Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 5:58 PM GMT

A brief item on BBC News 24 mentioned that many males have unrealistic expectations with regards to women because of pornography. 

I guess you'll just have to ditch the mags, the members only websites and the visits to Soho.

Stop trying to second guess women and improve yourself as a man.

Pop an old Mud track on the player. "It'll be lonely this Christmas..."

Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 6:20 PM GMT

Your mind works in a strange way, Mr Anon. I find The Times articles are depressing because they suggest that women are:

1) In need of committment in the form of marriage even when they think they aren't. They don't know their own minds. [Camilla Cavendish]

2) Only in need of men for financial reasons when it comes to child rearing. [Carol Sarler]

3) To be condemned for seeking and having sex with men they fancy, without some non-sexual reward for doing so. [India Knight]

4) Childish attention-whores. [Shane Watson]

 I fail to see what any of this has to do with porn affecting men's expectations. Unless that is, porn gives men unrealistic expectations that women:

- Know their own mind when it comes to how much committment they want.

- Actually want men in their lives for reasons other than money.

- Should not be condemned for enjoying sex for its own sake.

- Are mature enough not to need the same level of flattery and attention as small children.

I don't know much about the porn business. But if that's the message that it is sending men these days, then it would seem that it is indeed giving them unrealistic expectations.

Friday, 28 December 2007 - 7:20 AM GMT

Hmmm. There are relationships where both people positively want to share everything they have and talking about who is benefiting financially just seems plain silly. But there are also plenty of 'happy' win-win relationships where there isn't that strength of feeling or commitment and which are more fragile. In the latter then I can see money is one of many issues in the balance.

I do think there is something going on psychologically with the male-female dynamic and women tending to want men to provide and look after them in some way which is almost independent of money but tends to inevitably involve money. Giving a woman the cost of a meal isn't the same as taking her out to dinner even if that's what it cost.

You can also assume with strong likelihood that if a man doesn't pay for dinner, then he's unlikely to be really really interested in you romantically.  Doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't find you attractive or that you can't have a mutually satisfying short-term relationship, but it's a pretty clear signal if one that some women sadly haven't figured out. Likewise if a man's lived with you for several years and hasn't proposed.

Friday, 28 December 2007 - 4:56 PM GMT

Will you be writing an entry on NL proposing to ban prostitution. It would be of more interest than this piece.

Which is kind of a way of saying, it's not what it once was, your blog thatis and not prostitution 'natch.  

Friday, 28 December 2007 - 7:10 PM GMT

It's typical of New Labour that when faced with a problem it seeks new laws rather than enforcing existing ones. There appears to be a problem with forced prostitution in the UK but rather than fighting the source of the problem (prosecuting those who coerce under existing legislation), it seeks to criminalise the transaction itself, even when totally consenting by both parties.

Harman's attitude is condescending and insulting to both men and women. To the latter she is saying that no woman can handle herself in the trade - she must be in need of counselling and guidance. To men she is saying that it shouldn't be allowed for them to achieve some happiness in exchange for money. It's a nasty thing to do, because few men will stand up for themselves here. It's easy for women like Harman to think that someone who pays for sex must be a depraved freak, but that's because she cannot envisage a situation in which she would ever be sexually frustrated. Few women of her age have any concept of what it's like.

But if she were male and had a speech impediment, a disability, was poor, very short or worked in some isolating occupation such as an overseas armed forces posting or long term contract work on an oil-rig, she would understand what a useful release of unhappiness it can be to know that you at least have the option to pay for sex. It's natural to want to touch and be touched. How cruel it is of Harman to seek to deny lonely men this option. How puritan it is of her to be so incensed that someone else can enjoy themselves.