Nahida makes an interesting point about male sexuality:
Male sexuality has been socially conditioned to comprise of the same components as sports: it is aggressive and domineering, and it views women as “opponents” to defeat in order achieve high status within a male social order. Boys are taught to drive forward to see how far their partners will allow them to reach sexually, preoccupying themselves with wondering what comes next rather than enjoying the moment, essentially displacing the excitement of intimacy with the excitement of competition, until finally, in order for a man to be aroused, a woman must be objectified.
Am I saying that this is how actual men in the real world have sex? Nope, nope, nope, and nope. All but the biggest assholes value their partner enjoying themselves as much as they value themselves enjoying themselves; hence, only a fraction of people (one could call them “rapists”) have a purely conquest-oriented model of sexuality.
Nevertheless, I do think it’s valuable as a discussion of how the patriarchy views sex. The sports/sex model is apt: after all, both are ways that you prove that you’re a Real Man. Sports is basically a kind of mini-war. The most important thing is winning. Play through your injuries, you don’t need your health! Come on, the ref won’t see you break the rules, do it! Don’t bother about having fun! What are you, a pussy? A lady? A wimp?
But that’s not true, is it? For most people who play sports non-professionally, sports is about having fun. You might win or you might not, but the important thing is getting out there, hanging out with friends, getting some exercise, and having fun. Other people like competing– that’s what they find fun– and as long as they don’t let competition get in the way of enjoying themselves and compete with people who actually like competing, that’s cool too.
The same thing is true about sex. There are two models– one could call them the “rape culture” and the “consent culture” models. Very few people are pure rape-culture or pure consent-culture; nevertheless, I’ll describe them in their purest forms, so you can see them clearly.
Rape culture: Sex is about a man, who is the only one who actually desires sex, pushing a woman as far as she is willing to go. Sex occurs in a rigid set of steps: kissing, then breast-groping, then manual, then oral, then PIV; any other sex acts are signs that the man has Super Won (or that he’s a pathetic loser). Any tactic, short of ignoring a direct no (and even then) is allowable. Rape is basically like committing a foul: as long as you don’t do anything that’s technically against the rules, it’s all good, and calling someone a rapist for ignoring a “I’d rather not” is like the ref calling the ball out of bounds when it was clearly inside. If they have intercourse, the man has won and the woman has lost: he’s awesome, and she’s a slut who needs to learn to respect herself. The woman’s goal is to get a man into a relationship; if she gets his commitment, he’s pussywhipped and she’s a Smug Married/Be-boyfriend-ed (God I love Bridget Jones). Queer people can, with some straining, be fit into this model; the general idea is that one is the ‘man’ and another is the ‘woman.’
Consent culture: Some people decide that sex (whatever that means to them) would be fun and then have mutually enjoyable sex with each other. The end.
Can we agree that the rape culture model is absurd? It’s absurd.
There has been ample feminist critique of the rape-culture model of sex on the basis that it removes female agency in sexuality and ignores the fact that, you know, women want sex; however, we often ignore the ways that this model harms men too. To quote Nahida again:
Yesterday I overheard a man stating that he uses men for stimulating intellectual conversation and women for sex, and all I could feel was sorry for him. Imagine not being able to relate to your partner on an intellectual level!
She goes on to state that she can’t quite extend her sympathy to those men, since they are weaponizing their sexuality. Personally, I can’t help looking at a dyed-in-the-wool misogynist with anything but the greatest sadness. My relationships are with people– men and women– who are my equals: we have similar interests, we value each other’s opinions, we support each other when necessary and, yes, sometimes we have hot sex. I can’t imagine having a relationship with someone I have nothing in common with and can barely stand just for the sex; even being a fuckbuddy to someone I have nothing in common with seems ultimately empty. Give me sex with friends, man.
See, this is why gender equality is eventually going to win. We have the best sales pitch.
About ozyfrantz
In my experience, very few men fall in the category of “rape culture.”
As Ozy pointed out, zie’s not suggesting that most individuals actually fall into the ‘rape culture’ category, but rather that is how society has largely spun the narrative.
It’s like when Foucault (think it was him) at one point who mentions that the idea that everyone in Victorian England was totally sexually repressed is actually kind of wrong. They weren’t, exactly…people were still having sex (obviously), and sometimes pretty scandalously. It’s just that the discourse, the social narrative, surrounding sexual relationships was different from and in many ways divorced from the realities of how people behaved. So what this results in is people feeling guilt/shame for not fitting into the social narrative (even though most people don’t actually fit it). Or people feeling a sense of righteousness or justification whenever they do fit into the social narrative.
So with regards to what Ozy’s talking about with “rape culture,” zie’s not suggesting that all men or women act this way, or even that most men and women act this way. Ozy’s saying that’s the social narrative we spin…that’s the story people compare themselves to as a means to justify horrific behaviour (actually raping someone) or as a means of shaming themselves or others (when they step outside that norm, say by a man who actually has a low libido).
Or at least, that’s how I read it.
Some guys like me have had bad experiences with sexually aggressive women and just can’t enter into another relationship without some measure of control. That’s not saying we don’t want her to have fun because we do or that we won’t respect her no or that we won’t stop if she seems hesitant. We will. Some may mistake that with a desire to feel dominate, but that really comes from the need to feel safe.
True. It probably comes out most often in groups of men, where peer pressure pushes them to keep to the patriarchal notion.
I’ve always wondered why men pursue women and sex so aggressively yet “getting f–’ed”, or being a “pussy” are the worst kind of insults. They want to have sex with women yet they seem to think that being the woman in the interaction is absolutely despicable.
“I’ve always wondered why men pursue women and sex so aggressively yet “getting f–’ed”, or being a “pussy” are the worst kind of insults. They want to have sex with women yet they seem to think that being the woman in the interaction is absolutely despicable.”
I do not get your point.
I am sexually aggressive because I love sex and women. I could care less about conquering, spreading seed or any of the bull. It is just pure pleasure and excitement. Simply put: it feels great!
Maybe they just want to be the gender they already are? If you were a woman that valued your femininity, liked the whole wearing makeup and other gendered stuff then would you want to be a muscle-laden hairy person?
Pussy is cowardice, they don’t want to be seen as cowards. Get fucked, this one is strange, can’t find an origin to it’s usage but it could be a variety of things as fuck isn’t always sex.
How much is male aggressiveness a consequence of female passivity? If everyone were passive, no one would ever get together. And isn’t the whole concept of sexual ‘consent’ dependent upon female passivity rather than a model of mutual agreement.
And I think discussing ‘how the patriarchy views sex’ is mostly a rhetorical parlor trick. No one self identifies as part of the ‘patriarchy’, but everyone is often fingered as part of it. The whole purported existence of the ‘patriarchy’ is a rhetorical framing device to make BS-y gender arguments sound plausible. Sorry, the Patriarchs all died back in the Old Testament.
“And isn’t the whole concept of sexual ‘consent’ dependent upon female passivity rather than a model of mutual agreement.”
How?
“The whole concept of sexual ‘consent’ ” is, indeed, not dependent on female passivity.
On the other hand the concept that “Men ask, and then the woman needs to consent in order for sex to happen” does indeed have that flaw, so perhaps that’s what AnonymousDog was trying to get at.
I’d say that the whole concept of sexual consent is a lot broader than that, though, and says that sex should be dependent on all parties (however many of them there are, and whatever their gender is) consenting to the acts that take place.
Some people view the word “consent” as synonymous with “acquiesce” and they wouldn’t be wrong to do so as the meaning of the word “consent” has shifted considerably from its latin roots and towards the more passive meaning. Hence the term “enthusiastic consent” to refer to an agreement that all parties actively want , rather than one being the aggressor and another acceding – sometimes reservedly – to what has been proposed.
Just wanted to hear his take on it. I’m well aware women can both initiate and agree
-How much is male aggressiveness a consequence of female passivity-
How much is the chicken a consequence of the egg. They’re both THERE. They’re the cultural narrative. Women weren’t being all passive and men decided “We better get aggressive there!” Nor were men being all aggressive and women were like “Oh, cool, we’ll just be passive now. All the aggression was difficult on our feeble lady brains anyway.”
Society dictated both of these things at the same time.
- And isn’t the whole concept of sexual ‘consent’ dependent upon female passivity rather than a model of mutual agreement.-
D…Wha… My brain is… Whaaa?
Consent IS mutual agreement. consent isn’t dependent on female passivity… Unless you go into it assuming females NEVER EVER want sex. In which case, I’ve got some oceanfront property in Arizona if you’re interested.
-And I think discussing ‘how the patriarchy views sex’ is mostly a rhetorical parlor trick. No one self identifies as part of the ‘patriarchy’, but everyone is often fingered as part of it.-
That’s because people are part of it. Do you understand what The Patriarchy is? It’s separate from “a patriarchy. It’s THE patriarchy. The societal structure that we have. Honestly I prefer the term Kyriarchy, but…
People don’t IDENTIFY as part of it, no. But that doesn’t mean they’re not. I don’t identify as a brony, but I run facebook fan pages and am typing this in between posts in a roleplay.
Also, one doesn’t have to meet EVERY PART of the Patriarchal Standard to be PART of the Patriarchy. Nobody is a perfect stereotype. I’m not the perfect stereotype of a gay man (I’m Christian and love pro football) or of a Christian (I’m gay and sex-positive) or a football fan (I love fashion and, well, My Little Pony. And pink things)
-The whole purported existence of the ‘patriarchy’ is a rhetorical framing device to make BS-y gender arguments sound plausible.-
What BS-y gender arguments are we talking about?
-Sorry, the Patriarchs all died back in the Old Testament.-
http://www.getreligion.org/wp-content/photos/2010/05/BenedictBartholomew.jpg
…Zombies?
How much is male aggressiveness a consequence of female passivity?
Um, as much as female passivity is about male aggressiveness? Both of them come from the same narrative. Unless you’re arguing that women are inherently passive but that men are only aggressive to meet this, which makes no sense.
And isn’t the whole concept of sexual ‘consent’ dependent upon female passivity rather than a model of mutual agreement.
I…don’t think I understand. Sexual consent revolves around people doing things sexually together that they want to and not doing things they don’t want to. The only way female passivity could come into it at all is in terms of the assumption that men will be the ones to initiate sex, which is, once again, part of the patriarchy. But there’s no reason why a man suggesting something and a woman agreeing couldn’t involve mutual agreement.
And I think discussing ‘how the patriarchy views sex’ is mostly a rhetorical parlor trick. No one self identifies as part of the ‘patriarchy’, but everyone is often fingered as part of it.
The way I think of it is this: as culture. Let’s take Australian culture. Here, people have a high respect for tough, hard-working men who are willing to get their hands dirty. (Which, of course, tends to mean that we dismiss the female and feminine.) We believe strongly in mateship and in giving everyone a fair go. We’re down to earth and don’t get caught up in nonsensical formalities and the like. I’m pretty sure most Australians could agree with all this, or at least with some theoretical formulation of Australian culture. And yet does any one Australian 100% fit this idea of the ‘typical’ Aussie? Probably not, and certainly not most. The culture is just a message that we play and replay over and over which helps define our identity and the way we act. But I have no doubt that because of this culture, certain things are more difficult or more easy in Australia than they would be in other countries because it’s seen as more or less acceptable. Just like the patriarchy, by implying that sex is a conquest, implies that women with high libidos and men with low libidos are strange and not doing it right.
Sorry to be critical but A’Dog’s comment is itself a indicator that patriarchy is alive in well.
Obviously if a woman is completely passive she will allow a man to do what he wants. In the rape culture described above, men are assumed to always want sex, and the woman is supposed to expect this. Thus in rape culture a passive woman is seen as consenting, since presumably sex is guranteed if you let your guard down around a man. So if she lets her guard down, including relative passivity, she presumably wants sex. According to the rape culture and patriarchal norms that feminists talk about.
Feminists strongly argue that a man has no right to touch, let alone f*** a woman without SOME sort of consent. Preferrably explicit, but not necessarily.
Consenting to anything, let alone sex, implies that you’re consenting intentionally. You are doing something to communicate consent. even if it’s just laying back and grinning mischievously.
Feminists have repeatedly pointed out that a total lack of communication communicates nothing, and thus doesn’t communicate consent.
Feminists argue that the absence of any noticeable gesture of consent, implies the absence of consent itself. Thus a man should ask for consent, or else refrain.
P.S. Patriarchy describes a series of elements in a culture that enforce certain gendered behaviors and emphasize men. It doesn’t require a large number of “patriarchs”. You can claim it doesn’t exist, you can claim it isn’t that bad, however feminists know the definition, and the idea that “women consent to sex by being passive” is a patriarchal idea. By explicitly claiming that idea is true, you are implying that patriarchy is a real thing. Hence AnonymousDog is contradicting himself.
“Thus a man should ask for consent, or else refrain.”
This doesn’t necessarily follow. A woman can give consent without being asked first.
Otherwise lesbian sex would be really really weird…
My point was that in this society, women are assigned the role as sexual ‘gatekeepers’, they are not required to initiate romantic/sexual relations, and men necessarily have to take a more pro-active, ‘aggressive’ role. As ‘gatekeepers’, consent is necessarily part of a woman’s romantic/sexual role.
I’m still convinced that ‘the patriarchy’ is primarily a rhetorical construct which can be attacked at will without the likelihood of anyone seriously defending it, thereby allowing any attackers to have the last word, and avoid any serious debate over the merits of their attack……it’s just a more sophisticated version of blaming ‘Society’.
“P.S. Patriarchy describes a series of elements in a culture that enforce certain gendered behaviors and emphasize men. It doesn’t require a large number of “patriarchs”. You can claim it doesn’t exist, you can claim it isn’t that bad, however feminists know the definition, and the idea that “women consent to sex by being passive” is a patriarchal idea.”
Your example of lying back and grinning mischeviously is an excellent example of the way women employ passive consent. Elements do exist in most cultures which emphasise men, but other elements exist which emphasise women, I’ve rarely seen any definition of patriarchy which allows for the existence of the latter, much less adresses them, hence why the idea is so problematic.
*But I’m glad that you do acknowledge non verbal consent as valid. It’s a very important statement. Alot of lobbying that goes on addressing sexual assault fails to take into account the fact that quite alot of sex is the result of non-verbal consent.
“Elements do exist in most cultures which emphasise men, but other elements exist which emphasise women, I’ve rarely seen any definition of patriarchy which allows for the existence of the latter, much less adresses them, hence why the idea is so problematic.”
Perhaps it would have been better to say “emphasize men in positions of power/control” on QuantumInc’s part. No culture is monolithic with every aspect of that culture conforming to a single idea or ideal (whether you’re talking about patriarchy or capitalism or whatever). The U.S. is capitalist, for example, but it has elements of socialist policies. But on the whole, it emphasizes capitalism…that is the basis on which other elements are added. See where I’m going?
So with patriarchy…that’s the base, the foundation. And it’s most certainly not as strong a foundation as it used to be…but it’s still there. Now does that mean that western culture doesn’t have elements that emphasize women or women in power? Nope…but it does mean that those elements are often viewed as less valuable or important .
Like okay, take for example the way that the west often devalues parenthood…being a stay at home parent (whether male or female) is considered less important than having a career. It’s something people do when they don’t have any ambitions…or at least that’s how it’s largely conceived of. Also, it’s not monetized and it doesn’t require any sort of education (which is pretty heavily valued in our society too). Now arguably being a stay-at-home mother is valued higher than being a stay-at-home father…so that’d be an element in which women are emphasized…however that’s still under the umbrella of stay-at-home (traditionally female being valued less than careers (traditionally male).
I think it’s too simple. I used to point out a woman and joke about getting some with a female friend of mine. She would tell me that I wouldn’t know what to do if she came up to me and started hitting on me. She’s right. I’d probably run away. I’ve had several bad experiences with aggressive women. My lady friends don’t know this and I’ve only told one guy who I’ve known since I was five about one incident. My friends will sometimes get overly aggressive in a playful way to get a reaction out of me. It works and really seriously upsets me.
I thought it was just me because I’ve had bad experiences with sexually aggressive women/girls, but I’ve heard from a few female friends and some random women on forums and shows that quite a few guys are like this. Most of them just politely decline the offer, but I know a couple married guys who would flee (literally) from sexually aggressive women. Some unmarried friends also seem to have this problem, but I don’t know if they were fleeing the aggression or if they weren’t sexually attracted to the women. It’s kind of ironic that some of these guys wouldn’t think twice about throwing hands with a 250 pound guy and they’re running from a 100 pound woman.
What do you mean by sexually aggressive? I’m not trying to be snarky, I’m actually curious. So many guys complain that women won’t initiate or ask men out, yet I often suspect that if a woman did initiate, many guys wouldn’t really like it. It would make them too uncomfortable, or if the woman wasn’t attractive, they’d be creeped out.
Sorry, my reply got misplaced. It’s a little farther down.
Oh, if only sexually aggressive women only meant women who initates or ask men out. If only the women who according to CDC in 2009 made 0.89% (79.2% of 1.1%) of men penetrate them without the men’s consent didn’t exist.
Whenever I see a complete failure to conceptualize women’s potential as sexual abusers and rapists I worry. A loaded gun in the hands ofa person is dangerous, but it is even more so if the person is convinces the gun is not loaded.
For me the OP is another disappointing feminist analysis which erases my experience by on one end positing rape culture with only male perpetrators and female victims and on the other end define a consent culture where the sex is mutually enjoyable. Perhaps that was where I failed then; I didn’t enjoy the sex I never agreed to have.
“It would make them too uncomfortable, or if the woman wasn’t attractive, they’d be creeped out.”
You mean…like many women today?:P I don’t think most men would care, or would love it since it takes the weight off our shoulders in the risk of rejection. Although it brings in the whole “how to reject someone nicely” dynamic which sounds annoying.
>I often suspect that if a woman did initiate, many guys wouldn’t really like it. It would make them too >uncomfortable, or if the woman wasn’t attractive, they’d be creeped out.
Yes, that is part of life. Hooking-up is a numbers game.
I don’t think the difference between aggressive and passive, as it is used in practice and not words, is the same as the difference between exercising choice and not having the ability to exercise choice (with the nuance of degrees implied). We exercise plenty of choice and one of the dominant ways is by appearing passive, with many a quibble on the relative mix of willful choosing. Choosing passivity can be a luxury, but it does carry a double edged sword, for it tends to encourage gamesmanship and marketeering. So many things break down to economics, and that’s why Scotch was invented.
If you’re asking about experiences, once my friends wanted to go to a bar/club to pick up women, I wasn’t in the mood, but you make compromises to keep relationships so I went. I decided that I wasn’t going to try to meet anyone, just have fun. I decided to buy my friend a muff dive. The waitress didn’t know what it was so I explained it. It’s like a male version of the blow job. It’s a shot glass full of liquor inside of a larger wine type glass and is held in the center by a ring of whipped cream. You’re supposed to lick the liquor out of the shot glass.
She came back with a couple other waitresses because they wanted to watch. The crowd drew the attention of some more people. Of course, I was trying to make it as embarrassing as possible saying things like how are you supposed to get a date if you can’t showcase your skills and such. After he quit, the crowd broke up, but two women decided to stay. I got into a conversation with one and it was sexually charged. We talked about drinks with sexy names like a sex on the beach, buttery nipple, silk panties, etc. She would buy me each drink I mentioned. When I told her I couldn’t drink because I hadn’t eaten, she would buy me food. Eventually she told me that she knew a drink called a fuck me harder. I never heard of it and agreed to try it. She went to the bar to get it and no one ever taught me not to accept an open drink from a stranger. I drank it and don’t remember anything else from that night. My friends told me that the three of us left and sometime later they brought me back. She left $40 for them to put me in a cab if I didn’t have a ride home. They thought I was getting lucky so never did anything. I haven’t worked through the experience yet.
When I say sexually aggressive, it could be overly sexual talk which she initiated. It could be rubbing with her body as well as her hand on me. I’ve had women fondle my arms, while commenting that I had a strong lower body. I’ve had women jump into my lap or if I asked if an empty chair was taken have them move a buttock off the chair and indicate to me that the other half of their chair was available. I’ve had an “aspiring model” expose her breasts to me and ask me if they looked OK. I’ve had a woman come up from behind while I was seated. Rub my shoulders and slide her hand down my chest. It’s not women who’ve asked me to lunch or made me lunch or even asked me on a date that I’m referring to.
As a child I had a female friend, who was my best friend at the time, tackle me. I didn’t think anything of it as we wrestled from time to time. While she had me pinned to the ground, she did something I have never forgiven her for. So in bed sexually aggressive is when I’m lying down and she’s pinning me to the ground with her weight. Unless I feel safe with her, I can’t have her on top unless I’m at least sitting down. I know that doesn’t sound like sexual aggression, but it feels like it to me. It’s hard to explain.
It sounds like mild ptsd from sexual assaults in your past, same as I’ve heard women talk about. It’s trauma because you’ve been traumatized and treated immorally by people who took advantage. The stories you are telling are no different than ones I’ve heard from girlfriends.
This is why I promote much more explicit communication around consent (for both males and females) and boundaries.
I’m sorry that you had to undergo something so unforgivable.
Of course, men don’t get PTSD from sexual assaults, according to the women in my life I’ve known. Women get PTSD from both assault and catcalls in the street, but of course men don’t have to put up with catcalls.
And if they do get PTSD, they just need to man the hell up, because really only women have feelings, according to the women I’ve known.
Sounds like you’ve known some callous non empathetic people. Of course men get PTSD.
Of course they do, during wartime. That’s the only acceptable way for men to end up with it, don’t you know.
No, I don’t. You can be as sarcastic as you want. It does no good to use it on me. It’s like throwing nails at someone who is trying to help someone. I mean, it’s not like you being snarky at me is gonna make me disbelieve what I know to be true (that all humans can suffer greatly at the hands of other humans and that men can be assaulted and suffer from it) and be like, Yeah!
I’m sorry that you had those kind of experiences. There are a lot of screwed up people out there.
What you describe is rape. No wonder you don’t like women who fondle you without asking first because they assume you’re okay with it. By the same token, that’s not behavior that anyone, male or female, should engage in without clear, though possibly non-verbal, signs of consent.
“She goes on to state that she can’t quite extend her sympathy to those men, since they are weaponizing their sexuality. Personally, I can’t help looking at a dyed-in-the-wool misogynist with anything but the greatest sadness………..
who are my equals: we have similar interests…………
I can’t imagine having a relationship with someone I have nothing in common with
”
A man is not necessarily a misogynist just because he has sex with someone who is not an “equal” whatever the fuck that means, has dissimilar intellectual interests, and who has very little in common.
I am not sure why its considered bad to have sex with someone you have little in common with. I mean I don’t get it. I have had girlfriends where we both tried to figure out we we liked each other (common interests, values etc) and we couldn’t figure it out. But we liked each other. We trusted each other. We had fun together and never felt lonely when we were around each other. We just clicked.
And my relationships were never equal. I have only ever felt ok when I was the dominant partner. I have always felt uncomfortable with the reverse. I could never connect with a girl when she was pushy, assertive, or too ‘confident’. The girls I was with were in some sense weaker than me. I pulled them up, I encouraged them and I felt good doing it. And they expected the same..they preferred to ‘look up’ to their boyfriend.
There are a lot of women like this. In fact I would say MOST women are like this. I regard it as an incredibly strange form of feminism that dismisses the preferences of the majority of women and the men who like them. Considering these men misogynistic is strange. What about the women that aren’t incredibly confident, don’t feel empowered and don’t have the high self-esteem. Are we to dismiss these women and dismiss the men who like them too. Is Madonna the paragon of women. Excuse me while a throw up.
Is a man that likes a women who isn’t incredibly empowered and confident a misogynist? What it be better if he didn’t like them? Is it then very feminist to not like the wrong kind of woman?
“There are a lot of women like this. In fact I would say MOST women are like this.”
Firstly, that is a huge generalization for which you have no proof.
Secondly, you sound like you’re saying you prefer women with low self esteem, low self confidence, a sense of powerlessness and who are generally ‘weaker’ than you. And that you prefer these women because being with them makes you feel good because you can “pull them up.” If that is, indeed, what you’re saying, then that’s a problem.
Women aren’t there to make you feel better and boost your ego, and for goodness sake you’re job as a boyfriend/partner/whatever isn’t to provide an external source of self-validation for women with confidence and self-esteem problems.
Actually I think he’s talking about he likes being the dominant, the leader, and the women being more submissive n following his lead, not that they have lower self-esteem. Some people like to lead, some like to follow. At times I’d rather follow cuz leadership takes a lot of responsibility that I cbf dealing with. I don’t think he’s saying the women he likes have low self eteem or low confidence, it seems the way he is talking about “confidence” is in a manner that those “confident” women are actually bossy. I don’t think it’s wrong to like women with low self-confidence IF you are reponsible, realize they have low self-esteem and how that can affect things, don’t take advantage, etc. It’s when people see them as weak, as prey that there is a problem. I don’t think he’s purposely going after women that have low self-esteem, but maybe just women who like the submissive role more than the dominant one.
I could be wrong but that is my guess. For me personally, self-esteem doesn’t play a major role in what I like, it’s usually something I just deal with in those I like. If she has a low self-esteem I might still be attracted to them for other reasons, and it’d probably encourage me to find a way to help raise their self-esteem because I want my partners to feel good about themselves. Not sure whether I like submissive or dominant, many dominant women I’ve seen are more of a control freak, “bitchy”, the personality is more negative vs more of a general leadership quality. I don’t particularly like taking orders, but if I am asked by someone I value then many times I’d do it because I want to make them happy, I also love when people do what I say so I tend to think I lean more towards the dominant side.
Archy, I purposefully used the words “weak” “confidence” and “self-esteem” in my reply because those are the words he uses. A healthy sub/dom relationship requires that all parties aren’t suffering from self-esteem or confidence problems (perhaps more than vanilla relationships). But he wasn’t talking about a healthy sub/dom relationship…what assman was describing was actually a pretty unhealthy type of relationship.
(I do not mean this as an attack on anyone, by the way).
Yeah they threw me off a bit too. I guess I’ll wait for his explanation. I was just trying to think of any and all possibilities:P
i think that’s pretty sad if people think that women who have confidence and good self-esteem are negative and bossy. In my experience, negative and bossy people are usually very insecure. Truly confident people are positive and don’t need to boss others around, and that’s true of both men and women. I read assman’s comment as saying that he likes women who are weak and easier to control.
Yeah, I’m not bothered by truly confident women. I’m bothered by women that say they’re confident who are bossy and negative.
I think he’s confusing bossy with assertive. Assertive women know what they want. Bossy women demand what they want with little or no compromise and little to no consideration for others. I don’t mind assertive women, but would prefer they be less assertive early in the relationship. I find kindness to be a very attractive trait. If she’s assertive and kind, I won’t care if she was assertive early in the relationship.
“Women aren’t there to make you feel better and boost your ego, and for goodness sake you’re job as a boyfriend/partner/whatever isn’t to provide an external source of self-validation for women with confidence and self-esteem problems.”
I somewhat disagree with this, in the sense that I think it’s the job of any good boyfriend (or girlfriend, or friend) to provide external self-validation for their loved ones when they’re getting down on themselves. I understand this can be annoying when you have to do it constantly, but why tell people with low self-confidence or low self-esteem that they can’t date anybody until they raise it? That seems pretty harsh and unnecessary–maybe a good relationship will help them with those problems.
But here’s the thing, assman: what if you pull a woman up and encourage her, and it works? What if she starts out feeling low and afraid to assert herself, but you help her improve, and she grows confident enough to start openly disagreeing with you about things, or demanding things from you? Does she become unattractive to you then?
I disagree that “most women are like this.” None of the women I know are like this.
Have you ever considered that women might be manipulating you by putting on a charade of weakness and “looking up to you.”
People behave differently around different people and in different situations…
My immediate assumption was that what lay at the end of the link you posted would be crap, and then I realized that would be prejudging the site without having seen it, based solely on the language you used. So I went to the site and damn if my prejudice wasn’t spot on. The PDF, in particular, was hundreds of pages of unscientific crap. I wish I had gone to sleep rather than waste my time reading such nonsense.
Male sexuality has been socially conditioned to comprise of the same components as sports: it is aggressive and domineering, and it views women as “opponents” to defeat in order achieve high status within a male social order.
Cobblers. It’s this sort of crap that leads to homogeneous hetero porn — and is why I don’t use it. Women posing as passive receptors and I’m supposed to want to do stuff to them. Nuts to that.
Am I the only one bothered by the final quote in the article?
“…Imagine not being able to relate to your partner on an intellectual level!”
If all partners agree that what they want is a good lay and after that never see each other again. Why should intelectual connection matter?
Had the genders been reversed this would have been called represing female sexuality.
preoccupying themselves with wondering what comes next rather than enjoying the moment, essentially displacing the excitement of intimacy with the excitement of competition, until finally, in order for a man to be aroused, a woman must be objectified.
Isn’t this slippery-slope argument, and objectification of men to boot…?
The sports/sex model is apt: after all, both are ways that you prove that you’re a Real Man.
I (as a man (more or less…) in a patriarchal culture) have always thought of the “winning” culture in Sex as more of “How often you get to do it and how much you and your partner enjoy it” and much less of what you actually do/how far you can take it. (Now there are people who mutually decide to take it as far as they can and see where they get, and all the power to them(!), but I think they are a stark minority.)
Can we agree that the rape culture model is absurd? It’s absurd.
I also think your description of the consent culture is absurd, more or less, in its non-hurdlish way.