A thoughtful reader writes: "I wonder sometimes how men who respect their mamas and their wives and sisters and love their daughters square that with going to those places." 'Those places' meaning strip clubs and cathouses. It seems to me that is exactly how they respect their mamas, presuming that their mama doesn't actually work in or run such an establishment.
Aldous Huxley once famously said that an intellectual is someone who has found something more compelling than sex. I think that the exception is that sex itself is always more interesting than writing about sex. As regards my personality I think I'm consistent in that regard, I almost never write about sex or sports, and probably have too low a regard for those that do. So I hope you'll forgive the awkward way I may present my arguments, unaccustomed as I am to speaking on the subject.
I have always been acutely aware of the disconnect between Feminism and Chivalry. I was raised to be chivalrous and to treat all ladies with respect. I can recall specific incidents in my life in which I was confronted with ways and means of speaking about women that left me at a loss. In the sixth grade, Ronnie Whittaker and I lost a game of 'Password' because he used the word 'broad' to denote a woman. I had never ever heard the term before. To me it was an adjective, not a noun. When I got my first full-time job in a union shop, I was shocked to hear that women were called 'girls' and 'chicks'. In fact, I had to consciously force myself to start to use the term 'woman' because at the age of 18, I had always used the term 'lady'. Yeah, I was a door-opener and a Yes Mam kind of kid.
It didn't take me long to recognize, fresh out of my all-boy prep school background, that women often behaved like broads, dames, chicks and otherwise. And despite the fact that I actually read every month's edition of Essence magazine, I began to realize that all women actually had all different sorts of character flaws, just as men did. It occured to my then virginal mind that perhaps the reason that I was sometimes considered a geek was that there were actually women who preferred the company of knuckleheads, roughnecks, bangers and otherwise. In otherwords, there being a time and place for everything under Heaven, there was probably a woman for every man, no matter what their character. And they deserved each other. Which left me with the very paradox I survive with to this day.
Without getting too deeply into it, just as I have never seen the Dodgers win whenever I go to Dodger Stadium in person, I have never personally known there to be an exception to the old Catholic prejudice about good girls who don't and bad girls who do. Now of course the Dodgers actually score at home and so do I. So I'm not in an ethical quandary about such things. But I think it says something about my intentions in socialization. And so I began observing the intent of socialization of everybody, which is one of the reasons I am fascinated by people engaged in the act of engaging each other.
Like most men, I am perfectly capable of compartmentalizing and objectifying women. There are, in fact, women I have known and can only remember in terms of their bodies and/or sexual skills, and not particularly of their names and faces. I can talk 'player' talk with the best of them and still figure into the content of anyone's character my estimation of their success in the arts and crafts of seduction. That includes women, because believe me, I've read (and heard) enough testimony from feminist literature as well as the complaints of compatriots to understand how a woman's self-esteem is vital to her sexuality. So I consider myself adequately prepared by a fair gamut of thoughts and deeds with regard to matters of het sex and seduction.
So I am left with the very same paradox most American men face. Good girls don't, bad girls do, and Chivalry dictates that all ladies must be treated with respect. This must be balanced with the basic biological fact of male virility. The most rational compromise is what we live with but defies Catholic teaching. It is that extra-marital sex is OK and doesn't count morally against consenting adults who are themselves unmarried. So that makes pre- and post-marital sex socially acceptable, notions of 'good' and 'bad' be damned. Feminism puts us in the odd predicament of railing against the sexual objectification of women (which men do naturally, I think) and the call to sexual liberation of women. That puts it in the quandry of defending women who choose to behave in sexually objectifyable ways. In other words, if Feminism must defend all women, it must equally defend the sexual liberties of bad girls.
My response is that women are responsible for respecting themselves as are men, and that both men and women must recognize how and when they are whoring themselves. Consequently there is redemption for both. But this also invalidates aspects of Chivalry which places particular demands on men in conflict with the demands of Feminism. Ultimately, I think men are stuck with this double standard and play either side to their own advantage; if a woman prefers the Chivalrous route, he'll use it. If a woman wants Feminist respect, then she'll get that. The bottom line is that these become tactics, not principles and the bottom line is what? The man gets his woman.
With all that in mind, let's go back to the original question. It seems to me that the Chivalric answer would be that my mama and my sisters are ladies and I would expect men and others to protect their virtue. Those who work the pole(s) are whores and they are lost to me. That's also a socially conservative Catholic answer as well as the answer one would expect from conservative Muslims as well. I suspect the orthodox Jewish position is not far off. Chivalry suggests that all men and women find an appropriate place for women with regard to their central value to society which is as the receptor of men's affections, and that women comport themselves appropriately.
This is exactly the patriarchic hegemony Feminism expects to break. Women are much more than sex and so the sexual aspect of their being can't mean that much. I expect that the Feminist answer would go in one of three directions. The first would be against the exploitation of sex workers. Call that the ACLU Feminist answer. So long as working conditions are appropriate and nobody's rights are exploited, there's nothing wrong with the oldest profession. The second would be a reproductive / sexual freedom answer. Call it the Do Me Feminist answer. It's their body, and not your business. The third answer would be a Gender Equality answer, which would probably ask you if you have a problem with women being whores considering the whores that men are. I suspect as well in the Gender Equality answer there is the implication that not only should het women work poles but all other gender orientations and preferences as well.
I can't keep track of all that and as a civil libertarian don't quite care one way or another which answer might be most appropriate. Besides, depending on the quality of entertainment provided, I'd much rather enjoy a good burlesque show than write about it. As for cathouses, I'm afraid that I can't afford that kind of entertainment.
Recent Comments