Need Help Refuting a Blatantly Sexist Argument

[asianboy]

There was this disgusting person who made said this:
"Hookers/Prostitutes are those who used sex to gain services, money, or for making things to her advantage, right? If that is the case, then a wife who would not allow the husband to sleep with her is a hooker. What's that? She has no motive? She should know perfectly well that, practically speaking, a marriage cannot survive without sex. Thus, by not allowing her husband to sleep with her, she is a prostitute. She may not be actively seeking out services, but she is using sex to her advantage; a man who needs sex but is good enough to not have an affair would always be at the disadvantage; the man's needs are at stake here."
This statement was made by a person close to me and is about another person that is also close to me, so yes I am quite mad at this quote.

Now, obviously, this argument was used to support a bigoted viewpoint. However - and this creeps me out - I, trying to be as gentlemanly as possible, might have made a same statement. You might have heard a joking statements made by a gentleman about how "I cannot do so and so because my wife would then not let me sleep with her" The point is, I just know that my quote is different from the first quote; it's just that I cannot point out the difference. And this creeps me out a little; I don't want to be in the same category as this very rude person.

So here's what I want to know:
1. How do you refute the first quote?
2. How is the quote from the less sexist gentleman fundamentally different from that of the bigoted person?

[removeduser_487563287433]

First incorrect presumption is that women do not enjoy sex.

[Poach]

He's twisted the definition of prostitute. A prostitute is a person (male or female) that sells sex. That is the only definition, one who sells sex.

As a counter-argument, explain that he's A. sexist, B. twisting definitions to suit his argument and C. men do not "need" sex, we won't die without it, we're just driven to have it. Therefore, he places far too much importance on sex so he's A. a manwhore and B. has never been in a proper relationship.

To summarise, he doesn't know what the he's talking about and deserves to be laughed at rather than responded to properly.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

The whole proposition falls apart in the second sentence:

Hookers/Prostitutes are those who used sex to gain services, money, or for making things to her advantage.
If that is the case, then a wife who would not allow the husband to sleep with her is a hooker.

But she is NOT using sex to gain whatever, because she is not sleeping with her husband.

Also,

a man who needs sex but is good enough to not have an affair would always be at the disadvantage; the man's needs are at stake here.

is a false generalization. A man who lacks sex but is afraid to switch to a new girlfriend/wife is an averaged frustrated chump, not a man.

[Elfdude]

"Hookers/Prostitutes are those who used sex to gain services, money, or for making things to her advantage, right?

The key thing here is that prostitutes use the act of sex. If a woman takes the money from someone who is requesting sex but never gives him sex it is not prostitution. However the man is guilty of soliciting sex for services/money. With this definition were the man to deny her right to say no he is guilty of soliciting sex for money.

The other key thing is that prostitutes as defined by our legal system are only those who accept money or some monetary payoff. Offering sex for dinner (aka dating) is not considered prostitution. Similarly offering money for company without a promise of sex is not prostitution.

If that is the case, then a wife who would not allow the husband to sleep with her is a hooker.

Again the definition hinges on the promise of sex for monetary gain. If she never promised sex then she never was guilty of prostitution.

What's that? She has no motive? She should know perfectly well that, practically speaking, a marriage cannot survive without sex.

The law does not recognize promises as inherently understood between two parties. This is also assuming that the only purpose of marriage is sex. While no sex in a marriage is a quick way to end it I've read nothing here to say she was denying him sex for years. The definition has some gray areas but I think woman who marries a man and refuses to give him sex ever (save to consummate it) would be more properly referred to as a gold digger.

Thus, by not allowing her husband to sleep with her, she is a prostitute. She may not be actively seeking out services, but she is using sex to her advantage; a man who needs sex but is good enough to not have an affair would always be at the disadvantage; the man's needs are at stake here."

This is assuming that women don't need or want sex. This isn't true, almost all men and women need or want sex. This also assumes that a man cannot ease his needs on his own which we all know isn't true. Not organsming ever can lead to very debilitating problems (such as significant vulnerability to circulatory diseases) for your body.

Now you could construct an idea that a man paying for dinner is essentially paying for sex but that's ignoring companionship as a desire. Casual sex isn't related to dating. You can have casual sex with any woman or man you meet and not consider yourself in a relationship because relationships aren't defined by sex. The goal of dating is typically to find someone who is compatible with you in the long term (months, years, life). Of course, some men and women do use dating as a way to obtain casual sex but the concept of a guy not calling a girl back or a girl breaking a man's heart is very related to the idea that one person went into it expecting casual sex and wanted nothing more. In both cases we typically consider the person seeking sex to be in the wrong.

Also, marriage legally implies joint ownership over every asset. She can't obviously pay herself for sex and be considered a prostitute.

[Seleucos of Olympia]

Like Ferrets said, it assumes that only men need/enjoy sex. It also stretches the definition of 'prostitute', and incorrectly applies it only to women.

[Prodigal]

Technically, if she gains from using sex as a way to get what she wants, then yes, your friend is right, she is a prostitute, odd though it may sound.

[Boer]

Technically, if she gains from using sex as a way to get what she wants, then yes, your friend is right, she is a prostitute, odd though it may sound.

According to that logic any man who buys his wife an anniversary gift, or buys his date dinner, with the goal of sex is a john.

[Phier]

A woman who withholds sex is asking for a divorce, shes not a whore, shes a

[eisenkopf]

(...) Thus, by not allowing her husband to sleep with her, she is a prostitute. (...)

This is about as twisted as it can get. That idiot does not even deserve the attempt to be refuted. Don't argute with idiots, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Let him refute himself by letting hime speak, he'll do a good job.

However, there is another issue in the argument, which is about a husbands "right" to have his wife at his sexual service, and her attempts to influence her husband's behaviour by refusing to comply.

While it certainly is no good style to exploit someone's sexual needs to further you own interests (and it says a lot about the state of the marriage in question), a husband has no right to have sexual intercourse with his wife whatsoever, and she has no obligation to comply to his demands. End of story.

[Visna]

"Hookers/Prostitutes are those who used sex to gain services, money, or for making things to her advantage, right?

No. Prostitution involves a work relationship of some kind. One part sells the service, the other part buys it. It's an employment that lasts a set amount of time, for exampe an hour. And by "her", your buddy is implying that it's only an occupation for women. It's not.

If that is the case, then a wife who would not allow the husband to sleep with her is a hooker. What's that? She has no motive? She should know perfectly well that, practically speaking, a marriage cannot survive without sex.

His definition of a hooker fails, see above. Apart from that the sex drive can go into hibernation for both genders for all sorts of reasons, health issues for example (erectile dysfunction, dried up vagina, stress, depression etc). If both sides in a relationship actually want sex, but one side refuses it to the other, the relationship/marriage has much bigger issues that need to be adressed. Lack of sex is simply a symptom.

Thus, by not allowing her husband to sleep with her, she is a prostitute.

No.

She may not be actively seeking out services, but she is using sex to her advantage; a man who needs sex but is good enough to not have an affair would always be at the disadvantage; the man's needs are at stake here.

First of all, again, the comment is tainted by the wrong definition of prostitution. Second, it assumes that in a relationship it's only the man who wants sex, and it's the job of the woman to provide it. That's not the case. As shocking as this may come to that buddy of yours, women want sex too.

Now, obviously, this argument was used to support a bigoted viewpoint. However - and this creeps me out - I, trying to be as gentlemanly as possible, might have made a same statement. You might have heard a joking statements made by a gentleman about how "I cannot do so and so because my wife would then not let me sleep with her" The point is, I just know that my quote is different from the first quote; it's just that I cannot point out the difference. And this creeps me out a little; I don't want to be in the same category as this very rude person.

So here's what I want to know:
1. How do you refute the first quote?
2. How is the quote from the less sexist gentleman fundamentally different from that of the bigoted person?

Some people use sex in a relationship to "moderate" behaviour in the partner. That's not prostitution, it's emotional blackmailing. It's the equivilant of saying "if you don't (insert some kind of action here), you don't love me". While the issue that leads to that situation might be genuine enough, it's not the right way to go about solving it, and it's not a sign of a healthy relationship.

[basics]

Someone once said that there is nothing on this earth more complicated than a woman and if young males appreciated that perhaps they wouldn't be so quick to rush into marriage, even indulge in casual sex outside of marriage.

Sticking for the moment to sex, we males seek it for pleasure. The female however seeks other things when giving herself to a man and that for the most is not casual. Men seek pleasure whilst the woman seeks a husband, a home and children and what she considers love.

During that preoccupation a man will say anything to gain his pleasure, but the woman sees all this as the first step in gaining her much wider desires. She is much more likely to think she is in love and that the male feels the same way and the consequences of continuity in their relationship more than not ends in marriage.

When we get to that stage men think that sex is on tap, their right to have any time they want. The woman however finds herself in the position where casuality has become continuity even by demand to add to the work taken on looking after her sex hungry husband.

And when the first children arrive both have to make some sacrifice but it is usually the female who gives most both physically and mentally. Her sex-drive suffers whilst his remains more or less the same and here begin the problems, the arguments and even the straying away from home.

What was in the beginning thought as love can become bitter hatred, the woman bound to the home and the husband seeking gratification elsewhere. Love, where has it gone? Of course not all relationships are like that but many are and the strange thing is there is no class barriers to it.

[Visna]

Someone once said that there is nothing on this earth more complicated than a woman and if young males appreciated that perhaps they wouldn't be so quick to rush into marriage, even indulge in casual sex outside of marriage.

Unless agreed upon, casual sex outside the marriage/relationship is only a symptom.

Sticking for the moment to sex, we males seek it for pleasure. The female however seeks other things when giving herself to a man and that for the most is not casual. Men seek pleasure whilst the woman seeks a husband, a home and children and what she considers love.

In the words of the Virgin Mary, in a slightly internet'ised version, lolwut?
Just because female sexuality has been labelled as "dangerous" by religious folks for a few centuries doesn't mean it has disappeared. Women are exactly as much a sexual creature as men are. Trust me on that. If in doubt, try to transform into a fly on the wall in a room full of horny, ow sorry "erotically charged", women. There are no thoughts of nest building there, believe me.

During that preoccupation a man will say anything to gain his pleasure, but the woman sees all this as the first step in gaining her much wider desires. She is much more likely to think she is in love and that the male feels the same way and the consequences of continuity in their relationship more than not ends in marriage.

And men don't? Why do you think there is a whole market for "mailorder brides" (God, I hate that term)? Events exclusively for singles in pretty much all major cities in the western world?

And when the first children arrive both have to make some sacrifice but it is usually the female who gives most both physically and mentally. Her sex-drive suffers whilst his remains more or less the same and here begin the problems, the arguments and even the straying away from home.

For once we agree. The arrival of the first child can have some pretty steep impacts on what was previously a healthy sex life. But there are ways to solve it, and not doing so indicates either a lack of will, knowledge or ability. Although they often overlap, it makes dealing with it a lot easier if the couple at least try to seperate them.

[Elfdude]

Someone once said that there is nothing on this earth more complicated than a woman and if young males appreciated that perhaps they wouldn't be so quick to rush into marriage, even indulge in casual sex outside of marriage.

This is just inflammatory towards women and its conclusions are based on nothing.

Sticking for the moment to sex, we males seek it for pleasure. The female however seeks other things when giving herself to a man and that for the most is not casual. Men seek pleasure whilst the woman seeks a husband, a home and children and what she considers love.

This is just plainly wrong. If all men care about is sex a huge amount of relationship dynamics would fall apart. Similarly if women didn't care about it they would also fall apart.

During that preoccupation a man will say anything to gain his pleasure, but the woman sees all this as the first step in gaining her much wider desires. She is much more likely to think she is in love and that the male feels the same way and the consequences of continuity in their relationship more than not ends in marriage.

So no man ever turns down sex, and no woman is interested in casual sex? Methinks I must be a very odd cookie then. Obviously you don't understand the concept of love very well.

When we get to that stage men think that sex is on tap, their right to have any time they want. The woman however finds herself in the position where casuality has become continuity even by demand to add to the work taken on looking after her sex hungry husband.

Were I to encounter a man who thought that as a woman or to encounter a woman that had no desire to have sex as a man I would end both relationships. Not everyone is as shallow as you make them out to be.

And when the first children arrive both have to make some sacrifice but it is usually the female who gives most both physically and mentally. Her sex-drive suffers whilst his remains more or less the same and here begin the problems, the arguments and even the straying away from home.

Pregnancy typically spikes a woman's sex drive. Hormone issues can set in but if the man is vigilant and reliable they never need to effect her behavior much.

[Phier]

Someone once said that there is nothing on this earth more complicated than a woman and if young males appreciated that perhaps they wouldn't be so quick to rush into marriage, even indulge in casual sex outside of marriage.

Someone was a bit of a fool. Women are not complicated even if they sometimes seem unpredictable to 'male' logic.

Pregnancy typically spikes a woman's sex drive. Hormone issues can set in but if the man is vigilant and reliable they never need to effect her behavior much.

Oh elfdude, let me tell you as a father of two, you could not be more wrong. Pregnancy can be 'bad' but worst is after. Throw in breast feeding and you have a hormonal roller coaster. I think so many marriages fail or have issues right after the first child because couples are unaware of this change and think its a real change. Both times after my kids I've told my wife 'welcome back' at about the 9 month mark, thats where she returned to normal.

Now not all women react the same way to their hormonal roller coasters, but being vigilant reliable doesn't make a woman more motivated, increase her sex drive, etc.

[Elfdude]

Oh elfdude, let me tell you as a father of two, you could not be more wrong. Pregnancy can be 'bad' but worst is after. Throw in breast feeding and you have a hormonal roller coaster. I think so many marriages fail or have issues right after the first child because couples are unaware of this change and think its a real change. Both times after my kids I've told my wife 'welcome back' at about the 9 month mark, thats where she returned to normal.

I was talking about during not after. Yes hormones can make them go crazy. But sex drive typically goes through the roof durring i.e. it's very common for pregnant women to be horny at all times. Also like to point this to out as anecdotal evidence. My experience with babies soundly counters it.

[kesa82]

Someone once said that there is nothing on this earth more complicated than a woman and if young males appreciated that perhaps they wouldn't be so quick to rush into marriage, even indulge in casual sex outside of marriage.

Sticking for the moment to sex, we males seek it for pleasure. The female however seeks other things when giving herself to a man and that for the most is not casual. Men seek pleasure whilst the woman seeks a husband, a home and children and what she considers love.

During that preoccupation a man will say anything to gain his pleasure, but the woman sees all this as the first step in gaining her much wider desires. She is much more likely to think she is in love and that the male feels the same way and the consequences of continuity in their relationship more than not ends in marriage.

When we get to that stage men think that sex is on tap, their right to have any time they want. The woman however finds herself in the position where casuality has become continuity even by demand to add to the work taken on looking after her sex hungry husband.

And when the first children arrive both have to make some sacrifice but it is usually the female who gives most both physically and mentally. Her sex-drive suffers whilst his remains more or less the same and here begin the problems, the arguments and even the straying away from home.

What was in the beginning thought as love can become bitter hatred, the woman bound to the home and the husband seeking gratification elsewhere. Love, where has it gone? Of course not all relationships are like that but many are and the strange thing is there is no class barriers to it.

I'm male, and none of this seems to describe me. Granted, I suppose I'm not a typical (?) male.
In my time I've written hundreds of letters to women ( hundreds is not an exaggeration ) little expecting I would get any sex out of it. Believe it or not I was looking for an emotional / intellectual bond.

But, ok, maybe I'm not a typical male.............

First incorrect presumption is that women do not enjoy sex.

Correct.

Try this experiment folks. Pretend you are a girl, never reveal you are a guy, and go hang out a while with the girls over on Utherverse / Red light center .
Interesting what you learn.

Men are sex fiends and women are sexually inert ?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

There was this disgusting person who made said this:
"Hookers/Prostitutes are those who used sex to gain services, money, or for making things to her advantage, right? If that is the case, then a wife who would not allow the husband to sleep with her is a hooker. What's that? She has no motive? She should know perfectly well that, practically speaking, a marriage cannot survive without sex. Thus, by not allowing her husband to sleep with her, she is a prostitute. She may not be actively seeking out services, but she is using sex to her advantage; a man who needs sex but is good enough to not have an affair would always be at the disadvantage; the man's needs are at stake here."
This statement was made by a person close to me and is about another person that is also close to me, so yes I am quite mad at this quote.

Now, obviously, this argument was used to support a bigoted viewpoint. However - and this creeps me out - I, trying to be as gentlemanly as possible, might have made a same statement. You might have heard a joking statements made by a gentleman about how "I cannot do so and so because my wife would then not let me sleep with her" The point is, I just know that my quote is different from the first quote; it's just that I cannot point out the difference. And this creeps me out a little; I don't want to be in the same category as this very rude person.

So here's what I want to know:
1. How do you refute the first quote?
2. How is the quote from the less sexist gentleman fundamentally different from that of the bigoted person?

IMHO the biggest problem here, and in general, is the assumption that both men and women have is that there is this big difference, this huge gulf, between men and women.

And it simply doesn't exist. They made it up.

It would be polite to inform me at least of a third-party formatting change.This was three posts , not one.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The discussions about women on this forum are so absurd. I miss Gwendylyn being around.

[Monarchist]

Women are evil. They suck the life-blood from men, and that is all there is to it.

If only they'd stick to doing the laundry; I wouldn't be forced to receive moderator infractions on my opinions, for one.

[Elfdude]

Relationships in general aren't complicated.