relationships. Bed is one of the first places that comes in.

[Pithlet]

168. Not exactly

It is one thing to state what you just did, and quite another to say that all women only engage in sex for gain, and are therefore prostitutes. You just said something altogether different than what that professor did. Prostitution is not considered a flattering comparison, no matter what your opinion on how moral the profession is.

He said something sexist, and either should have clarified what he meant, or risked being accused of sexism. Women are just as complex and varied as the reasons they do the things they do. And that is true whether we're talking about sex, jobs, children, marriage, whatever.

[TahitiNut]

156. The LEAST 'SEXY' women ...

... I've ever met are those who think sex is something women GIVE and something men TAKE. Nothing turns me off more than that attitude. Nothing.

Men who buy into this bullshit are emotionally pathological, imho.

[Blue Wally]

173. From the engineering standpoint

It if the man who is doing the giving and the woman who is doing the taking. F*ck is a transitive verb.

[name not needed]

165. Since when are all prostitutes women?

[Liberal Veteran]

196. I wondered that too. I have NO problem with voluntary prostitution.

If a person wants to sell the service of sex, why the fuck should I care?

It seems silly to me that it's illegal to charge for sex, but perfectly legal to give it away for free.

[The Sushi Bandit]

169. Agree!

[Pithlet]

175. I'm bookmarking this thread. The next time

Someone on DU says that there is no sexism or sexist attitudes on DU, I'm pointing them this way. Because I cannot believe how many people are defending this professor and rationalizing what he said. It boggles the mind.

[ogsball]

182. Sounds like you were in Economics Class

not Soc.

Look at the historical/international facts. In the US our culture is way to wealthy to understand most of the world.

In the poorest countries people are always willing to sell themselves or their children (weather male or female) in order to survive. So prostitution in it's crudest form is degrading, not just about sex it's also about job status.

Young women who marry old me could be seen as trading sex for status. It's a good study for soc.

[Jack_DeLeon]

185. Your professor is right...

[UpsideDownFlag]

187. i like your argument. n/t,

[Jack_DeLeon]

192. my post was not an argument

it was a statement.

[smirkymonkey]

189. That is a brilliant argument. Kudos.

[LoZoccolo]

190. Don't ask a question like that on DU.

Not because it's against the rules or divisive or anything, it's just you probably won't get a real answer in a public place that has a high PC ratio.

[Pithlet]

191. You're right

It's PC. It has nothing to do with the fact that the professor made a blanket statement about all women that happens to be wrong. No. It's just a bunch of people being "PC". None of the responses in disagreement with this professor's statement were "real" because we're all too "PC". Don't vent, discuss, or ask questions. Oh, no. Don't do that.

I'm sorry to jump on you, but I'm tired of the PC bullshit. It isn't wrong to argue that all women are (fill in the blank) because it isn't PC. It's wrong because it just isn't true, and stating otherwise, the way the professor did, particularly stating that women are basically all selfish, is a slap in the face and an insult.

I don't know why I bother. I don't know why I should even get worked up about this. What the professor said is one of the most blatantly sexist things a person can say, but no one can argue against it without PC being thrown in our faces. I shouldn't be shocked that PC would come up. Just sad, frustrated and disappointed. It's this whole thread.

[LoZoccolo]

193. Yeah I mean I see where it's a huge generalization and unfair to some...

...I'm saying though that it would be hard to discuss here how it's true a lot of times, as it's true for any chip in a relationship (like the time you spend with someone, etc). Even when you have a friendship it seems like there's a lot of times something being exchanged (like good times or whatever). I'll admit though that the professor does sound really bitter and could have used a lot better language.

[Pithlet]

195. I understand

Relationships are always give and take on both sides if they're healthy. I think the professor could have stated it better, myself, if that was the point he was trying to get across. We agree, there.

[FizzFuzz]

207. Its true that sex is often used for less than pure reasons; what angers me

and the other women here(if I may speak for other women) is that the statement in question is an old phrase used solely to demean WOMEN. Equivalently, you could say "rapists are like all other men.....", but THAT is a phrase that has not become a frozen bit of text in our society. Because the society is a patriarchy. And patriarchies circulate negatives about women, not about men.

[salin]

205. my primary objection to this statement

is that it suggests that anyone who objects is categorically doing so because they are being "PC" - suggests that an opposite opinion is not allowed - because it isn't really an opinion - it is simply "PC".

[Nikia]

197. A lot of women enjoy sex too

Many women are troubled if they can't get any regularly, either because they are without a partner or because their partner cannot perform. Women have orgasms too. What does he think about lesbians?
As far as other things, men have other reasons for wanting to be in committed relationships than just sex. Many are the same as those ascribed to women.

[FizzFuzz]

198. try saying this to your professor and see what he says.

"well, really, rapists are like any other man. They all use something (force, lies, pretty words, vows of love) to get sex, and they do it pretty well."

catch my drift? Has about as much merit as Professor Hemanwomanhatersclub's viewpoint.

This professor needs a kick in the nuts.

Sorry if this dupes another post; I just had to say something and haven't yet read the hundreds of other responses.