Male Sexuality is Threatening Because We Don’t Understand It

toper lovers-forever

Andrew Smiler identifies 7 things we can do today to change ideas about male sexuality

American culture sees male sexuality as easily aroused, barely controlled, and able to overwhelm rational thought, believes the little head does the thinking for the big head, and has a hard time distinguishing normal male sexuality from the abuse of power known as rape or sexual assault. As a result, it’s easy to believe that any guy could be a rapist or child molester. Little wonder that Jamie Peck asked if Men Can Write About Sex Without Sounding Like Douchebags; this limiting and narrowly defined space leaves little that’s interesting to explore. Alyssa Royse responded by describing The Danger in Demonizing Male Sexuality.

Changing ideas about male sexuality will require action from all of us, at both the individual and structural levels.

Royce was on target when she asked “how can we all work together to change our collective impression of male sexuality as something that is dangerous and disgusting?” Although she acknowledges the need to understand and dismantle patriarchy and male privilege, her specific suggestions focus on helping men understand their potential partners (#1-3) and supporting/boosting men’s self-esteem (#4-5), presumably so they don’t take out their sexual frustrations on others.

These answers are a useful beginning, but don’t go far enough. They place responsibility strictly in men’s hands, yet the problem is societal and needs all of us working at a variety of levels. Large scale change requires more than a few—or even many—people changing on the individual level. Feminists taught us that the personal is political, so changing ideas about male sexuality will require action from all of us, at both the individual and structural levels.

Here are 7 things we can all do today to help combat and dismantle the stereotype.

1. Understand that rape and assault aren’t sex.

It’s pretty simple, really. If you want to do—or are doing—something sexual and your partner agrees to let you do it, then it’s sex. There’s a space in which you might suggest something to a partner and that person says no; that’s called saying no (or not yet). If force is threatened or used, that’s assault or rape. Sex frequently occurs between individuals who are attracted to or love each other and in most cases, both partners are “turned on.” Assault and rape often occur outside of a caring relationship and usually involve a desire to cause pain or prove something.

2. Learn the truth about male sexuality.

The stereotype is largely incorrect. If you really listen to most of the guys in your life, you’ll find that the majority aren’t screwing around or looking for a new partner every weekend. The vast majority only have one partner at a time, and they’re not particularly interested in one-night stands. We all need to understand that these guys are the rule, not the exception.

3. Challenge friends who espouse the stereotype.

The thing about stereotypes is that they describe everyone in the group; they say “all guys are like that.” Ask your friends if they really mean all, of if it’s really about most, some, or even just a few guys. Push the issue by going through the list of men you and your friend know personally, including family members, classmates, and co-workers.

4. Ask for clarification.

When your friends say things like “guys are only interested in sex” or “men are dogs,” ask for details. How do you know he’s only interested in sex? That’s pretty clear if it’s a one-night stand where no one got last names, phone numbers, or email addresses, but it’s more ambiguous if they’ve hung out a few times or had sex more than once. It’s also pretty clear if he’s paying directly for sex, but not when there’s some type of relationship and sharing of secrets occurring. If a guy just wanted sex, wouldn’t it be easier for him to find a sex worker and pay for a night’s pleasure than to spend all that time texting, emailing, going out to dinner, etc.? I admit that there are some pickup artists who are only interested in the seduction and sex it leads to, but again, that’s a very small percentage of guys.

5. Give men space to violate the stereotype

There are many reasons why men rarely show their emotions in public or acknowledge enjoying romantic movies. If we want men to act differently, we need to support them when they do so. Publicly calling a guy a wimp or berating him because he’s too emotional reminds all guys that these behaviors are not acceptable for men in our culture. If you have a problem with a guy in your life, take it up with him privately. And think twice before sharing it with your friends; it’s hard to know how they’ll understand it or where the story will go.

6. Demand better from big media.

Sex comedies such as American Pie and Porky’s promote the idea that guys are only interested in sex and that any kind of deceit, trickery, or stunt is more-or-less “fair game” when a guy wants to get laid. We also see the stereotype acted out by Charlie on Two and A Half Men, Barney on How I Met Your Mother, and any number of other popular TV characters. Vote with your wallet and your eyeballs: don’t watch. If you want to go farther, send email to network executives who oversee programming and even organize a protest. It worked for women in the 1970s who were tired of seeing women as competent mothers, ditzes (usually blond), and secretaries but nothing else; there’s no reason to believe it can’t work again.

7. Become media literate.

Instead of quietly accepting what the media shows, ask questions about how realistic it is. I know the screen won’t respond (yet; I’m sure someone’s working on that), but your partner, friends, co-workers, and children will. Sure, some might tell you to shut up because you’re ruining they’re pleasure, so you’ll need to be careful about who and when. Or perhaps you don’t want to be careful. Regardless, ask questions like “is that realistic” or “how likely is that?” Ask why Charlie got all the girls, breaks, and laughs on Two and A Half Men and Alan pretty much never got anything. Learn from Evan in Superbad; he spends most of the movie challenging Seth’s claims about what guys do and how sex and relationships work.


Changing our cultural assumptions about male sexuality will take work but that work will ultimately benefit all of us. It’ll give most guys the option to be more romantic and emotional. It’ll also mean they don’t have to spend time convincing a new partner that they’re a good guy and “not like most guys.” The folks men date, regardless of their gender, will get better partners and will be better able to focus on their own pleasure instead of worrying about controlling their guy’s sexual wants.

—photo by Toper


About Andrew Smiler

Andrew Smiler, PhD is a therapist, evaluator, author, and speaker residing in Winston-Salem, North Carolina (USA). He is the author of “Challenging Casanova: Beyond the stereotype of promiscuous young male sexuality” and co-author, with Chris Kilmartin, of “The Masculine Self (5th edition)”. He is a past president of the Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity and has taught at Wake Forest University and SUNY Oswego. Dr. Smiler's research focuses on definitions of masculinity. He also studies normative aspects of sexual development, such as age and perception of first kiss, first “serious” relationship, and first intercourse among 15-25 year olds. Follow him @AndrewSmiler.


  1. OirishM says:

    1. Understand that rape and assault aren’t sex.
    2. Learn the truth about male sexuality.

    It’s worth clarifying that this works both ways – just because a minority of men engage in the behaviours in 1, that doesn’t mean it is representative of male sexuality as a whole – not least because males are not the only perpetrators of it. 1 is good advice to people considering male sexuality from the outside as well as those operating within it.

    • Andrew Smiler says:

      I agree OirishM. We should not generalize/stereotype from a minority of guys to ALL guys, nor should we overgeneralize and believe that rape/assault have ONLY male perps & female victims.

      • OirishM says:

        Which is why I wonder why 1 is in there at all. Unless it’s being addressed in general to people addressing male sexuality (male, female or otherwise).

        I think “don’t start off your description of male sexuality with the n-th implied reminder not to rape people” might be a better #1, personally.

        • Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the author was referring more to the perception that men’s sexual impulses are so uncontrolled that when they rape or sexually assault someone, it is almost seen as a normal expression of their sexuality (hence the defense of young men who commit sexual assault and are defended as “normal teenage boys”). We all know that rape isn’t synonymous with sex, but for some reason there are people who believe some men can’t tell the difference – and therefore see their actions are less reproachable.

  2. Publish the data on the rate at which women force others to penetrate them alongside the rate at which men forcibly penetrate others.

    Stop calling it not rape women do it and rape when men do it.

    And there you have the very simple formula for dispelling the myth that rape is generally male perpetrated.

    • Andrew Smiler says:

      Hi Orchid.
      There’s no doubt that men are more likely to commit rape or sexual assault than women. My point is that it’s only a small % of men who do this, so when we generalize to things like “all men are rapists,” we’re judging the vast majority by the actions of a small minority.
      Per my suggestion #1, rape isn’t about sex, it’s about power to force someone to do something sexual they don’t want to do. Sex is about mutual consent & pleasure; rape doesn’t include consent.

      • You haven’t seen the data on female rape from the CDC, have you? Actual rape, not what the CDC defines as rape.

        • Andrew Smiler says:

          Not really sure what you’re talking about Diz or how it relates to what I’ve written.

          • I know what Diz is saying. Forced sex currently isn’t usually counted as rape if it’s perpetuated by women because it doesn’t involve penetration, but once you redefine all forced sex as rape the statistics even out, so in fact contrary to what you’re saying there IS doubt that men are more likely to commit rape or sexual assault than women. How that relates to the article is it makes it clear that male sexuality isn’t any more aggressive or deserving of demonisation than female sexuality. Even if we say only a small percentage of men rape, if it’s still ONLY men that rape, then that still implies the spectrum of personality types for males is much more up the sexual-violence end than the spectrum of personality types for females; so the implication is “look we’re not all threatening, but we are, admittedly more threatening than you are”. If it was more generally realised that there is a similar quantity of men raped by women it’s an acknowledgement that the threatening aspect of sexuality isn’t specifically male.

        • Well please share the data you’re referring to, Orchid. I’d be very interested to see.

          I’d also be interested to see how this compares male rape of female; male rape of male, female of male, and female of female.

          I also would be interested in the DV stats and definitions of DV used.

          Thank you

      • Hi Andrew

        Of course there is no doubt that men are more likely to rape. We only count it as rape if someone forcibly penetrates someone else, and ignore people forcing others to penetrate them.

        Were we to all of a sudden reverse it, there would be no doubt that women are more likely to rape.

        • Andrew Smiler says:

          Ah, now I follow you Orchid. I’m not sure where you’re going with this or how it relates to what I wrote.

          • I was saying that a simple way to stop male sexuality being demonized is to collect and publish the data on female pedophilia and females forcing adults to penetrate them alongside the data for men committing these crimes. Same goes for domestic violence.
            Then the public would know these things are not gendered.

            Also child abuse, the public should know that the main caregiver and not men commit most child abuse and that child abuse is correlated to dysfunctional behaviour in adults.

            First, we would need some legislation to stop the groups that mislead the public on these things.

            • Andrew Smiler says:

              Ah, now I get it Orchid. I agree that we need good information and it needs to be widely known (see #2). My experience says that giving people information alone isn’t sufficient; they also need a (new/different) way to think about the information they have.

            • Look at it this way.

              If we could sue and have the people that put out all the violence against women information arrested for hate speech, and make it a legal requirement that abuse services and PSA do not present misleading information by omitting the stats for female perpetration, the whole perception would change.

            • Andrew Smiler says:

              Now I follow you Orchid. If the stats demonstrated that coerced sex were being perpetrated by men & women at equal rates (and I’m taking your word that the stats _would_ show that), then it would change some of the argument. However, until the legal definitions and tracking change & can show that, all men are held responsible for the action of a small number of men. I’m not willing to wait for the stats to change.

              In addition, it’s clear that not everyone understands the boundary between consensual sex & rape. See; Steubenville & media coverage of it.

            • Rape is not “forcing someone to penetrate” your own body, however. It’s forcibly penetrating someone else’s body. I’m not saying females can’t or don’t do this. But it requires them penetrating the other person’s body, not forcing penetration of their own body.

            • Shmuel Yonah says:

              I strongly disagree. The definition of rape involves any penetration forced – it could involve a penis and a vagina/mouth/anus/other, fingers and a vagina/mouth/anus/other, or phallic equivalent and a vagina/mouth/anus/other. Forced penetration, regardless of who’s forcing which side of the equation, is rape. Just because the dictionary hasn’t caught up to current thought on gender equality doesn’t mean it’s any less of a case of rape.

            • Yes. I agree that it can involve all those things and body parts. But the person being raped is the one being penetrated. By definition.

              IE: If you hold a gun to my head and force me to insert an object or my fingers into your anus, I am being threatened (and you are committing a crime). But you are not raping me.

            • And that’s the problem.

              In your scenario, ” If you hold a gun to my head and force me to insert an object or my fingers into your anus, I am being threatened (and you are committing a crime). But you are not raping me.” you are being forced to perform a sex act against your will how that is not considered rape.

              In short its basically saying, “Its rape is only when the person that was penetrated isn’t consenting.”.

              I can’t speak for anyone else but if someone held you at gun point to make you penetrate them I’d say you were raped.

              This whole bit over rape is the result of trying to take a gender neutral event (rape) and define it by heavily gendered standards (such as saying that its only rape when the person that was penetrated wasn’t consenting).

            • Oops I meant “E.G.” and not “I.E.”. Sorry!

  3. Sounds good to me.

    For #4, the one about calling people on their generalizations, I would go one step further and maybe ask it in a more pointed way. If a woman says all men are dogs, ask her if she includes her father in that, or her son(s) if she has any.

    It’s not very flattering to the woman herself if she says something like that — her mother had sex with a dog and that produced her? Very sad way to see oneself. One time a woman told me that men are dogs, to which I responded, “if the male of a species is called a dog, then the female is called a….?”

    • Andrew Smiler says:

      Hi Steve,
      I’m with you when you ask about dad/son, but I’d probably shy away from the animal references. To me, that seems like a sure way to get people arguing but not really listening.
      For me, it’s about getting someone to think differently by getting them to think about the people they know. If they rattle off 10 guys in their life and 2 (or fewer) are “dogs,” I’d ask how that 80% (or higher) connects to the stereotype.

  4. JoAnne Dietrich says:

    That is an excellent article. I agree that all men are not rapists. I love #6. American Pie and Porky’s just make men look bad. We should not watch those type of movies. They hurt both men and women.

    • Andrew Smiler says:

      Thanks JoAnne. And yet we did watch those movies, a lot. Porky’s basically invented the “sex comedy” genre; there were 3 of them. There were 7 American Pie movies, although some were straight-to-video. The first AP movie netted over $200 Million and I once saw a figure of $750 net for all 7.

    • OirishM says:

      American Pie and Porky’s just make men look bad.

      Why would a film about some men make men look bad (as a whole)?

      • Andrew Smiler says:

        That quote isn’t from my article; see #6 for full text. It’s not those films in singularity (or as a duet, since I mentioned two), it’s the endless repetition of a plot that focuses on a small group of guys trying to get laid and engaging in a broad variety of risky activities (incl lying & getting women drunk so they can take advantage of them). I’ll guess that there are 3-4 of these movies each year. And then there are the TV characters that also repeat & reinforce this stereotype. To the extent that people – especially teens, who have less experience – use information from mass media to understand what’s typical/normal/normative, I think it’s a problem.

    • Jack Pine says:

      lol @ “I agree that all men are not rapists”

  5. I would also add challenging people who depend on the stereotypes to push ideological notions. We know that even though most sex crimes are committed by men most men are not sex criminals. Yet and still we see very dangerous ideas such as holding the actions of those few men up as representation of the whole AND THEN turning around and putting the onus on men to dispell such images.

    (In short we need to challenge the idea of, “We know that most men are sex criminals but it should still be on men to do something about the negative imagary that’s cast on the whole lot.”)

  6. The number of men who commit crimes period is a very very tiny percentage of the entire adult male population. It’s the same with those who spread STDs, STI…..usually they are oversexualized innoculators.

    Consider this fact: 50% of adult black women have genital herpes (ok 48%). See if you do not believe me. But, do 50% of black men have genital herpes? NO! Why? Because, the black women are having sex with these high risk oversexualized men.

    The same goes for rape stats………a few men are the culprits.

    • Andrew Smiler says:

      I agree that it’s a small % of men who commit rape & other sex-related crimes, as well as the fact that a small % of men with STIs spread them around widely. I think we all need to understand these stats and not blame all guys for the behavior of a small %.

  7. Thank you for an overall strong approach to an ever-timely topic, but sex as something your partner “agrees to let” you do has no place in a transformative view of male sexuality. Men deserve to think and hear about sex as something partners WANT to do with them– the bottom bar needs to be mutual desire, with no room for nonconsensual compliance.

    Seattle, WA

    • Andrew Smiler says:

      Good point Tree. I agree that placing mutual desire at the center of our notions of sexuality would be transformative.

  8. Shmuel Yonah says:

    As I reposted this on my Facebook: It would also help if there was ANY medical, psychological, or sociological research going into it. But that would require actually studying teh menz, praise be to the extremely few that do.

    • Andrew Smiler says:

      There are some indirect references to that research here, primarily through other summaries. If you want something that is more explicitly research based, try my book “Challenging Casanova,” which draws from over 500 studies published in psychology, sociology, and public health journals.
      More details at

      • Shmuel Yonah says:

        Sold! As a nursing student, my main focus in my studies has been on male-specific diseases and male sexuality. It constantly confounds me how difficult it is to find decent research on the subject.

  9. I think all the emphasis on men’s feelings and emotions is also a disservice to us. At least us married guys. My wife’s already convinced that her emotional needs are more important than my sexual needs. The truth, as you pointed out in the article, may be that most guys are not screwing around or looking for someone new every weekend. But the link backing that up is based on a survey of how many partners did they have, not how many did they want.
    The truth about my own male life is that marriage has been a huge sexual sacrifice. And while I love my wife and kids, and derive some emotional benefits from marriage, it’s like putting wiper fluid in the gas tank and wondering why the car doesn’t run. The two are not interchangeable. At least for me, though I doubt I’m alone in this.
    I apologize if this is off base, but I think the answer to, “Men are dogs” isn’t, “Hey we have feelings too!” I would like it to be more along the lines of, “Men are men,” and some unapologetic acknowledgement that, in general, perhaps our needs are different from women’s.

    • Shmuel Yonah says:

      I disagree completely that we shouldn’t emphasize mens’ feelings. I’m going to slightly alter the phrasing of your last paragraph: The answer to “Men are dogs” should be “Men have feelings, too – they just have feelings that work differently than women’s feelings.” It does some disservice by bowing to a gender binary, but it also allows men to feel their feelings without guilt.

      As for your personal sex life, point 2 should be your focus in this article. Not only for you, but for your wife, as well (so point 3, too). If you feel your wife is convinced that her emotional needs are greater than your sexual needs – and if you agree with that – then you both need to learn that (your) male sexuality is not the enemy, but rather something that you can both work with. For starters, women’s emotions are in no way equatable to men’s sex drives. Once you can overcome that fact, you can start to work together to better two separate (but connected) aspects of your marriage: your wife’s emotional needs, and your sexual needs. Connected to these two distinct elements would be another distinct element you mentioned: your emotional needs. You missed that the link between your emotional needs *is* strongly connected to with sexual needs – which is exactly what point 2 is trying to make: male sexuality is emotionally connected, that men aren’t always about one-night stands, but rather about the emotional connection to your sexual partner. Either way, the way to get over the disconnect between you and your wife on this issue is to, well, connect with her on it by talking about it.

      Best of luck.

      • Andrew Smiler says:

        Hi ‘a guy’,
        First, I’m sorry to hear that your marriage isn’t satisfying your sexual needs. Long term monogamous marriage requires a lot of tradeoffs and compromises. I agree with Shmuel that you & your wife need to talk about it and see if you can find a solution.
        Second, and to be clear, I didn’t focus on feelings and I don’t think that emphasizing or prioritizing men’s feelings will change the general populace’s understanding of male sexuality. I do think that acknowledging feelings is part of the issue (and thus gets mentioned in #5), but it’s only one part of the solution.
        Third, and finally, I think we might better understand sexuality if we avoid gender-based groups and think instead about behavior-based groups. I’d rather see us talk about folks (male, female, trans, etc) who are highly sexual with a single partner (or in serial monogamy), highly sexual with multiple partners (lots of hookups), moderately sexual, and low sexual. I think these labels (which I just made up) would be more helpful for describing people’s sexuality than the labels male & female.

    • OirishM says:

      “Men are men” is absolutely tautologous, and the label “man” is meaningless. As is the label “woman”, for that matter.

      • Yes, and it runs into the danger of being interpreted as “boys will be boys”; it’s almost like surrendering to the idea that the attribute of gender is the defining feature of a person, rather than merely an attribute amongst many others.

        Hold on, how did dogs get such a bad press in the first place? Aren’t they considered to be the faithful of animals? Intelligent? Good parents? Sensitive? Not really that offensive a comparison in that light.

    • If you’re not getting sex from your wife you aren’t creating foreplay with her brain … that’s where it starts. We can’t just turn it on and off by demand like men can, it’s a slow burn.

  10. Mostly_123 says:

    Good article throughout, but it was the first point that got me thinking:

    “1. Understand that rape and assault aren’t sex.”
    I would also think emphasizing the reverse is important in this dynamic as well: That sex ISN’T rape or assault.
    Seems like even when it’s done right, sex gets a bad name; like it has to be apologized for, qualified, licensed & contained- though it may not live in the same house as ‘rape’ or ‘assault’ – but they both live on the same block, in the same seedy neighborhood, that sort of thing. I could be wrong on this, but I believe there are a lot of different social elements out there (for religious or ideological reasons) that inherently view men’s sexuality (even what would be defined as ‘normal’ and/or ‘socially acceptable’ sexuality) by default as licentious, lecherous, conceited, entitled, deceitful, and otherwise maladjusted, predatory & contemptible. The belief that men, collectively as a gender are such, justifies & nourishes entrenched feelings of resentment, fear, envy, intolerance, conflict and hate. Conflating assault & rape with sex has given those who would seek it an avenue for conflict, and for condemnation of masculinity and male sexuality in a much more wholesale manner. Consensual sex and rape are not two different ends of a spectrum of male (or female) sexuality; they’re not the ‘shallow and the deep end of the pool’ and if we just train all boys & men to stay in the shallow end, then everybody swimming will be safe. No- different pools, different swimmers.

    In any event, it’s been said that we often come to hate that which we fear. Again, I could be wrong- but I don’t think we hate that which we genuinely feel we don’t understand. We might fear it, but we don’t hate it: We feel hate for the things we feel we DO understand (or misunderstand), like the things that our fears are rooted IN. When we try to understand our fears, and let our understanding be distorted by our own anxieties and prejudices, then it’s inevitable that that understanding will be flawed. The problem isn’t that male sexuality is threatening (if it were, then it is right and proper that all men should be perceived as potential rapists and victimizers, and so then there’s no problem) – But the problem, as I understand it here, is that male sexuality itself is perceived as threatening when it is not. So, to quote Mark Twain: “What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know. It’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.”

    • Andrew Smiler says:

      Hi Mostly,

      I agree with you that sexuality has something of a bad name in our culture. I’ve generally heard that attributed to our Puritan heritage, but I’ve not spent any real time researching the roots of this.
      I like your notion of emphasizing “that sex ISN’T rape or assault” and I think we share the same understanding of these issues: different pools (with different swimmers), to use your analogy. And yes, I’m arguing that “male sexuality itself is perceived as threatening when it is not.” It took me 1,000+ words to say that & you did it in 11.

      • Guys, please also consider that some of our fears are also rooted in biological reality, not Puritan heritage or culture. Even if intercouse is completely concensual and we love you, it can have drastic life-and-death physical consequences for us, that it does not have for you. Your penis inside our reproductive organs can – and does, even at times despite the use of artificial contraception – literally cause a new human life to begin growing inside us. That’s a really big deal. And in the past, more so than now, this often lead to serious risk, painful complication and even death to the female. Even today, more than 500,000 women die annually due to pregnancy complication, while the man who enaculated inside of them lives on, unharmed. Just some thoughts to consider.

        The penis (and semen) can be a literally deadly weapon (that can cause physical pain and suffering, even death) to females, even when intercourse is consensual and even when we totally love you and care about you, and want to be with you, and even in committed monogamous situations. It’s biological reality/fact that exists separate from morality, culture or subjective “attitudes”.

        • @Sarah…

          You have a good point regarding fear and consequences of sexual intercourse.

          Over 30,000 people die from auto accidents each year in America. Does this mean we need to fear the car. Yes we do. We need to drive more carefully and not take undue risks. So, fear can be controlled with appropriate behavior. Pregnancy risk(s) can be managed is my point.

          So, it should not boil down to a fear of men because the “penis and semen can be a deadly weapon.” Again, think about managing risk instead of avoiding risk.

          • Jules, I think you missed my point.

            • Sarah,

              How does your assertion fit in this discussion. I agree with the physical risk of sex being greater for women, typically. I think you use some pretty dramatic language to make your point, though, which often indicates that there’s some meaning intended beyond that mere assertion, and so I’m reluctant to agree with that additional meaning, not knowing what it might be.

              But even if I accept your point without that qualification, where does your point take this conversation?

            • Hi Adrian,

              There was mention, above, of our attitudes towards sexuality being a result of neg CULTURAL attitudes towards sex (even mention of “puritanical roots”). My point was to ask those discussing the issue to consider biology, itself. And how historically (and even today, despite medical technology), penis-inside-vagina intercourse has life-and-death consequences to the female body that it does not have to the male body. Due to biology, and not culture. I think it’s rational to consider how that fact affects our fears, reservations – and even our perception of male sexuality, itself. Not all men are threatening, or even unkind (that’s for sure! There are so many kind and loving men in the world!). But there are biological realities that make male sexuality, in general, a very real and rational threat to female bodies and lives, in ways that it is not, to male bodies and lives.

              Again, my point is that this is due to our bodies and their construction – and not culture or “attitudes”. And it can be helpful to include recognition of these facts of biology into the discussion, in my opinion. Does that make sense.?

            • Mostly_123 says:

              “There are biological realities that make male sexuality, in general, a very real and rational threat to female bodies and lives, in ways that it is not, to male bodies and lives.”

              Sarah, I must say I find your argument here dubious at best; and contentious at less than best. ‘A very real and rational threat to bodies and lives’? My goodness- I’ve heard the Soviet nuclear arsenal described in less dire, divisive & foreboding terms. Nothing undermines trust and credibility like vainglorious hyperbole.

              I’ve heard people cite pregnancy motility rates as cause for increases in prenatal care, socialized medicine, and demographic/health trending of every conceivable stripe. But before today, I have never heard anyone try to push their agenda by citing pregnancy mortality rates as a credible cause for fear or threat to life & limb, rooted in male sexuality.  
              Might I point out that pregnancy, and therefore, pregnancy mortality, is not simply a function of male sexuality/biology: It is a function of the conjunction of female AND male sexuality. By citing pregnancy mortality rates as a biological basis & cause to fear MALE sexuality, you should be just as apt to view FEMALE biology and sexuality as an equally credible source of threat and anxiety.    

              I am not a feminist myself, but I find this flailing rationalization for a scientifically justifiable ‘fear’ to be, almost paradoxically, offensively parochial & regressive- the notion that as if somehow, once male sexuality is unleashed, women are therefore powerless in the equation of choice, contraception, sexual agency, and otherwise, having life & limb at the mercy of men; and so therefore, cause for fear. I disagree.    

              You’ve gravitated towards the impact of (unintended?) pregnancy, and, of course, this cannot afflict men (in a direct physical/biological sense, that is) but you’ve repeatedly omitted STDs- apparently, because it doesn’t reinforce the idea that woman have objectively more cause to fear men due to this impact of sexuality on life and limb, than men to fear of women. This again gives me pause.

            • Hi Mostly,

              Well, you’ve never heard it before today. But at least now you have heard it and can give it some thought and consideration!

              Regarding STDs – good point. Though its repeatedly noted that STDs are transmitted from male to female at higher rates than female to male. Due to anatomy (female reprductive tissue and organs are internal and very findamentally different, and more sensitive than male EXTERNAL genetalia that is covered with skin).

              Don’t forget about HPV and how frequently women have expensive and painful cervical cryo procedures, due to HPV and cervical displaysia. HPV is transmitted by both males and females, sometimes causing deadly cervical cancer for females, but having no documented harmful effect on males.

              Some STDs, sich as chlamydia, can be mildly bothersome for males, but cause far-reaching permanrent infertility for females.

              And don’t forget non/STD vaginal infections and UTIs, not uncommonly instigated by intercourse for females. How often do males have intercourse and then stress out for days to follow, paying close attention not only to calendar dated but slso to odors, secretions and itching? For many women this is part of the price we pay – to have vaginal intercourse. And our male partners don’t always know – because we talk and worry, and share the details with our girlfriends.

            • OirishM says:

              Chlamydia can cause infertility in men too.

              And men don’t freak out over odors, secretion and itching after sex? Riiiiiight.

              Again, Sarah – I strongly suggest you need to listen more.

            • *sigh*

              Though its repeatedly noted that STDs are transmitted from male to female at higher rates than female to male.

              May be the case for some STD’s, but aren’t for all. For instance Chlamydia has a 40-50% chance of infection for both men and women during vaginal intercourse.. The same goes for HPV. Women has twice as high a risk for getting Gonorrhea from an infected partner than a man, but this is offset by Gonorrhea being asymptomatic half the time for women, thus increasing the time they are an infection risk towards their partners. Between the ages of 14 and 19, STIs occur more frequently in girls than boys by a ratio of nearly 2:1; this equalizes by age 20.
              (source: Wikipedia


              HPV is transmitted by both males and females, sometimes causing deadly cervical cancer for females, but having no documented harmful effect on males.


              But some types of HPV can cause genital warts. Other types can cause cancers of the penis, anus, or oropharynx (back of the throat, including base of the tongue and tonsils.)


              Some STDs, sich as chlamydia, can be mildly bothersome for males


              If left untreated, it is possible for chlamydia in men to spread to the testicles causing epididymitis, which in rare cases can cause sterility if not treated within 6 to 8 weeks. Chlamydia is also a potential cause of prostatitis in men, although the exact relevance in prostatitis is difficult to ascertain due to possible contamination from urethritis.

              When ignorance like this about STDs are common it is a factor in their continued prevalency.

            • @Sarah…

              “Regarding STDs – good point. Though its repeatedly noted that STDs are transmitted from male to female at higher rates than female to male. Due to anatomy (female reprductive tissue and organs are internal and very findamentally different, and more sensitive than male EXTERNAL genetalia that is covered with skin).”

              OK. While this is true, do you know that only a few men are the ones spreading STDs and STIs to women? It is estimated that 25% of women in NYC have genital herpes. Do 25% of men have genital herpes in NYC? NO! It’s around 11%.

              Now, what does the above tell you? One can logically infer that some women are having sex with the same men, these oversexualized innoculators.

              My ex wife is a NNP (Neo-Natal Nurse Practitioner). A woman delivered a baby prematurely where she worked. The mother had genital herpes. She did not know she had it.

              Four years later, another woman delivered a baby where she worked with the same issue. Both babies had the same father. The father remarked that he had also father another child with another woman but delivered at a different hospital. Same issue.

              So, my point is just why are these women dealing with the same guy? According to my ex wife, he was good looking and well built.

            • Mostly, hi again,

              Sorry this also reminds me of that survey data – I’m sure you’ve heard this before. About women and men being asked about their fears of one another.

              Supposedly – when men are asked what they fear most about women it’s that women will “laugh at them”.

              When women are asked the same question vice versa, the response is that their biggest fear is that a man will kill them.

              Both men and women express having “fears”, but there’s a really big difference between “biggest fears”. LAUGHTER versus bodily harm/DEATH.

            • OirishM says:

              Can we please just stop with this Oppression Olympics crap?

            • Mostly_123 says:

              “This also reminds me of that survey data – I’m sure you’ve heard this before. About women and men being asked about their fears of one another. Supposedly – when men are asked what they fear most about women it’s that women will ‘laugh at them’. When women are asked the same question vice versa, the response is that their biggest fear is that a man will kill them. Both men and women express having ‘fears’, but there’s a really big difference between ‘biggest fears’. LAUGHTER versus bodily harm/DEATH.”

              There is a huge difference between coercion (that is, actively seeking and engendering fear in others), and having someone ELSE’s fear actively projected UPON them externally as a race, class, gender, nationality or any other demographic. When one projects their fears and anxieties (justified or unjustified) upon others collectively it’s still prejudice; and collectively, it’s still bigotry. That people often seek to rationalize & accommodate it as such, rather than confront it, makes less difference.             

              Your ‘survey’ you cite there is actually a quote from Gavin de Becker- a person who made a very tidy fortune selling fear, and his precise brand of services to remedy it.  

              This fear we project onto others is internal – not external; fear, like other feelings are part of who we are as individuals, and beyond external control & external responsibility: That one might fear (direly fear) that others might kill them does not mean that others can or cannot kill them, and certainly does not mean that other will kill them – the real power is in the BELIEF (and the fear that this belief engenders) that others will kill them; and THAT faith-powered fear is very much internal.   

              That one fears others (either individually or as a collective) may inspire pity, compassion or empathy (or not)- But understand that this pity, compassion, or empathy for one’s own internal insecurity & anxiety, is neither an entitlement nor a moral requirement from others. What you might see as ‘justifiable fear’ I might see as unjustifiable bigotry, whether or not it’s purposely trying to cloak itself in the righteousness of fear. Fear (both genuine and disingenuous) is used to justify and excuse a great deal in our culture, particularly ‘mortal fear’ – but invoking fear along gender lines doesn’t engender any special exemption from being prejudiced or being a bigot, any more than it does to invoke a fear of a race, a class, a nationality or a religion in a wholesale manner. There is an enormous difference between understanding a prejudice, and giving that prejudice approbation. If you wish to invoke fear along gender lines, and then go seeking approbation for it because you feel it’s somehow justified, you’re drinking from a dry well. 

              That some people truly believe & respond to others accordingly based on that quote from Gavin de Becker is both factual and pitiable. But that other people would invoke it as a justification to perpetuate a wholesale prejudice is contemptible. Whether it is of laugher, or death, or both, or neither, ‘fear’ does not have a negotiable currency or morality where one gender’s (or race, class, nationality, religion or creed) is higher, greater, weightier, or ‘righter’ than another’s. The magnitude or severity of a ‘fear’ itself is not the measure of rightness of a belief, nor the righteousness of individuals that would invoke it. 

              There’s an improper moral equation there that seems to miscalculate that somehow it’s more damaging, more pitiable, and more valid to fear, than it is to be the one who is feared: There’s a word for that, and it’s called ‘wrong.’ Perhaps it stems from the notion that the people who are feared ‘deserve it’ and are truly, collectively, menacing in some way (hence a justifiable fear). Or perhaps it is rooted in the notion that, in this case, that the ‘feared’ have power (universally one-way, and biologically pre-ordained & fixed, as you have argued) over the fearful: If the onus then is on men (collectively) to alleviate or assuage the fears of women (collectively) then you are seeking or projecting something that doesn’t exist, and cannot exist: Power does not flow exclusively along gender lines, power doesn’t flow one way, and that anxiety (as it exists) cannot be alleviated externally; because its source is fundamentally internal. The power here is with the people who hold the fear & project their fear; not the with people who have others’ fears projected UPON them. The problem is one simply cannot transcend fear that way, which, I assume is the goal; not to just justify a fear, but to transcend it.        

              Even if this were not so, there is, finally, no moral imperative that dictates one’s arbitrary fears inherently obligates anyone else (either collectively or individually) to an open-ended commitment to accommodate those fears to their personal satisfaction.                            

            • This mind-numbingly generalizing soundbite that men are afraid of being laughed at by women while women are afraid of men killing them is here credited to a survey. Unless someone can dig up this survey/study I am inclined to consider the existence of such a study an urban myth.

              The quote

              At core, men are afraid women will laugh at them, while at core, women are afraid men will kill them.

              and this similar quote

              Most men fear getting laughed at or humiliated by a romantic prospect while most women fear rape and death

              is attributed to Gavin Becker’s book The Gift of Fear.

              I assume he most likely stole it from Margaret Atwood (although I am sure someone who has read The Gift of Fear can confirm or correct that assumption):

              Novelist Margaret Atwood writes that when she asked a male friend why men feel threatened by women, he answered, “They are afraid women will laugh at them.” When she asked a group of women why they feel threatened by men, they said, “We’re afraid of being killed.”

              Asking one male friend does not a survey make.

            • Tamen and Mostly – I am unable to directly reply to your comments (the “Reply” icon is not appearing beneath your comments here). But I want to acknowledge the info you provided here.

              It was lazy/sloppy of me to post what I did here. Thank you for providing this info – and your additional thoughts, too. And I agree with you, Tamen, “Asking one male friend does not a survey make.”

              Totally, yes! Agreed.

            • Sarah,

              That does make sense, and I think I understand your point. But as you say or at least imply, male sexuality generally isn’t intended to be threatening, and women (and thoughtful men, who are the men we’re really talking about, right?) can do a lot to minimize any practical threat men’s sexuality presents. In that safer context, isn’t it time to let go of ideas about threats that are no longer particularly threatening?

            • Hi Adrian,

              Wow, I have a couple of different replies! But first a question: are you sure male sexuality isn’t INTENDED to be threatening?

              Don’t be me wrong, I think there are so many wonderful men that have absolutely no desire to be in any way threatening – no personal desire at all, and instead a desire to rise above our biology and design.

              But what about in our DESIGN and nature’s INTENTION for us? Isn’t the male of most species designed in order to be able to overpower the female, for the sake of reproduction and continuation of the species?

              Maybe there is a difference between “threat” and “overpowering”, I’m not sure. Tell me what you think.

              Please understand that I’m asking these questions in a desire to have an open dialogue (despite potentially being politically incorrect). I’m a woman surrounded by particularly wonderful men (in my opinion, at least!) and I really don’t like it when women rag on men, and speak out against that sort of thing. If I rag on anything, it’s biology, and the limitations it’s saddled ALL OF US with. (Men and women – in different ways.)

              I have another separate reply (potentially lengthy!) to what you said here, ” In that safer context, isn’t it time to let go of ideas about threats that are no longer particularly threatening?”. But I’ll need to reply tomorrow, if that’s okay? (I hope.)

            • OirishM says:

              So LISTEN. LISTEN when men tell you that according to their experience of things your analogies are effectively ragging on men.

              This is the same sort of naturalistic-fallacy-laden that feminists rightly rail against, and I see no reason to put up with the same. Even if we accept your personification-of-nature’s intention to make penises weapons, that doesn’t mean we treat should penises as weapons. That doesn’t mean we should treat male sexuality as threatening. You are trying to get an “ought” from an “is”.

            • OirishM says:

              Should read “naturalistic-fallacy-laden nonsense”

              And also “should treat” later on, not “treat should” -_-

            • Hi OirishM,

              I hear you. At the same time, I have what seems to be a different point of view than you.

              Personally, I respect your right to a point of view that differs from mine, and to express what’s in your heart and mind.

              I can understand if my POV is unappealing to you, or if you do not agree with me (that’s okay). Differing views and ideas can help each of us to learn and grow! But your personal dislike – and applied pressure – aren’t reason enough to make me RETRACT my own personal POV. It’s my view. Meanwhile, you’re entitled to YOUR personal, and very respect-worthy POV!

              I’m listening!

            • Mostly_123 says:

              “But what about in our DESIGN and nature’s INTENTION for us? Isn’t the male of most species designed in order to be able to overpower the female, for the sake of reproduction and continuation of the species?”

              As much as I dislike political correctness, this part is getting a bit disturbingly Darwinian for me: By that broad a definition of ‘biological determinism’ we might as well forgo all of our altruistic laws and customs; it opens up table for everything from forced eugenics to euthanasia. In ‘nature’ the weak perish, or adapt, or both: Again, it’s another binary, one that civilization has rejected in favor of nuance and compromise. Remember, if ‘nature’ still got to dictate it’s ‘intention’ upon us unchecked, most of us would already be dead or dying; and most certainly not debating the finer points of philosophy, biology, and politics in cyberspace.

            • Hi Mostly,

              I hear you. Personally, I do not think that that acknowledging biology (realities of our male and female bodily construction, and how those realities may have helped us in the past, and continue to have an impact on us in the present) is any kind of rational reason to FORGO our laws and customs. Or to allow ‘nature’ to “dictate it’s ‘intention’ upon us unchecked”.

              This is just my personal opinion: but I think it’s good and helpful to consider the realities of our bodies, how they function and why – in attempting to understand both male and female feelings and fears that are obviously causing us much confusion and even distress in the present day. To possibly aid us in understanding where some of our fears come from, why, and even how they potentially aided us in the past, and helped us to survive when conditions for our ancestors were very different than they are for many of us today. So that we can first honestly acknowledge these bodily realities. Then rise above them in the ways that we now see fit. For the sake of male health, happiness and well being, not just females.

              Of course, you don’t have to agree with me. It’s not my wish to force my point of view on anyone. My wish, is to add my voice to the conversation and ask that biology and bodily construction (and the role that our bodies play in our psychology and our personal hopes and fears) be CONSIDERED.

            • Sarah,

              I appreciate your effort to stay with this discussion, considering the heat you’re getting. So maybe I’ll add a little.

              When I wrote about intention, I meant in reference to conscious intent on the part of men interacting with women (or other men, for that matter). I don’t think most men intend harm. If there’s any merit to your argument that men are inherently and particularly dangerous, apparently regardless of how they actually behave, then men acting against their inherent nature would seem to be evidence of the type of “intent” I’m suggesting.

              If what you’re saying is that women are typically more cautious than men when considering sex, that would probably match most people’s experience. If this is so for a combination of let’s say natural, less than entirely conscious reasons wired into women’s brains, along with rational observations about men’s strength and aggressiveness relative to women’s (typically), and then heaped on top of that the recent and mostly current cultural sanctions against women being freely sexual, I’d say we had defined the issue pretty well.

              What I’m saying here is that maybe we’d all be healthier and happier if we did as you say and acknowledge the real differences between men and women, along with factoring in past and current natural and cultural influences that divide us, and did that in terms that emphasize our common experience rather than terms that make us seem more alien to each other. That’s a long sentence.

              Short version, I’m not THAT GUY. I admit that I make a concerted effort to not be THAT GUY, but when my efforts to not be THAT GUY are met with being labeled thusly anuway, I’m going to be a little irritated.

              A very logical argument could be made that women are biologically inclined to be attracted to good providers, given their vulnerability while pregnant and what that meant for thousands of generations before the past few. What you’re saying seems analogous to saying that this history and some current observations mean that all women are inherently gold diggers, regardless of what they say or do? I’ve seen that postulated here and elsewhere and women get pretty irritated, and their argument comes down to their expectation that men see them as individuals, and not members of the hive all acting in consort.

              Men, this one, anyway, expect the same.

            • Hi Adrian!

              Partial reply at the moment. Need more info from you! Can you tell
              me more about what you meant here?

              You’d said, “What you’re saying seems analogous to saying that this history and some current observations mean that all women are inherently gold diggers…”

              What have I said about “all men” that is at all even close to being analogous? I def don’t think “all men” are anything that we could put a label on. And I also agree with you in your belief that most men do not mean harm (and I THINK I’ve stated that… I think?)

            • Hi Adrian,

              Oh, okay, I hear what you are saying. But I think I’m being very misunderstood! I do.

              But I also definitely don’t think you seem “dense” – at all. I’ve been giving only partial replies to your comments because you offer so much to chew on and consider.

              This might be long. I want to try to get it right this time, in explaining my point of view!

              Could you forget for right now about that part about males of species “overpowering” females, in order to ensure reproduction? I shouldn’t have even gone down that road, especially with strangers who don’t really know me and my outlook.

              [Also, disclaimer: I might end up sounding pushy here at times, here. In an effort to be direct and explain what my stance IS. I make no claims to be keeper of “the truth” that all must accept and agree with. This is my point of view. My desire is to explain it – not force agreement.]

              My point is one about biology. Not character.

              Penis-inside-vagina intercourse + ejaculation of SEMEN into women’s reproductive organs is a threat to female bodily health and wellness, in ways that it is not to males. This is due to biology, not culture OR character.
              The threat to the female BODY exists even when the MAN is a wonderful, thoughtful, respectful man.

              This doesn’t have to mean that intercourse is “bad” or “wrong”, and it certainly does not mean that MEN are “bad” or “wrong”. The ONLY part that I might judge as “bad” and “wrong” is the part where we try to cover-up or deny the facts of biology… pretend that things are not as they really are.

              I think it’s important to address the physical facts head on, in order to be able to shatter the more diffuse, lingering, non-specific “men are threatening” belief. I think we need to separate out the issues, and clarify them for both men AND women.

              I will give 2 examples here of physical consequences that I think we should remain aware of, to help explain what I mean:

              1. I work in gynecology. I see women come in repeatedly who have recurrent UTIs and BV infections – and sometimes yeast infections – as a result of having had intercourse a day or so prior. This also happened to me, personally, quite a bit when I was in my 30s. It’s not uncommon. I’m also not COMPLAINING about this, or trying to suggest that women are so “oppressed”, as another commenter had suggested! Ugh, these are just physical facts of life, that deserve to be recognized as basic facts of life, in my view, versus being HIDDEN away from view as if we’re living in some kind of repressed, puritanical “oh don’t talk about it!” sort of society.

              These are not sexually transmitted diseases, as you might be well aware of. They are common infections that are frequently instigated by intercourse, for females, due to the sensitivity of female anatomy, and other factors that I won’t bore you w/right now (and that you might already be aware of, anyways). Some women rarely, or never, encounter them. Others get one maybe once every few years or something. Others experience them EVERY time they have intercourse. There is no prevention (well, there are “steps” one can take to potentially diminish the instances of UTIs sometimes.) And this happens even to women who are married to the same great guy their entire lives – it’s not the result of a guy being a jerk, that’s for sure. It’s a fact of female reproductive organs, their sensitivity susceptibility – they are internal organs that, during intercourse, come into contact with an external organ that is covered in actual skin (and is therefore much more robust). This doesn’t mean women should be walking around all “woe is me” over it. It just means (in my view) that we should be willing to talk about the facts, and understand them.

              2. My husband, who happens to be one of the most thoughtful and compassionate men I know (but he’s also not a pansy – he’s a rough and tumble “dude”, as well… I hope I’m not offending anyone by saying this stuff, just trying to quickly paint the picture)… he is the furthest from a “dick”, to use the word that you used, than any human being I know, male or female. Despite that, if he ejaculates semen into the inside of my reproductive organs – he can potentially kill me. It’s just a fact of biology and how our bodies work.

              To provide a more tangible example, several years back I had to have an emergency surgery to remove an ectopic pregnancy. He was terrified because I’d almost died – and there was nothing he did “wrong”, he had no mean INTENTIONS. But semen inside female reproductive organs can – and does – have very serious consequences. It just does. And it doesn’t help to deny that fact of life or try to gloss over it. Most of us know at least a few women that this has happened to – a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy that requires surgery. It happens, it’s one of the risks of penis-inside-vagina intercourse, and of ejaculating semen into the inside of a woman’s reproductive organs. 100 years ago we would’ve died because of it (knowledge of that fact is a significant part of female psychology). Ejaculating semen elsewhere (some place other than on the inside of female reproductive organs) does not carry that same risk/threat. It’s the specific ejaculation LOCATION, in this case, that matters most. Not the man’s character or intentions, but the specific bodily location.

              In conclusion here: I think that knowledge of these bodily FACTS is deeply embedded in our female psyches and that the effects are far-reaching, but often misunderstood. Even common jokes about the wife “always having a headache” and complaints about wives never being “in the mood” might seem unrelated to some people – but I think they’re very much related, affect female fear and desire, and that we could make some progress by shining a more direct light onto the topic of biology and bodily construction/facts.

              I also believe that denying and trying to downplay the ways in which intercourse, like it or not, DOES cause unpleasant and dangerous consequence to the female body contributes to a more overall lingering of more non-specific fears about MEN being “threatening”.

              MEN are not the problem, in my opinion. MEN overall are NOT across-the-board “threatening”. It’s our bodies and health that we need to face more directly and be more honest about. Downplaying reality doesn’t help us (men and women) to shatter the misconceptions and non-specific irrational fears. Being more honest and forthcoming could help us to connect and move forward together.

            • Adrian, crap, sorry my previous reply ended up so darn long! I should’ve edited it down. Good luck wading through that monster of a “manifesto”, ha ha ha! Sorry. Ugh.

              I really want to be understood – and think I have something meaningful to offer, that could potentially help both men and women in this area, on this topic. Meanwhile, I’m admittedly NOT the most clear/concise writer, that’s for sure!

            • Sarah,

              I’m not sure where this post will land, but it’s in response to your 9:55 AM post from 7/9/13.

              I think we had some “clear only if known” stuff going on, at least from my end. When you spell out what you mean by threatening, it makes complete sense. I was at walking briskly toward conclusions that were a combination of my own sometimes justifiable defensiveness and a shorthand in your earlier comments. So no need to apologize for the length of your reply or for being determined to be understood. Your thoroughness and examples clarified your position quite well. Thanks again for making the effort to help a stranger on-line understand your perspective.

            • Mr Supertypo says:

              “But what about in our DESIGN and nature’s INTENTION for us? Isn’t the male of most species designed in order to be able to overpower the female, for the sake of reproduction and continuation of the species? ”

              Practically, born to rape. It sounds like the sexophobic second wave meme, all men are rapist, witch is not true.

              No its not the design of the nature to rape women, but to have sex with women, witch is different. Having sex with a woman, it requires she is aroused, witch make it easier to penetrate and easier to impregnate.

              And a penis is just a penis. Not a sword nor a missile. Just a penis. I like to ask you a question. Are you afraid of sex, do have any phobia surrounding the topic?

            • Sarah,

              I think you’ve said that male sexuality is by design a “real and rational threat”. You say repeatedly that many men are fine and decent people, yet it would seem from your comments that these fine and decent men are none the less threatening to women. Do I misunderstand? I can be dense.

              Or when you say “male” are you referring to men who are the problem, the men who frankly make it at least a bit more difficult and confounding for the rest of us who are not dicks, or at least not just dicks, to connect with a woman?

            • @Sarah

              “But what about in our DESIGN and nature’s INTENTION for us? Isn’t the male of most species designed in order to be able to overpower the female, for the sake of reproduction and continuation of the species? ”

              considering that in many species the female is significantly larger than the male…. no.

        • Hi Sarah
          This is so important! And I don’t think men grasp what you say here Sarah.
          Sex for woman is never “only sex”.
          And it is also a main difference between rape of a man an rape of a woman.
          Imagine rape historically when you are not on contraceptives. Even today many women are not on the pill,and no contraceptives are 100% safe.
          Women are vulnerable in a way totally different from men.

          • OirishM says:

            Imagine being raped, and then being charged child support. Oh wait, you don’t have to imagine. It happens. Read the survivors’ accounts. There are differences women usually don’t grasp either about the realities of being male and raped by a woman.

            We just want the rapes carried out by women acknowledged, legally, as rapes. Just because one rape is different from the next does not mean it is not rape.

          • Imagine rape historically when you are not on contraceptives. Even today many women are not on the pill,and no contraceptives are 100% safe.
            Women are vulnerable in a way totally different from men.

            That is very true. And while looking at rape from a historic angle there is a matter that even in this day and age it is still argued whether or not a female can rape a male. Again this is not to try to take away from the very real risks that women but to add in the very real risks that male face when it comes to rape.

            Or else we will just continue thinking and operating on the motion that since women face risks when it comes to sex its okay to ignore the risks that men face. (I’m wondering if there isn’t some irony in effect here. On one hand when it comes to gender we are told that it should not be a matter of “which side has it worse” but time and against when it comes to ignoring the risks that males face on many topics the ignorance is supported with the lists of risks that females face.)

            Like OirishM says we aren’t trying to reduce the conversation on the risks that women face when it comes to rape and sex. We just want the risks that men face when it comes to rape and sex to be acknowledged in their own right rather than the usual act of pushing them aside because of the risks that women face.

            Or simply put how are the harms and risks that females face when it comes to rape and sex diminished by acknowledging the harms and risks that males face?

            • Hi Danny
              Being on this website has educated me about lots of things,like the high percentage of male incels and the rape of men. And I am thankful that men tell us about it and all the harm it does.

              As a women I do NOT see rape of men less serious than rape of women,but my guess is that we experience it differently. One is not more gruesome than than the other,but they are not the same.

              And it would surprise me if our sexual orientation did not explain some of the difference in how experience rape.

              Imagine a gay man raped by a man, this can happen in various ways as we know.
              Imagine a heterosexual man raped by a man( let’s say anal ).
              Imagine a lesbian women raped by a man or a woman.
              Imagine a heterosexual woman raped by vaginal penetration by a man.

              Maybe I am totally naive,but I think one of the things that what hurts it most long term is a rape that happens the same way as you like to have sex when you make love.

              But I am not a rape victims,so I maybe totally wrong.

              And of course there are all sorts of other long terms destructive effects of any kind of rape,that is why it is used in wars and used when a person what to destroy another or other men’s women for life.
              I wonder what theories say about women that rape men? Why do they do it? Do we know anything about that?

              I once spoke with a woman that sold sex as young, she said she did it to take revenge on men because she was sexually abused by her step father as a child. This was her revenge,
              But that was prostitution and not rape, but her intent was to harm.

            • OirishM says:

              For the same reason as men rape women, Iben – power.

            • Imagine a gay man raped by a man, this can happen in various ways as we know.
              Imagine a heterosexual man raped by a man( let’s say anal ).
              Imagine a lesbian women raped by a man or a woman.
              Imagine a heterosexual woman raped by vaginal penetration by a man.

              Maybe I am totally naive,but I think one of the things that what hurts it most long term is a rape that happens the same way as you like to have sex when you make love.

              This is pointless. There are so many individual reactions to being raped that trying to set up a model of which is worse is, well, pointless, and quite harmful to those victims that feel traumatized, but are on the “bottom” of such a ranking.

            • As a women I do NOT see rape of men less serious than rape of women,but my guess is that we experience it differently. One is not more gruesome than than the other,but they are not the same.
              Agreed. Considering how the experience varies from woman to woman or man to man there is not question that there will be differences once you start looking at differences in gender (and not just the victim but the assailant as well).

              Maybe I am totally naive,but I think one of the things that what hurts it most long term is a rape that happens the same way as you like to have sex when you make love.
              I can agree with the idea that being raped in a manner that matches your sexual orientation would be quite painful just as it would be quite painful to be raped in a way that is not your orientation. I think this is one factor that would cause the variances in the way different people experience rape you mention above.

              I wonder what theories say about women that rape men? Why do they do it? Do we know anything about that?
              I would imagine for reasons similar to other forms of rape. Power, control, entitlement, etc…

              But I honestly find your line of questioning odd here. I wonder if you ask this as if men raping women has been thoroughly examined (and now we just need to work on stopping it) while women raping men is some mysterious phenomenon that is just emerging from the the unknown.

              I once spoke with a woman that sold sex as young, she said she did it to take revenge on men because she was sexually abused by her step father as a child. This was her revenge,
              But that was prostitution and not rape, but her intent was to harm.

              I don’t have exact numbers on it but I recall reading a while back a noticeable number of male offenders that are in prison witnessed abuse while growing up or were abused themselves. One thing that seems to get overlooked is how much of that abuse was at the hands of women. Who is to say that some of the men out there that commit sex crimes are not striking out in their own quest for revenge for things done to them in their past?

              I think things like this don’t get counted too often because when talking about male abusers that witnessed abuse or were abused when younger the presumption is that those the abuse they saw/suffered was male perpetrated. While that may be true there could be some thought processes like, “Dad abused me and mom didn’t lift a finger to help.” and thus the desire to harm women now to make up for it or to take revenge.

              And no this is not some way of percieving women as weak and thus targetting them over men. This is pure and simple, “YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO HELP ME BUT YOU DIDN’T!!!!” (That’s not to yell at you but just a way to express anger and pain.). Avenging betrayal committed by the mother.

              Now you may question how these things can happen but I think this goes back to gender roles. Males are often taught to embrace violence. So it shouldn’t be that hard to consider the idea that a male would take up such violence against women as a way to relate to women.

              Unfortunately I think things like this get buried all too quickly in the rush to treat male against female violence as something that males are taught through senses of entitlement and privilege, thus leaving little to no room for consideration for the idea that the violence may be being used as a way to right a wrong so to speak.

          • Mostly_123 says:

            Pregnacy aside, STDs are a hazard (a life threatening hazard) to both men and women alike, so in that sense at least, sex is not “only sex” for men either.

            • Mostly_123 says:

              I also feel inclined to point out once again that ‘sex ISN’T rape or assault’ – Fear of rape/assault is not the same as fear of sex; though both can result in undesired pregnancy.

          • Thanks, Turid. I get the feeling some people think I’m bashing men here. Which is not my intention – at all. I love the men I in my life and freaking detest man-bashing!!!

            My wish is that we can each (men and women) really see and honor one another, according to the actual biological realities that we each face and live with, inside our very differently functioning (differently affected) bodies. Versus dismissing or covering-up our true physical realities, in favor of more pleasant sugar-coated versions of how we wish things were instead, or how our current culture tells us things “should be”.

            • OirishM says:

              Versus dismissing or covering-up our true physical realities, in favor of more pleasant sugar-coated versions of how we wish things were instead, or how our current culture tells us things “should be”.

              But that’s what we DO, as humans. Because we AREN’T slaves to what nature dictates. According to nature a vast number of us would die off young from tooth disease, or crap eyesight, or heart defects. But we overcome them.

              I see your appeal to the supposed natural “intentions” of threatening male sexuality and that we should see it that way as no different to someone saying we shouldn’t have dentistry because nature intended our teeth to rot and kill us in our twenties.

            • Personally I really like your analogy about nature “intending that our teeth to rot”. But I don’t agree with the statement that we therefore “shouldn’t have dentistry”!!! That is not in line with MY logic.

              I agree with you that we are NOT slaves to what nature dictates. Totally! So true, in my view.

              But if a dentist (for example) DENIES what nature dictates re: our teeth and gums, how on earth can he help to overcome it?

              If we first acknowledge the fundamental realities, we then know what it is that we are not willing to accept.

            • Ugh sorry my last comment (re: dentistry analogy) was NOT worded well. I was typing quickly via my phone. Sorry and hope it kinda makes sense??!

            • OirishM says:

              You are making value judgements, using human values, on an inanimate process. You are saying we should see human male sexuality as threatening because “nature intended it that way”.

              Do you have any idea, Sarah, the amount of SHIT that has been inflicted on the human race because of ideas like yours? Scientific racism. The holocaust. Basically anything with a eugenic or social-Darwinist bent.

              No, I will not, as a man, march meekly and blindly into that sort of thinking about myself. You are saying the gender equivalent of “it’s in the nature of black people to steal”. Frankly, I couldn’t care even if you WERE right. We do not treat people that way. We haven’t for every other inequality we’ve faced over superficial qualities. We treat people as individuals and not on what statistics or “nature” (read: junk science) says about us.

              And if you really and truly sought equality, you would encourage the same thing be done for men, instead of playing naturalistic fallacy and oppression olympics.

            • OirishM, shoot, sorry. I really didn’t mean to upset you, personally, with my individual point of view and ideas. I’m really just one individual human being, making no claims of being some special keeper of “the truth”. And it’s okay with me if you hold views that differ from mine. By expressing myself I’m not insisting that you agree with me!

              I respect your right to your own individual point of view and ideas. I am hearing you and giving consideration to everything you’re saying, even if I don’t instantly AGREE with you!

            • Oirish, hey also – I think I do encourage the same thing being done for men. Truly.

              I think it’s really important to closely examine how the male body is constructed, and also how “wiring” (again I’m using that word really loosely, as shorthand) that helped us to survive in the past still exists inside of us now, despite the very DIFFERENT conditions that many of us live in today, in the modern developed world.

              I think we need to honor and show RESPECT to male bodies, male psychology, and male feelings/hopes/fears in the ways that they differ from the female. The demonization of male feelings and sexuality is very unfair to males, doesn’t help females, either, and is offensive to me – hence my interest in this discussion.

              I believe in my heart that much can be gained by taking an honest look at both male and female, our biology and history, and that we have a shot at making things better by doing so. Via neutral observation. The extremes of denying physical realities (for both men and women) and/or demonizing them – or worse, demonizing individuals due to consequences of bodily construction – are not of interest to me, personally.

              Again, you are free to disagree with me, or dismiss my point of view, if it seem of no use or value to you. It’s not my desire to force agreement on anyone. Only to speak up and add my voice to the discussion, in an effort to increase understanding of male and female bodies and feelings.

              I’m female, so I have more to say about female bodies and psychology. I’m relying on you guys (and other men, and authors and researchers) and YOUR expressions regarding male bodies and feelings, to aid me in my overall understanding.

          • Mr Supertypo says:


            “This is so important! And I don’t think men grasp what you say here Sarah.
            Sex for woman is never “only sex”.”

            How do you know? you cannot speak for all women, nor you know all women. So maybe for YOU sex is never sex, but this may not be true for everyone else.

            “And it is also a main difference between rape of a man an rape of a woman.”

            that up to the victim to define…. I know its hard to believe or understand. Maybe because of how people have been raised or indoctrinated by the society. But women rape men also. And it is exactly the same. There is no way in heaven or earth that somebody can declare one is worse than the other. Rape is rape, and the gender of the raped person is secondary.

            “Imagine rape historically when you are not on contraceptives. Even today many women are not on the pill,and no contraceptives are 100% safe.”

            True and I like to add, nothing is 100% safe.

            “Women are vulnerable in a way totally different from men.”

            True but there is no way how this can or should put man rape in ignore or queue. Both need to be dealt with equally. Otherwise we will only create more social imbalance, and making it harder to fix later.

        • OirishM says:

          Penises are weapons even when we love you?

          That’s a bit of a contradiction in terms, if not veering into outright misandry.

          • I don’t think it’s a contradiction. Physical realities of our bodies (and the will/intention of nature) can carry on in a direction that’s independent of, or even in opposition to our personal sentiments and will. I can genuimely love you – but then also unintentionally transfer a deadly illness to you by coughing on you while I’m hugging you, for example. My intention may’ve been to express affection – the outcome could, in reality, cause you suffering and harm.

            Stated differently: consequence does not always indicate or reflect the sentiments or intentions in someone’s heart. Being aware of – and honest about – common and natural consequences to ourselves and others I think gives us a better shot at aligning our intentions and actual consequences and outcomes that occur.

            • OirishM says:

              “Stated differently” is right. Might want to use that language in future.

              Someone who describes male body parts as akin to weaponry – doesn’t exactly scream “good faith”.

            • I’m using that as metaphor only. Regarding biology and natural physical CONSEQUENCES – not human INTENTIONS.

              I didn’t invent human biology, and human reproductive life/death realities. :)

              If it was up to me, and I could reinvent human bodies, I would opt to eliminate a lot of the physical pain and suffering, injury, and death that results from intercourse, pregnancy and childbirth.

            • OirishM says:

              Weapons necessitate human intent. A sword is nothing without a human wielding it. If your intent was not to refer to intentions, then a different metaphor may be required.

              I’m trying to get you to stop and to listen to what is actually being said to you here, because continued use of that analogy demonstrates an apparent failure to communicate. And frankly, it’s a pretty offensive one, and I have every expectation I’d be pilloried if I spoke of female anatomy in similar terms.

            • Oops yeah, it wouldn’t apply to female anatomy. Because females do not insert an organ of their bodies into the INSIDE a delicate organ of men’s bodies, then shoot a fluid into the inside of that organ, a fluid that can cause a new human being to grow inside of the man’s body, and that can cause serious complication and even death.

              I get what you mean about a weapon is nothing without intent. A sword is an inanimate object. Our bodies are not. We have intentions. But NATURE also has intentions and objectives. Nature “wields” the sword in this analogy. An example: my very loving (and super awesome!) husband can ejaculate semen into my reproductive organs with nothing but good intentions. However, despite his awesomeness, he’s not an omnipotent “God”. The reality is that that semen can lead to, as one example, an ectopic pregnancy (a situation that is not all that uncommon), that can kill me. Not as certainly as it would’ve 100 years ago. But you probably get my point.

              Nature is powerful – and has it’s own objectives, “intentions” and reasons for “wielding the sword”. Don’t you think?

              But that’s not the fault, or doing of men, specifically. Or women, specifically. It’s nature and the basic design of our physical bodies. What can ya’ do?

            • OirishM says:

              No, nature is not a person. The only agents with intent here are the men whose body parts you have offensively referred to as weaponry.

              As for female anatomy, see the point earlier about STDs being passed on from females, I’ll also raise social consequences as a result of sex like child support again.

              I keep giving you the chance to retract your offensive analogy or at least to highlight how your analogy might come across as offensive to men, but instead of acknowledge that you’d rather keep digging yourself into a hole. If that’s what you really want to do, can’t help you there.

        • Jack Pine says:

          Unharmed physically.

      • Partly puritan, yes, but even what we term as “puritan” when it comes to attitudes to sex is older than “puritan” when we refer to the Seventeenth Century sect of religion – even the Pagan Romans were offended by the sexual expressiveness of the Pagan Greeks when they first invaded, so it’s not purely a Judeo-Christian thing even; and so what’s going on currently could be seen in terms of a long-term historical perspective, but can be seen as part of a short-term cycle. I just finished writing the first draft of a short play and as I was writing it I thought this feels very old school; very Seventies! And I realized that part of it’s retro feel was because it dealt with Sexual repression in a way a lot of plays in the Seventies did; nowadays there’s a lot more plays in which there is either an attitude that there is no problem (aren’t we free; isn’t it wonderful?), and there’s others in which we are lectured about the dangers of sexual excess (sex can be bad you know. Which fair dos; it can be. That’s not a false message), but sexual repression isn’t dealt with that much – we’re either adequately free, or too free, as it were. So I was wondering if this isn’t just part of a cycle; during the sixties and seventies the zeitgeist was sexual repression is bad, let’s liberate ourselves, and there is a cultural attempt now to put that genie back in the bottle. The repression of the nineteenth century was a response to the libertine eighteenth century. Maybe our demonization of sex itself (not purely the het-male, but het-male is an easy target. It’s the one no one particularly vocal gets upset about. In fact getting upset about it only proves the detractors right. “See, you do over rate the importance of sex. You’re back to that topic again!”) right now is a response to our glorification of it in a previous generation. Almost as if we only have two boxes in our head; things that are bad and things that are good – sugar is bad, bran is good, drugs are bad, exercise is good, art is good, science is bad. Monochromatic polarised thinking always seems to have the loudest voice even though it’s almost always the most patently wrong.

  11. Hanibal says:

    No doubt there are many, many men that have far less promiscuous inclinations than men in general are perceived to have. However, there is a way of reasoning I have seen in arguments made by others claiming most men are not all that interested in many sex partners that is faulty. They either look at the preferences given by men in surveys or how many partners they have. How many partners men actually have tells us little because most men don`t have the oportunity to have many. How many partners men say they want in surveys don`t necessarily tell us all that much either because people change their preferences based on what is available to them. If one looks at men that actually have the possiblity to have many sex partners without commitment, one finds a lot more cassanovas than one finds men saying they would like to have been cassanovas if they could. I have seen a couple of men with few options that eventually become highly sought after by women and suddenly just having a girlfriend was not enough but they wanted to play the field in stead.

  12. Hanibal says:

    But yeah, it is a very important point that a vast group of men probably just wants a girlfriend or wife. Many men don`t enjoy casual sex or are ok with it but don`t really desire it all that much.

    • Jack Pine says:

      What kind and how much sex a person wants changes over a lifetime. Most people, as I see it, want to explore when they’re young and find security when they’re old.

      • @Jack Pine…

        Since I had limited partners and sex when I was young, I now explore all the time at age 50. Love it!

        • [email protected] says:

          Pretty much how it’s gone for me, too. Until age 35 I had extremely few (read: one) sex partner. Now I’m 37 and in the last two years I’ve somehow ‘figured it out’. Largely the antidepressant. But other things too. Glad I’m not married. So much to learn about people. Far too much to have learned by, say, age 25.

      • FlyingKal says:

        @Jack Pine:
        What kind and how much sex a person wants changes over a lifetime. Most people, as I see it, want to explore when they’re young and find security when they’re old.

        I think most people, or at least far more people than we think, would be happy to do most of the exploration with a single partner who gets them and be happy to share the explorations with them.
        Diversity in partners doesn’t necessarily (or when you’re young, not even probably) mean diversity in experience, if those partners are equally minded and (un)experienced.

  13. Mostly_123 says:

    ‘Fear’ is a very loaded word.
    Bias, disdain, resentment, and hate all connote an arbitrary measure of cruel selfishness; whereas ‘fear’ connotes self-awareness & self-preservation. Because of this, fear is often used to justify and legitimize prejudice- a justifiable fear (and really, what fears can’t be justified, in some way) can be used to justify, rationalize, or even enshrine a prejudice. But so many people seem to forget that understanding and/or rationalizing a prejudice is NOT, and should not be the END of the process, it’s only the middle.

    The end of the process should be overcoming the prejudice- one might need to understand a prejudice first, and even rationalize it existence to themselves; but that’s not the end, and I think too many people conveniently forget that, and are more than happy to quit there. Stopping there in the middle like that ensures a perpetual cycle of hate & fear. Indeed, it has reified it; it’s elevated the fear/hate to something normal, healthy, expected, and sustainable- not something to be deconstructed and overcome.

    People like to feel good; and though it feels bad to fear or to hate, it feels GOOD have the satisfaction, the piece of mind, that comes from knowing that that fear or hate IS somehow justified; and finding that satisfaction, they stop there. But it takes a lot more work, reflection and introspection to explore and overcome a prejudice; it’s an open-ended commitment with no guarantees, and moreover, unlike a prejudice, it puts the onus squarely on us, rather than the thing we’ve become comfortably prejudiced against. And a lot of the time, that DOESN’T feel good; it feels like work. It takes more effort to overcome something than it does to accommodate something.   

    It’s much easier to justify prejudices than it is to transcend them. So sometimes, it’s not enough to just validate someone else’s fear or prejudice – that just normalizes, enables, and perpetuates it. It’s not always possible (or wise) to validate someone who holds a rigid perspective to the degree that they want & expect to be validated; unless you’re looking at things through the same ideological prism.

  14. Mr Supertypo says:


  15. Great response to the earlier article. And one additional thing occurs to me: why women and men think “all women are like this, all men are like that”.

    Until you’ve found the one person who gets you and you’re off the market, the people you’ll encounter are the ones you meet. For women, that’s mostly going to be douchebag players. Even though they make up a smaller portion of the population, if you’re idea of a good night is to go out to a loud club and be talked to by the guy you think is hot, then you’re going to end up with a lot of guys hitting on you who are the type who go to clubs with the goal of hitting on girls.

    Guys who aren’t really into that aren’t going to be there.

    On the other side, if you’re a guy and aren’t really into meeting strange women at a club, then if that’s where you go to meet women, you’re going to meet women whose strategies are dictated by the kinds of guys they usually meet. If you don’t do what those guys do, you’re going to get shut down, and if you do, those women are going to expect you to be like all of the other guys they typically meet, especially if you go after only the absolute hottest women.

    Seems to me that maybe a good strategy for breaking this part of the cycle is to bring back the idea of meeting people through friends, and add to that meeting people through hobbies. It isn’t perfect, but at least it give the opportunity to get to know someone and have something real in common and have a legitimate conversation.

  16. Fran Miller says:

    You lost me in the first paragraph by putting a rapist and a pedophile in the same sentence.

  17. You have some really good ideas!! I personally don’t like the words “real man”, to me it’s demeaning to men. Growing up I always heard people saying real men do this and real men don’t do that. After moving out on my own I would hear from the women in the dating scene that there are no real men anymore. This last really frustrated me at first cause I’d be thinking “I’m trying to have a conversation with you to see if I like you and your whining about men?? If there are no real men left than what I’m I? Chopped liver??”. Eventually I’d tell them I’m not a psychologist so take a hike! I really do think that media would help in this matter. For there are enough commercials making men out to be idiots.

  18. Sorry I posted my previous comment under the wrong article.

  19. Didn’t know where to post this, but it annoyed me, so I had to share.

    This is an article about everyday sexism, and centres around teenage boys (the article insists on calling them young men, but they’re 17! They’re hardly men) being obnoxious vulgar sexist jerks. I kind of think this says more about teenagers than men, but there we go. Nevertheless it’s unpleasant, I have no problem with that. However the journalist takes time out from this anecdote to declare that “misandryism isn’t a thing.” How does the existence of misogyny disprove the existence of misandry?

    Just wanted to share my anger, is all! :-) I have commented there, of course, I just thought it was relevant to this discussion to flag up.

    • How does the existence of misogyny disprove the existence of misandry?
      The common “proof” is that since the things that are seen as misandry are actually side effects of misogyny those thing really aren’t hateful towards men.

      For example parenting. According to their line of thought the ways in which men are conditioned away from parenting on the premise that their place is to work outside the home aren’t the problem. No the problem is that women are conditioned into parenting on the premise that their place is to care for children. Therefore while men are conditioned away from parenting the only reason it happens is because its a side effect of conditioning women (as in “well if the women are caring for the kids then who is left to do all the other work?”).

      In short those things aren’t misandry because they aren’t meant to harm men, they are just collateral damage of trying to limit and harm women.

      Yes its total bull but that is the explanation.

  20. One of the worst things I did when I was trying to build confidence about my male identity was to read studies about the penis sizes of different ethnic groups. What I was trying to do was to make sure that my penis size was normal somewhere in the world. For me I needed to know that in some area I would be doing better or at least be the same as a large group of people. I was so involved with my own concept of self-image that I completely lost sight of the racism that I was producing in order to fight the image of a man who is not a virgin.

  21. Sarah,

    You have been extraordinarily respectful, honest and kind. Even when facing some pretty disgusting condescension. Thank you, brave heart.


  22. You know I was going to tell you…oh hang on, seven seconds are up, I need to think about sex…
    I was going to say that in this modern world…ooh, I’ll put a ring on it baby yeah. Sorry! That stereotypes are there for a reason, after all…hang on, ooh yes, this cup of tea is hot, smoking hot! What I mean to say is that you can’t just blame the media….my goodness I never knew computer screens were so alluring–oh for goodness sake how am I supposed to get anything done around here!

    • Nah, it’s just the regular American men, always afraid, always having to prove how much of a beast he is. He has to say he only thinks about sex, he has to scream out loud he thinks women were created only for his manly desires (it’s really a lot more common for the straight guy to act/think/talk like that), he has a lot to “prove” – and his sexuality is the base of his character, personality and life.
      Very usual for them; I don’t see this behavior at all in the men of my Country or, at least, not more than in the women.

  23. I agree with all your points but several of them allude to there something being wrong with men who do want to play the field and enjoy more than one sexual partner at one time. I think society should get used to the idea that there isn’t anything wrong with that, as it is possible to do it ethically and honestly without hurting anyone. Then there’s the flip side that equal numbers of women also enjoy being promiscuous.

  24. Screw you. I’m not a spammer

  25. I think you have it wrong.
    ALL sexuality is threatening, because we can’t control it. Just take a look at history… we want nothing more then to control sex.


  1. […] This comment was by Mostly_123 on the post Male Sexuality is Threatening Because We Don’t Understand It. […]

  2. […]       “Male Sexuality is Threatening Because We Don’t Understand It” by Andrew Smiler (Sex and Culture, Sociology) […]

Speak Your Mind