For Harris O’Malley, being willing to admit that he was interested in sex – and understanding that yes, women liked it as much as he did – made his relationships more authentic, and sex more collaborative.
Originally appeared at Paging Dr. NerdLove
I like sex.
I realize that this is the sort of declaration that ranks right up there in obviousness as “Hey, the sun rises in the east!” and “water’s a bit wet, i’nit?” but stick with me here, I have a point I’m getting to.
I’ve been reading Clarisse Thorne’s “Confessions of a Pickup Artist Chaser
When I was younger and less experienced – back in the bad old days – I liked sex but didn’t really know much about it. Less of a case of not understanding the mechanics or only routine in my repertoire being “writing letters with my tongue” but about human sexuality. I had absorbed a lot of misinformation about sex and sexuality from the culture I grew up in, especially as a white, hetero, cisgendered male. As far as I knew, sex was something of a transaction: guys bargained, cajoled, argued, convinced, begged or otherwise persuaded women into performing some sex act – ideally some penis-in-vagina action – and women would give in. Sometimes reluctantly, sometimes with enthusiasm but rarely without some form of negotiation. The fact that men wanted sex was something of an inconvenience at best, something actually shameful at worst. Being called a pervert – if, say, you were caught watching Porky’s, Embrace of the Vampire or the Phoebe Cates scene from Fast Times at Ridgemont High – was among the worst things you could label a guy.
After losing my virginity, I was – I shit you not - shocked when my girlfriend was interested in having sex again… like, the very next day. Without my having to put on a production or anything! Oh, what brave new world that had such people in it!
Still, even after being introduced to a world where women actually -gasp- enjoyed sex, I still clung to the belief that men were the horny ones and women had to be persuaded – which is to say, turned on or seduced – into wanting sex in equal measure. This colored a lot of my interactions with women, especially with how I was going about trying to convince them to go out on a date (and then, ideally, come home) with me. I wasn’t seeing sex – or romance, for that matter – in terms of “here’s a fun thing we can both enjoy”, I was seeing it as “what do I have to do to get you to sleep with me.” It was an adversarial process – one encouraged by society at large – and one that simultaneously demonized and praised male sexuality while insisting that female sexuality was less important, if it existed at all.
|
I wasn’t seeing sex – or romance, for that matter – in terms of “here’s a fun thing we can both enjoy”, I was seeing it as “what do I have to do to get you to sleep with me.” It was an adversarial process…
|
Dating was a ritualized kabuki dance; while we both knew that sex was a possibility, I had to take care to not express any overt interest in it lest I look like a pervert who Only Wanted One Thing. I had to display enough value in order to make it worth her time to give me the opportunity to try to persuade her into sleeping with me. It was exhausting and it meant that I wasn’t treating her as a person but as a vault whose combination I had to learn in order to get inside.
And from talking to my friends… I was decidedly not the only one who felt that way. We all felt the annoyance that we had to pretend that we didn’t want what we so obviously did and the frustration that women just didn’t know what it was like for guys. Men and women were just too different.
It took quite a bit of effort to break out of the antagonistic view of sex and realize that a) women were sexual beings too and b) it was ok to want sex. The problem wasn’t the interest, the problem was the way that we were all taught to go about getting it.
THE PARADOX OF MALE SEXUALITY
The way our culture defines male sexuality is problematic to say the least. We’re constantly beset with conflicting messages about just how a man is supposed to be, sexually. Male sexuality is equally something to be scoffed at, ashamed of and celebrated… as long as you don’t deviate from the accepted norm.
On the one hand, male sexuality is portrayed as one of constant horniness. Men are supposed to get rock-hard erections at the merest hint of stimulus (such as, say, a stiff breeze…) and ready to go at the drop of a bra – we don’t need no silly “foreplay” or anything so silly as “setting the mood”. One common joke: “How do excite your man? Show up.” The other joke-but-not-really is that men are so horny and oversexed that they’d fuck spongecake if it was warm enough.
Or an apple pie, for that matter.
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.
For a man, according to the common message, sex is the alpha and omega of our lives. If you’re not interested in sex, you are not a man. We will do almost anything in the name of getting laid – travelling across the country on the hint that we might have sex (The Sure Thing, Euro Trip, Sex Drive), subject ourselves to any number of indignities (The Last American Virgin), lie about who we are (Wedding Crashers) or what we do (ditto) or make any number of promises we may or may not have intend to keep (Paradise By The Dashboard Light). Sex is a part of everything we do as men.
Come on, rockets look like that because WE WANT TO FUCK SPACE!
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.
Men are expected to want to fuck as many women ((I mention women specifically because male sexuality is still predominately defined as heterosexual. Gay men are also frequently seen – and portrayed – as wildly promiscuous, but this is frequently held against them.)) as possible; restricting oneself to just a single woman is jokingly referred to being “tied down”. Any number of people will happily provide any number of reasons and explanations – ranging from evolutionary psychology to the effects of testosterone – as to why men should not be expected to be monogamous and should instead be free to spread their seed as far and wide as possible. Sleeping with as large a number of women as possible is something to be celebrated – certain celebrities (Wilt Chamberlain, Gene Simmons, Hugh Hefner, Warren Beatty) are known for their level of promiscuity as much as for their professional accomplishments. The higher the number… well, the more manly you are.
Of course, this glory only fits within specific standards. It doesn’t count if you’re sleeping with women who fall outside the conventional definition of beauty1. If your desires fall outside of the accepted stereotype – most commonly young and busty with a narrow waist and long tapered legs – well there’s something wrong with you. If you are attracted to, say, heavy women or older women… well, that’s fodder for comedy right there because real men aren’t into that.
And if you’re a virgin more than a few months past puberty… well shit son, something must be wrong with you, because a man is not a virgin! Men get laid.
|
…Male sexuality is commonly portrayed as awkward, buffoonish or barely restrained animal instinct. In film, television and comics, sex makes people stupid.
|
At the same time, however, male sexuality is also seen as a joke or even something to be ashamed of. Ignoring more extreme ends of the spectrum such as Andrea Dworkin’s Intercourse, male sexuality is commonly portrayed as awkward, buffoonish or barely restrained animal instinct. In film, television and comics, sex makes people stupid. The womanizer characters are often also either the moron or the man-child. Men can’t hold a conversation with a woman without attempting to look down her shirt, can barely spit out two sentences to a woman who he finds attractive without making a Freudian reference to her breasts, vagina or having sex. The man who has lots of sex partners is shown to have something wrong with him, emotionally and needs a Good Woman to heal him and teach him the wonders of monogamy. Women were disturbed, even disgusted by any noticeable expression of sexual interest whether verbal or physical (inopportune erections, anyone) and yet the man simply can’t help himself.
Being told simultaneously that you were supposed to be a stud and that women found sex icky does notmake for a well-balanced view of sex growing up.
Not, mind you, that women have it any easier.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN “WOMEN LIKE SEX TOO”??
You wouldn’t think it, but the idea that women are sexual beings, with wants, lusts and needs just like men, can be a difficult concept to wrap one’s head around. We live in a society where we are taught that men and women are diametrically opposed by their very nature; men want sex, women want love. Men are logical, women are emotional, etc.
On it’s face you would think that this would be self-evident, but growing up I – and damn near everybody else – were implicitly taught that women were not sexual the way that men were. Men might crave sex but women… women, we are taught, tolerate it. Since the Victorian era, it has been axiomatic that “real” women were chaste and endured sex because it was her womanly duty. Hell, until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, women liking, even wanting sex was considered to be a symptom of hysteria. Even with the Free Love era of the 60s and the Sexual Revolution of the 70s, female sexuality was still defined by a man’s needs first and foremost.
These days, women are subject to the same paradoxical treatment of sexuality that men are. Women are supposed to enjoy sex, but almost as a performance for men. They’re taught to walk a thin line: “be sexy… but in this very specific way.” Fashion and trends in clothing encourage a very particular body type and to decorate it and display it in pre-approved manners. Express your sexuality, but only in these particular ways. Fit yourself into this very narrow mold and you will be rewarded by men But for all that our culture says women are supposed to be sexy, they’re not supposed to be sexual. To be sexual is to like sex a little too much. Liking it too much means you’re giving it away too easily and we all know the label afforded to women who give up the goods too early or to readily…
Even now, the woman who craves sex, has more than one partner at a time or is interested in non-procreative sex (anal sex, fetishes or kink) is frequently shown in pop culture to be in equal turns untrustworthy, damaged or a figure to be laughed at.
And of course, there’s still that persistant voice in western culture that insists that sex is dirty and shameful and should only be shared with someone you love in the bonds of holy matrimony.
Considering the tightrope that society demands they walk, it’s small wonder that many women have a hard time coming to terms with their own sexuality. Even in this day and age, it’s still incredibly common for women to not know what makes them orgasm until their 20s or even 30s.
This schizoid view of female sexuality – that women should like sex, but only in specific ways following particular models – contributes to the fucked-upedness of our sex-negative culture and the antagonistic way that we see sexual relations. It’s one thing to be able to acknowledge, intellectually, that yes, women were sexual beings just like men were, that women liked sex, even wanted sex the same way that men did. It’s another to be able to internalize it.
THE COMMODITY MARKET OF SEX
For me, 20+ years of conditioning was hard to shake off. I had bought into the commercial, antagonistic view of sexuality and it colored the way I approached women and sexual relationships.
The way that western culture approaches sex – even in this enlightened age, with vibrators for sale in your local Walgreens and where sex-tapes make people instant celebrities overnight – is to treat it as a commodity. Sex as goods. Women have it, men want it and the market sets the price. It’s a zero-sum game – the more a woman gives away, the less she’s worth, therefore she needs to hold sex in reserve in order to get the best price for it.
Like this, only with vaginas
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.
Women -so the cultural model goes – are expected to hold out to get as much as they can: financial security, romance, relationships, marriage and children. If they sell their goods – sex – too cheaply, too quickly or too often to too many people, the laws of supply and demand define her as being “devalued”; i.e. a slut.
Men, on the other hand, are expected to get as much as they possibly can for as low of an investment as possible. A man who pays too much for too little – someone who can’t “seal the deal” quickly or who don’t get sufficient levels of sex (either from one partner or many) in exchange for a relationship” – is seen as less of a man. A “pussy” even, because what could be more insulting for a man than to be compared to female genitalia?
Even the Nice Guys fall into the commodity frame of sex; they view sex (or, more euphemistically, a “relationship”) as something that is rightfully theirs as long as they collect enough Nice Guy tokens. Once they have enough, they can redeem their tokens in exchange for the sex that they’ve been working towards.
The commodification of sexuality is an inherently antagonistic system that treats men and women as fundamentally different and sets them in opposition – the “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus” model if you will. The idea that sex is a matter of winning and losing even permeates our language. When men have sex they “get some”, or “get lucky” or “seal the deal.” Women “give it up” or “give it away” or “surrender to him”. We talk about the “thrill of the chase”. Pickup artists refer to meeting and seducing as “The Game” – with it’s inherent implication that there is a winner and a loser and the loser is the one who gives in.
In addition, it by it’s very nature stipulates that sex is only valued due to it’s scarcity – which in turn means that a woman is only worth as much as the sex she doesn’t have. A woman in this model who “gives it up” too easily or too freely or too often is seen as worth less. Men are taught that a woman who is easily seduced is not a “high-value asset”; after all, if she gave it up her precious commodity so easily once, how many othertimes has she handed it out? At the same time, there is an expiration date; the goods are worth more the newer it is. Past a certain point… well, it’s hardly worth anything, now is it?
The commodity market model also doesn’t allow for anything other than a value-for-value exchange. It by it’s nature dismisses anything that falls outside of this frame. A woman who enjoys sex for it’s own sake are treated as shameful sluts and are worth less than “pristine” virgins. A man who might be monogamous by nature or might want greater levels of intimacy before sex is seen as a freak.
SEX AS COLLABORATION
When I was starting to make my transformation, I wasn’t consciously thinking about the transaction frame that defined sex for me at the time; I was thinking about concepts that the PUA community would dub “Demonstrations of Higher Value” - evidence that would convince women that I was “worthy” of being given sex… because it wasn’t like there were that many women who just liked sex for it’s own sake, right?
Changing the ways that I thought about sex took a lot of work. The first step – accepting that women liked sex too – was the hardest; I still had literal decades of cultural indoctrination to overcome. Part of what helped was a female friend of mine handing me a copy of My Secret Garden by Nancy Friday, which compiled various women’s fantasies as an overview of female sexuality. From there it was a matter of education and a willingness to question a lot of what I thought I knew. I did a lot of reading about human sexuality and a lotof discussions with my partners… not just about what I did that convinced them to go to bed with me, but about how they felt about sex and how and when their attitudes developed or changed.
And it helped. A lot.
There’s an excellent essay by Thomas MacAullay Millar called “Toward a Performance Model of Sex” that sums up the idea of a collaborative model of sex brilliantly, using the metaphor of musical performance:
The commodity model assumes that when a woman has sex, she loses something of value. If she engages in too much sex, she will be left with nothing of value. It further assumes that sex earlier in her history is more valuable than sex later…. But a musician’s first halting notes at age thirteen in the basement are not something of particular value. Only an obsessive completist would want a recording of a young musician’s practice before she knew what she was doing… She gets better by learning, by playing a lot, by playing with different people that are better than she is. She reaches the height of her powers in the prime of her life, as an experienced musician, confident in her style and conversant in her material. Her experience and proven talent are precisely why she is valued.
Because it centers on collaboration, a performance model better fits the conventional feminist wisdom that consent is not the absence of “no,” but affirmative participation. Who picks up a guitar and jams with a bassist who just stands there? Who dances with a partner who is just standing and staring? In the absence of affirmative participation, there is no collaboration.
Like the commodity model the performance model implies a negotiation, but not an unequal or adversarial one… Musicians have to choose, explicitly or implicitly, what they are going to play: genre, song, key and interpretation. The palette available to them is their entire skill set… Two musicians steeped in delta blues will produce very different music from one musician with a love for soul and funk and another with roots in hip-hop or 80s hardcore. This process involves communication of likes and dislikes and preferences, not a series of proposals that meet with acceptance or rejection.
Not feeling that every sexual encounter was a negotiation made things more comfortable. I was able to relax and be my best self instead of putting on what we both inherently knew was a performance. I stopped looking at sex as a competition – what do I have to do to get you to sleep with me – and more of a collaboration.
“But you have to admit, the negotiations were pretty damn hot.”
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.
Being willing to admit that I was interested in sex – and understanding that yes, women liked it as much as I did – made things go smoother. It was more honest – this is who I am, this is what I’m interested in, this is what I have to offer – than trying to pretend otherwise. It made it easier to make the negotiation of sex that communication of likes and dislikes that Millar talks about rather than a process of “this is what I am willing to offer, how much will this get me?” It meant that there were fewer miscommunications; I wasn’t indicating that maybe, maybe I’d be interested in a relationship when I really wasn’t.
Accepting that you’re allowed to have the desires you do (or don’t) have and being willing to be honest about them allows you to be more authentically yourself… and in doing so, relate to the people you want in a more honest, open and collaborative way.
Feature photo—Man head silhouette by Shutterstock
About Harris O'Malley
@Past is future : ” So, when I see posters getting all up in arms that touching oneself while with a partner… who gives shit. It’s their loss.”
I’m not a timid female, unlike so many females who say what you males want them to say. I speak the truth from which I know it.I have tried to talk in a decent tone, but seems some males here, don’t know how to do that. What an ugly thing to say just because every woman doesn’t want to masturbate herself during sex. Stop trying to make females feel like they are in the wrong. Some of us know better and I am one of those.
You see the woman is already busy masturbating you when she uses her mouth, genital area, or her hands to give you pleasure. Do you see the selfish contradiction and the double standard? It seems that you are so angry or so full of contempt and hate for females, that you want her to satisfy herself while you thrust yourself in one or two cavity areas on her body.
Stop making intimacy rules for other couples. It’s not you right!!!
Jean, I don’t know how you read “Who gives a shit?” as an attempt to make rules for other couples. It was basically an expression of indifference. Go have sex however you’d like to.
This is a horrible and sex negative article.
Here is in brief form what a sex positive article with a title like “it’s okay to want sex” should look like.
“It’s Okay to Want Sex.” -
If you are like many men you have a desire for sex, and not necessarily in a relationship but for it’s own sake. Yet society has given you a lot of shaming messages about how you shouldn’t be one of those uncaring douchebags who objectifies women. While having sex for the sake of sex is growing more and more acceptable, there is still a paradoxical and pervasive stigma attached to consciously seeking out sex. These messages can keep you from seeking out your desires. I have some insights that I’ve come to learn over the years and I wish to share them with you….
I’m curious, where does wanting to have a lot of sex with one person fall, sex positive or sex negative?
There’s nothing wrong with wanting sex for the sake of sex, I don’t think he was trying to say that. Many people do. I had phases in my life where I did. You can even want sex within a relationship just for the sake of sex, not for some grand show of intimacy. The important part is to be straightfoward about it and not try and trick or be cruel to people about it. Wanting sex does not equal objectification, either. Objectification usually involves not seeing a woman a as a human being or making her uncomfortable. Like jrd says, I don’t see how wanting lots of sex within the context of a relationship is ‘sex negative.’ It works for some people, it doesn’t for others. For some it works to be in a relationship, and have sex for the sake of sex on the side. As long as you’re respectful to all involved and honest.
“Objectification usually involves not seeing a woman a as a human being or making her uncomfortable. ”
Not making her feel uncomfortable is way too broad and it’s a good example of how confusing the messages men have been getting from women have been. Men can be made to feel uncomfortable by women but nobody calls it objectification or anything else. Women can treat men pretty much anyway they like so long as the man is willing to put up with it, and nobody will judge her for it. We can’t have equality when we only care about the feelings of one gender and women will never know how to treat men as true equals if the always hold men to higher standard than they hold themselves.
I guess it would fall in a sex positive category though actually it would be more “sex neutral”. Being “sex positive” involves acceptance of multiple forms of socio-sexual styles. Somebody who says that only polyamory is acceptable would in a way be sex negative because they are not being accepting of monogamous people, for example. As for why I think this article is sex negative- I think that is doesn’t honestly deal with the subject matter its title would it imply it should, instead of taking the opportunity to tell it’s readers about how its okay to want sex it does a bait-and-switch and instead becomes a lecture about how men should feel ashamed for feeling shamed about wanting sex- since supposedly that shame derives from treating women like commodities. Where are you coming from with this question?
I honestly don’t see where this article shames men. The part about women wanting and liking sex without a giant song and dance spoke to me. As for men, it just said, do what you want–regardless of what society tells you. If you want to rack up partners, do it because you desire to, not because society tells you to. If you want to wait or deny a woman sex or get turned on by something outside of conventional beauty standards, it doesn’t make you any less of a man. As long as you’re upfront about it all and focus on what you want, not what you’re told you want.
How are these quotes sex-negative? They seem like nothing more than common sense to me, that sadly, needed to be stated:
“I wasn’t seeing sex – or romance, for that matter – in terms of “here’s a fun thing we can both enjoy”, I was seeing it as “what do I have to do to get you to sleep with me.” It was an adversarial process…”
“Being told simultaneously that you were supposed to be a stud and that women found sex icky does not make for a well-balanced view of sex growing up.”
He (the author of the article) was just lucky enough, on his first try, to find a woman who was just as interested in sex as he was, and also not afraid or reluctant to show it.
This is more luck or coincidence than anything else, if you ask me, and is not something that should be used to berate or denounce other people in a condescending way.
“Where are you coming from with this question?”
The times I have seen the phrase sex positive used, I have detected a if-you-don’t-believe-that-having-sex-with-as-many-partners-as-possible-is-healthy-and-should-be-encouraged-and-promoted-then-you’re-a-prude” attitude. I assume that means that those who think that sex is special and who desire to focus sexually on one person in an exclusive/monogamous relationship are the opposite of sex positive.
No, that is a form of sex positivity only embraced by those who do not understand it. If you look at the comments on this thread you will find plenty of people who do agree with the kind of “puritanism” of some supposed sex positive advocates
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/sex-positives-the-new-puritans/
I’m not a fan of any kind of puritanism because its based on an us-vs. them mentality but I think this person does not understand sex positivity.
I agree that you shouldn’t judge other people for their monogamous lifestyles. I think that those who do don’t fully understand what sex positivity is. There was an article on the Good Men Project about this and you’ll notice that people commenting think that those who look at sex positivity that way are in the wrong. http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/sex-positives-the-new-puritans/
What the hail are you talking about, Quadruple A? There’s nothing sex-negative about this article. In fact, it’s merely a biographic narrative (with a little reflection thrown in) about overcoming the internalised sex-negativity that many man have as a result of the messages we receive about our own, and women’s, desires. How you can’t see that this is the opposite of sex-negative is kind of mysterious…unless you have a very different understanding of what that term means.
I think that saying its “okay to want sex” means you can approach a woman that you don’t know or barely know with sex as significant or only part of your intention. I’m still struggling with what it means to be sex positive but that is one plausible definition for me. This article suggests that its only okay to want sex within relationships with women. He specifically speaks and addresses only the subject of already existing relationships with women. Maybe he doesn’t think that is a good thing to approach a woman with sex in mind and that is okay but when you title an article “it’s okay to want sex” you should deliver on that title and least have some respect for the people who are looking for validation of whether its okay to want sex. The fact that he totally glides over that subject means he doesn’t even respect the readers enough to make an article about subject that they would natural expect based on the title. He also puts you down if you don’t already know what he claims know . That’s the internet. Everyone always wants to tear each other apart.
what a seriously excellent article!! So good to see this stuff being spoken up.
Great article ~ Thanks so much!
he part about women wanting and liking sex without a giant song and dance spoke to me. As for men, it just said, do what you want–regardless of what society tells you. If you want to rack up partners,
I live in kenya. i kindly wanted to know whether i can publish some of your articles in my magazine as i give you credit. Thanks Kim
There is an opposite to the attitude expressed in this article that can also get in the way of collaborative sex. That is when a man’s sexual identity is very much put into his ability to please women, so much so that he feels very dejected when he can’t bring her to orgasm. This is more common in my experience than a man doesn’t believe in or doesn’t see the importance of a woman’s pleasure. This is why some women find it necessary to fake orgasms. Honest communication is the solution to this puzzle, too, though. The man in this scenario has to allow that he might not know how to please the woman so that he’s open to learning how. It’d probably also be good for him to allow that the woman probably wants to please him, too. The woman has to allow that if her pleasure really matters to the man, then it’s worth telling him what really pleases her or telling him she doesn’t know what pleases her and then allowing for some, potentially very fun, trial and error. Regardless, I enjoyed the article. I recognize the harmful aspects of how sex is portrayed in the media. However, a counter reaction can be just as bad.
Whether a person has an orgasm or not ultimately depends on himself or herself more than it does on the partner. If one or both people just think in terms of one giving an orgasm to the other, then that’s a perfect set-up for disappointment right there. It’s just another variant of the crazy idea that someone else is responsible for how you feel. Your partner can’t really give you an orgasm. He or she can only help you reach one.
I’m a young woman and I LOVE sex.
Do you love sex with guys who are also out there just looking for sex? Or does he have to at a minimum be like “i’m just looking for somebody nice to hang around and date?”
iam a young woman and i can have sex with a man just because i like him without thinking about anything else just for the pleausure of sex woman love sex too or at leats womans who has been really satisficed during a sexual encounter.
I’ve been finding Good Men Project slightly confused lately, but this is the best article I’ve read on this site. Really useful. Thanks for writing it.
http://videos.huffingtonpost.com/entertainment/robin-thicke-sings-i-need-love-517486287
I do agree that the overall tone of the article tended towards negative and perhaps a tad patronizing (particularly to us girls reading it, rolling our eyes and saying ‘duh’). But there are definitely some home truths here about sex politics in modern society. I hate to admit it but there have been many times where I wished I was a guy purely to be judged or labelled as a ‘player’ not a ‘slut’ based my answer to the dreaded question for (a lot) of women (definitely not for men) ‘what’s your number?’…(of sexual partners)
I hate to admit it but there have been many times where I wished I was a guy purely to be judged or labelled as a ‘player’ not a ‘slut’ based my answer to the dreaded question for (a lot) of women (definitely not for men) ‘what’s your number?’…(of sexual partners).
What makes you so sure you wouldn’t be considered a “dog”, “womanizer”, “creep”, or “perv” instead?
(I don’t mean this directly at you Stacey but when it comes to gender I have noticed something. When women go into “if I were a guy” mode they tend to go straight to the top of what is considered acceptable for men and presume that that is not just the default status of guys but the only status of guys. Kinda like pretending that the grass on the other isn’t just greener but assuming that all the grass on the other side is green in the first place.)
You absolutely have a point Danny, but while a guy who gets around can have many labels like you mentioned “dog”, “womanizer”, “creep”, or “perv” or indeed ‘player’-this in particular proven to be used often as a positive description (perhaps more between guys but still)….a women generally gets one label which in lets face it- in all contexts is used as a negative. I’ve certainly never heard a woman be called a ‘slut’ in a positive context, not even when women use it on themselves-so ingrained is this notion our society that a sexually liberated women who’s had a significant number of partners and/or casual sex is in some way flawed/devalued/impure/lacksselfesteem the list goes on. Personally I think we need to cultivate a positive word that is equal to the connotation of ‘player’ for women…just to have one positive label out there like men do-I don’t know about anyone else but it bothers me that on this superficial but significant level of labels (while we’re going there) women go from ‘sluts’ to ‘spinsters/old maids’ while men go from ‘players’ to ‘bachelors/playboys’. I dunno it’s just…that grass looks pretty damn green.
just to have one positive label out there like men do-I don’t know about anyone else but it bothers me that on this superficial but significant level of labels (while we’re going there) women go from ‘sluts’ to ‘spinsters/old maids’ while men go from ‘players’ to ‘bachelors/playboys’. I dunno it’s just…that grass looks pretty damn green.
It only looks green to you because you are only looking at one part of the boy yard. Sure if you somehow manage to be on that one exact portion of the yard under the right circumstances it’s probably pretty green. (Hell by that logic when one is not sexually active the grass in the girl yard looks really damn green let me tell you.)
But as for the “player” bit for guys. Considering that we (as a society) are just getting into examining just how damaging that label is for guys I’m not sure why it’s still being held up as “this is what guys are called” and acting like its only got positive connotations.
…bothers me that on this superficial but significant level of labels (while we’re going there) women go from ‘sluts’ to ‘spinsters/old maids’ while men go from ‘players’ to ‘bachelors/playboys’….
Actually that does seem to be changing. Changing to the point that women with active sexual lives are considered empowered while men that have active sex lives are considered to be predatory.
I really wish I had read this when it came out.
As a mid-30s man with little sexual experience, I’m beginning to see how harmful these beliefs have been to me, especially the second one about believing that women will loathe me as a “pervert” if I accidentally reveal that I like sex, or erotica, or fantasizing. Add to that the fact that I’m not very attractive in a classical sense and that I grew up with a lot of domestic violence and it’s no wonder I wanted, even needed, to “protect” women from my sexuality the same way I wanted to protect them from abuse.
Any tips on how I might learn to deal with this part of the equation? I’d love to share them with my therapist.
@autochron
From your comment I get the idea that your mind is in the way. Words like ‘pervert’ and ‘not very attractive’ are negative ideas about yourself and it’s those beliefs that make us feel ashamed for who we are. Shame moves us away from our bodies and blocks our (sexual) energy. At the same time it puts us in our minds and may stir up fantasies. Thus the blockage of this powerful energy could turn what is the most creative force in the universe into a massively destructive one.
From my experience my advice to you would be
(1) learn to embrace yourself as the valuable individual that you are,
(2) accept what happens inside your body and
(3) FEEL FEEL, FEEL IT.
Remember: Your body including your sexuality is OK. Without it, the human species would not have survived all those thousands of centuries, so what can be wrong with it?
@Michael
Good advice, and well worth taking. I guess I’m hung up by something slightly different.
I consider myself a male feminist, and proud of it — it’s provided a great deal of good for both men and women — but I still feel that some aspects of feminist culture so far have been somewhat misguided. In particular, the tendency for male sexuality to be demonized is something that resonates deeply in my psyche, and something that I’m only now coming to grips with in a way.
My first reaction when I read your article was “Well, yeah, I could do that, but if I’m just going to express my sexuality to women and thereby expose them to something that bothers them, then wouldn’t it cause harm to women in general if I went there?” Which, of course, speaks deeply of my inability to trust that women will ever, EVER see my sexuality the way you’re encouraging me to see it.
GendErratic has an excellent article on the kind of thing I’ve internalized here: http://www.genderratic.com/p/2146/ladies-auxiliary-of-the-patriarchy-demonizing-male-sexuality/
Please understand that I don’t mean to say I see women accurately, I’m probably quite misguided, but witnessing my father’s abuse combined with embracing feminism before I was mature enough to understand it has kind of emblazoned this type of mistrust in my brain.