Let's have a calm, polite and substantial discussion about gender and sex

[barfbag]

Beet, before I respond, are you equivocating rape with not going out to bars & chaperones or am I misunderstanding you?

I am saying that telling women "don't go out to bars OR ELSE you'll get raped" isn't much better than excusing or denying rape in the first place. It's like the government telling us they have to repeal the Bill of Rights to "keep us safe from terrorists" nonsense. There are also usually (not saying YOU) ulterior motives there that are disguising themselves as concern for womens' well being, which is pretty much a staple of conservative discourse on women.

In a way though it's the opposite of the government saying they want to repeal the bill of rights to protect us from terrorists. If you think about it, someone saying not to go to bars alone is advocating personal responsibility. Avoid a bad situation rather than taking a chance and calling the government police to help you when there is a problem.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'm preparing a post to talk on masculinity, which I also tend to despise. I don't think there's any other perscribed identity that permits so many people to fall through the cracks as "masculinity." I'll post more when I'm done my flow chart. I very much think the concept of masculinity contains two competing elements which have both worked in tandem to create a cold, violent, and polarized society. It's a shame. More to come.

(I guess the point of this post was to see how my feelings actually read when I put them into words. This topic is a very difficult one to grapple with.)

[angus]

Hi guys...

Men have a constant and very low level sex drive.  They're always horny, but never really very horny.  Women have a periodic, but very intense sex drive.  They're not horny most of the time, but when they are they are fabulously so.  It is in this way that our species evolved, and according to the Theory of Natural Selection, it did so because those specimens with those respective drives were more successful sexually.  Men are also different than women in other ways.  Men have penises.  Women have uteri.  Men have more upper body strength.  Women have more body fat.  Men have spent thousands of years making war and killing big game.  Men do not have maternal instincts.  

I don't have a problem with same-sex marriage, but I won't try to pretend that a child with two fathers will ever know what it is like to have a mother.  Nor do I have a problem with female commanders.  My current boss is a woman, and so have been many of my previous bosses.  I have voted for a woman for Governor.  I think that anyone in any position of authority who discriminates solely on the basis of sex is a pig and should probably be fired.  Nevertheless, it is foolish and unproductive to pretend sex differences do not exist, or that we, the self-ordained most highly evolved species, are somehow above the laws of physics and of biology and of chemistry.

I also detest feminism in all its forms.  (For what it's worth, I would probably detest masculinism equally, should I ever encounter its existence.)  I embrace egalitarianism--which definitely should not ever be confused with feminism, and I suggest that others consider it as well.  Egalitarianism means equal rights and equal treatment under the law.  It does not recommend a pretense that men and women are the same.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I also detest feminism in all its forms. (For what it's worth, I would probably detest masculinism equally, should I ever encounter its existence.)  I embrace egalitarianism--which definitely should not ever be confused with feminism, and I suggest that others consider it as well. Egalitarianism means equal rights and equal treatment under the law.  It does not recommend a pretense that men and women are the same.

While I wouldn't go as far as you did with the rest of your post, and while "detest" is a bit too strong of a word for me, I'll say that I roughly agree with this.

[Franknburger]

Antonio: I have understood that you don´t want this thread to turn into a discussion on your personal situation. Nevertheless, allow me a few remarks which may clarify the relation (or better non-relation) between your general approach on masculinity and your current situation.

First: At the age of twenty, I wasn't feeling too different from how you are feeling now (you may replace "picklish" by "a bit overweight", but that's about it). I wasn't into sports, I had no enthusiasm for arms, sport cars and the likes, male showing-off pissed me off as much as did female bitching-around, etc. Looking for true, unconditional love by a self-confident women - is that too much to ask for?

Actually, it is! At least at the age of twenty. Take the female perspective: There is that nice guy - in the sense of a really nice guy, intelligent, authentic, not showing off, probably quite a good listener. A guy you might consider to marry and set up a family with... Oops - I am twenty,  I have my own plans for life, I am not looking for family (well, maybe later, but definitely not now!). This guy is dangerous! Moreover, he does not want to get laid (which could be o.k.), or desired - he wants to be loved, unconditionally. And he shifts all the responsibility on me - no chance to get out easily, it is definitely going to hurt both of us! And - that guy is pretty mobile: Last year Paris, then California - does he expect me to follow him around the world? How dares he - I am following nobody - I am a self-confident woman!
Let's keep it to "good friends". For my sexual desires, I take some good looking but otherwise rather annoying guy, where I don't get emotionally involved too much and can always leave when he gets boring or I have other plans.

So, what now? First, the good news: Once you, and the girls in question, are in your late twenties, the situation reverts (at least it did in my case), and you are suddenly the one who can choose from a number of opportunities. That will not necessarily make things easier - now you will have to put forward the "good friends" argument, which sometimes works, and sometimes not (with one of my "good friends" - first declared by her, than by myself - I had lost contact for more than ten years, but a few years ago we have finally reconciled).

Alright - and in-between? The "macho" option isn't an option - you wouldn't feel well, and any half-way intelligent girl will immediately sense you are just pretending. You can try emotional black-mailing, though: "Friendship isn't enough for me, either there is more to our relation, or we  don't have to see each other again". Works, because you take over responsibility for the relation... ehm, in my case it worked for nine months, then she left, we got (of course) both hurt quite a lot, but ultimately managed to stay friends until today, which was quite some work.
Or, you just get a bit more playful, explore the art of flirting, and just let things happen. Remain authentic, respect the girl, but don't expect anything (especially not true, everlasting love). That's not irresponsible, it's just deliberating both of you. If you are lucky, you may come across a girl that shares your values and aims, ideally even find your muse. If not, you both had fun, say goodbye, and you try again...

[Antonio the Sixth]

     Deference endears one better than arrogance. People can get away with more audacious things when they are doing so in the name of giving up control. A woman saying "I'm the woman; I decide" would be met about as poorly as the gender-flipped version, though granted it would be far less likely for anyone to say that.

     The woman I was referring to is actually someone with a very strong personality. In my experience, there is actually very little connection between the strength of a woman and her interest in strong men. I don't understand women all that well; I just know what I do from my interactions with them.

In this case, her saying that was at the very least not entirely serious, and more of a playful remark than a real surrender of decisionmaking power. Maybe I'm wrong, I have a hard time imagining a woman with an affirmed personality accepting to let a man actually lead her throughout her life. I'm not saying that assertive women only like submissive men or vice versa (though I tend to buy into the "opposites attract" theory), but at the very least a basic level of deference should be necessary for a relationship like this to work.

Antonio,
I feel the same as you in a lot of respects. At one point I was going to say that I'm a 30 year old version of yourself, but there are some critical differences.

You can't say this and then not elaborate.

Well broadly, we both have, I think, a particular interest in gender and specifically feminist issues for much the same reasons. I too loathe the role of hegemonic masculinity that men are supposed to be in. One of the differences though, for me it's even more fundamental on account of my place on the asexual spectrum.

Forgive me if this is a too intimate question, but was your becoming an asexual a consequence of your reflections on gender, of your life experiences, or a mix of both (and if so, in what way)? I would hope that a cis-hetero-male can fully reject patriarchy and imposed norms of masculinity while still having a "normal" sex life (because, frankly, sex sounds like a pretty pleasant activity ).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually you're right, this is true for me as well. For example, when topics I'm well-versed in are discussed, I can be pretty assertive and even a bit of a jerk (I remember a discussion in class when I was trying to convince people that Hillary would not win back Arkansas and other States like that). Same when I am in family settings, mainly because I know they will love me unconditionally even if I'm not always nice. Also, as you guys have probably noticed, I don't really project underconfidence in my internet persona. This doesn't change the fact that in most social settings I am extremely awkward and shy (though much less than in the past) - obviously because I have Aspergers, but even if I overcame all the social impairments caused by it I would never be as assertive as the masculine stereotype.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is true as well, though it also matters to me for personality-related reasons.

I'm preparing a post to talk on masculinity, which I also tend to despise. I don't think there's any other perscribed identity that permits so many people to fall through the cracks as "masculinity." I'll post more when I'm done my flow chart. I very much think the concept of masculinity contains two competing elements which have both worked in tandem to create a cold, violent, and polarized society. It's a shame. More to come.

(I guess the point of this post was to see how my feelings actually read when I put them into words. This topic is a very difficult one to grapple with.)

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one to feel this way. Looking forward to see what you have to say.

I also detest feminism in all its forms. (For what it's worth, I would probably detest masculinism equally, should I ever encounter its existence.)  I embrace egalitarianism--which definitely should not ever be confused with feminism, and I suggest that others consider it as well. Egalitarianism means equal rights and equal treatment under the law.  It does not recommend a pretense that men and women are the same.

While I wouldn't go as far as you did with the rest of your post, and while "detest" is a bit too strong of a word for me, I'll say that I roughly agree with this.

I would agree that the term feminism is probably not the most fitting one to describe what feminism actually is, but I've never seen the point of these little battles over semantics. Do you actually support the things feminism stands for? If so, you're a feminist. If not... eh, that's pretty awful.


Franknburger, there is a lot of truth with what you said and many of these characteristics indeed apply to me as well. I'm glad to see that you have moved away from sentimental isolation and I hope that I will eventually follow the same course. I have to emphasize though that I have many personality flaws that have nothing to do with gender roles, and that most of the blame for my situation should be attributed to myself rather than patriarchy. I can't really see a pattern in my unrequited love, since I have actually fallen in love one single time in my lifetime, recently enough for me not to be entirely over it yet (and in this case, there were a myriad of objective reasons why my love wouldn't be requited). My own maybe too high standards (not that it's something I have control over) coupled with my limited social life certainly explains the lack of more relationships too. Also, I would never resort the emotional blackmailing that you describe, because in my case, I would much rather have friendship than nothing. Still, your comments were very helpful and I'm happy to share the same feelings with someone else.

[angus]

I also detest feminism in all its forms. (For what it's worth, I would probably detest masculinism equally, should I ever encounter its existence.)  I embrace egalitarianism--which definitely should not ever be confused with feminism, and I suggest that others consider it as well. Egalitarianism means equal rights and equal treatment under the law.  It does not recommend a pretense that men and women are the same.

While I wouldn't go as far as you did with the rest of your post, and while "detest" is a bit too strong of a word for me, I'll say that I roughly agree with this.

Feminism took a noble idea, Women's Lib--equality of wages, bra burning, the right to serve in combat, etc.--and tarnished its image forever.  It's a bitter philosophy, good only for building tension and wreaking havoc.  It's as bad as racism and as bad as male chauvinism.  Perhaps worse even, because it's more subtle and therefore under the radar. 
 

[Ban my account ffs!]

I also detest feminism in all its forms. (For what it's worth, I would probably detest masculinism equally, should I ever encounter its existence.)  I embrace egalitarianism--which definitely should not ever be confused with feminism, and I suggest that others consider it as well. Egalitarianism means equal rights and equal treatment under the law.  It does not recommend a pretense that men and women are the same.

While I wouldn't go as far as you did with the rest of your post, and while "detest" is a bit too strong of a word for me, I'll say that I roughly agree with this.

Feminism took a noble idea, Women's Lib--equality of wages, bra burning, the right to serve in combat, etc.--and tarnished its image forever.  It's a bitter philosophy, good only for building tension and wreaking havoc.  It's as bad as racism and as bad as male chauvinism.  Perhaps worse even, because it's more subtle and therefore under the radar. 
 

There is definitely a lot of bitterness in the feminism movement.  But you have to try to understand why.  I can sympathize with feminists as a gay man who has seen discrimination against gays over and over again.  That treatment over time engenders bitterness in gay people.  It also brings lots of other baggage like depression issues, heightened rates of suicide, drug use, and even promiscuity... which the right has then used as an excuse to further discriminate against gays.

But as someone who is bitter and often wants to respond badly to people who demand that I respect their bigotry as a part of their 'faith', I get why feminists also respond badly in the face of sexism.

At the same time, I agree that egalitarianism should be the goal as far as society is concerned.  Women should not be demanding that society feminize any more than gays should demand that society become more gay.

Humans have a tendency to overshoot which ultimately harms their progress in the medium term.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

BOOBIES!!!!!

[angus]

bitterness in gay people.  

bitter gay man.

That's like jumbo shrimp, or pretty ugly, or top floor, or United Nations.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Deference endears one better than arrogance. People can get away with more audacious things when they are doing so in the name of giving up control. A woman saying "I'm the woman; I decide" would be met about as poorly as the gender-flipped version, though granted it would be far less likely for anyone to say that.

     The woman I was referring to is actually someone with a very strong personality. In my experience, there is actually very little connection between the strength of a woman and her interest in strong men. I don't understand women all that well; I just know what I do from my interactions with them.

In this case, her saying that was at the very least not entirely serious, and more of a playful remark than a real surrender of decisionmaking power. Maybe I'm wrong, I have a hard time imagining a woman with an affirmed personality accepting to let a man actually lead her throughout her life. I'm not saying that assertive women only like submissive men or vice versa (though I tend to buy into the "opposites attract" theory), but at the very least a basic level of deference should be necessary for a relationship like this to work.

     I think that there is indeed some level of attraction between opposites, though common ground is also important. There's such a thing as being too different, and I suspect that that sort of statement might have been a deliberate effort to make me act more like how she acted. Or something like that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Antonio, I can't answer for Beet, but generally speaking one becomes asexual in the same way that one becomes gay or straight or bi or whatever else. You seem to be thinking of a sort of strongly internalized and disciplined celibacy, which isn't really the same thing. Forgive me if I'm misreading this.

Hagrid, I'm looking forward to seeing what you have to say about masculinity.

[Hatman 🍁]

Not sure why feminism is such a bad word. In the most basic sense, a feminist is someone who believes in women's equality. I consider myself a liberal feminist.

Anyways, we can't ignore the purpose of humanity- reproducing. It's not wrong for men to want to "get laid", that's what we're biologically supposed to do. Same with women of course. Of course another obligation for humanity is to survive long enough for our offspring to also be able to reproduce, caring for them in the process.

That's not to say that if you can't reproduce, you're useless. You can still fulfill the second aspect of humanity. It's why all gay people (who can be fit parents) should adopt.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Antonio, I can't answer for Beet, but generally speaking one becomes asexual in the same way that one becomes gay or straight or bi or whatever else. You seem to be thinking of a sort of strongly internalized and disciplined celibacy, which isn't really the same thing. Forgive me if I'm misreading this.

All my apologies if what I said came across offensive. That was a honest mistake, as I admittedly am completely ignorant on the topic of asexuality.

In fairness, I generally feel that sexual orientation isn't as innate as many liberals claim it is (I don't buy into the "gay gene" thing for example). That doesn't change my view that society need to fully accept all these forms of sexuality, obviously.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Anyways, we can't ignore the purpose of humanity- reproducing. It's not wrong for men to want to "get laid", that's what we're biologically supposed to do. Same with women of course. Of course another obligation for humanity is to survive long enough for our offspring to also be able to reproduce, caring for them in the process.

That's not to say that if you can't reproduce, you're useless. You can still fulfill the second aspect of humanity. It's why all gay people (who can be fit parents) should adopt.

I think the purpose of humanity is to decide its own purpose, not to let biology dictate it.

Of course there is nothing inherently wrong with "wanting to get laid" (guess what, I too don't dislike the idea ). However, I deeply despise the deceptive and hypocritical means that are often used to reach that goal. Also, the societal pressure to "get laid" IS a major problem.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

TL;DR


Thus, Snowguy and hockeydude win by default.  Although that's not to say that their posts are bad.           

[Beet]

Antonio, I can't answer for Beet, but generally speaking one becomes asexual in the same way that one becomes gay or straight or bi or whatever else. You seem to be thinking of a sort of strongly internalized and disciplined celibacy, which isn't really the same thing. Forgive me if I'm misreading this.

All my apologies if what I said came across offensive. That was a honest mistake, as I admittedly am completely ignorant on the topic of asexuality.

In fairness, I generally feel that sexual orientation isn't as innate as many liberals claim it is (I don't buy into the "gay gene" thing for example). That doesn't change my view that society need to fully accept all these forms of sexuality, obviously.

Yes, Nathan is correct- It is impossible to pinpoint when I "became" asexual- One does not really notice a lack of something until it is brought to your attention. It makes more sense to talk about when I first learned that sexual desire was something I was supposed to have. That I thought I would have when I "grew up" or had the "right experiences" or stopped "doing life wrong." In a way I understand those who try to dismiss asexuality because I dismissed my lack of sexual desire for all these reasons in myself for a long time. The possibility that this could even be something other than a disorder, a deep dark secret with no name known only to myself- never even occurred to me. In this sense I didn't "become" asexual until I first learned of it as a social identity; it became a discrete name and concept as such; and the self acceptance that followed. But I never had sexual desire.

[Hatman 🍁]

Anyways, we can't ignore the purpose of humanity- reproducing. It's not wrong for men to want to "get laid", that's what we're biologically supposed to do. Same with women of course. Of course another obligation for humanity is to survive long enough for our offspring to also be able to reproduce, caring for them in the process.

That's not to say that if you can't reproduce, you're useless. You can still fulfill the second aspect of humanity. It's why all gay people (who can be fit parents) should adopt.

I think the purpose of humanity is to decide its own purpose, not to let biology dictate it.

Sorry, that's the only purpose of any species. Sure, humans are sentient and all that, but we're still animals, and the purpose of animals is to reproduce.  Anything beyond that is necessary distraction.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, society pressures men to "get laid", but your inner biology is agreeing with it. Without societal pressure, we men would still want to f[inks] anything that moves- so to speak.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In fairness, I generally feel that sexual orientation isn't as innate as many liberals claim it is (I don't buy into the "gay gene" thing for example). That doesn't change my view that society need to fully accept all these forms of sexuality, obviously.

I agree with you on that, but even so, for the vast majority of people at least in our society and within our ways of knowing, it's anything but a conscious choice. Beyond that (important) point, I'm a little skeptical of all purported general aetiologies of sexual orientation--almost on principle, you could say.

Earl, appeal to nature and arguable category error in that it's far from self-evident that 'purpose' in an evolutionary-biology sense and 'purpose' in a philosophical or moral sense are the same thing.

[afleitch]

Female friends of mine find this thread hilarious for the record.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Anyways, we can't ignore the purpose of humanity- reproducing. It's not wrong for men to want to "get laid", that's what we're biologically supposed to do. Same with women of course. Of course another obligation for humanity is to survive long enough for our offspring to also be able to reproduce, caring for them in the process.

That's not to say that if you can't reproduce, you're useless. You can still fulfill the second aspect of humanity. It's why all gay people (who can be fit parents) should adopt.

I think the purpose of humanity is to decide its own purpose, not to let biology dictate it.

Sorry, that's the only purpose of any species. Sure, humans are sentient and all that, but we're still animals, and the purpose of animals is to reproduce.  Anything beyond that is necessary distraction.

Who cares about what the purpose of animal species is? The fact that we have free will allows us to completely ignore evolutionary principles and follow the course that we have decided. Of course we still need to eat, drink and all, and of course the drive toward sex that most people have is originally biological, as are a few other primal instincts, but that doesn't have to be out purpose if you don't want to. If history is any guide, what you call "necessary distractions" have in fact become much more important to our human experience.

[Kitteh]

o look another thread about gender that turns into 'how to get laid' I'm sure that's exactly what this place needs

[Antonio the Sixth]

o look another thread about gender that turns into 'how to get laid' I'm sure that's exactly what this place needs

You know that wasn't my goal...

[Oakvale]

o look another thread about gender that turns into 'how to get laid' I'm sure that's exactly what this place needs

To be fair "you [plural or singular] need to get laid" could be posted in virtually every thread on the forum and would almost universally be appropriate and helpful advice.

[Kitteh]

o look another thread about gender that turns into 'how to get laid' I'm sure that's exactly what this place needs

To be fair "you [plural or singular] need to get laid" could be posted in virtually every thread on the forum and would almost universally be appropriate and helpful advice.

Sure but going to this place for sex advice is...uh, yeah.