This is in response to an article an editorial that first appeared on the Duluth News Tribune, a city I lived in for 13 years. 

You can read it here:
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/275475/

First off, know that not only was I a part of the Duluth Human Trafficking Task Force, but also helped start a ministry to fight trafficking in the Duluth area through a local church there. My passions to fight against violance towards women, women inequality, and the objectification of women is something that has grown over the years. While this remains true, my view of myself as a heterosexual male has grown over the years as well. Ok, enough about me. 

There are many ways to respond to this. One of them would be to attack his intelligence, his arrogance, his apparent lack of empathy, or even his manhood. However, I’ll try to restrain myself and be a bit more articulate and intelligent about it.

He said a lot of things that I would like to talk to him about, but one sentence in particular shocked me the most. "For men who don’t have partners, what is their outlet? Society is so smug to think that leaving these men high and dry, without access to women, will not cause a problem."

Is he inferring that men being able to have sex prevents other issues? Like what? Crime? Is he, or even others, of the mindset that if men do not have constant sexual encounters with women that this would then lead to “worse” problems? And given this assumption, then, being able to PAY for such encounters increases the benefit?

If this is what he is saying, then his view of men, our self control, our "need" for sex, or even more importantly, our desires as human beings beyond the physical is very low. What his statement is implying is that "men can't help but need sex. If they don't get it, then watch out, cus all hell will break lose." And if it is increased crime that he is afraid of, then isn’t sexual crime included in that? Is he saying that men in any culture, country or system, absolutely NEED sex and if they don’t have it, don’t have access to it, then we rape, pillage and murder? And, to respond to this embedded biological need, that we have a group of women set aside just for sex. It would be their job to satisfy those poor men who can’t control themselves for the greater good.

Really? I find his sexism towards women deplorable. But I find his low opinion of his own gender and mine even more disturbing. I just hope he has “access to women” and is getting enough sex because if not, according to his own theory, he’s likely to explode with sexual frustration and “cause a problem.”

 

blog comments powered by Disqus