Slog
News & ArtsThursday, April 28, 2011
Sex What If Everything Undergrads Thought They Knew About Porn in 1987 Turned Out To Be Wrong?
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:56 PM
Anybody interested in sex and porn—and that would everybody and very nearly everybody, respectively (asexuals excluded (which is as it should be (kidding!)))—will find this very interesting. And folks who are old enough to remember campus crusades against porn ("Porn Is the Theory, Rape Is the Practice") will find it particularly interesting:
Legislators Urge Ban on Media Shown to Reduce Rape
Women’s groups have been in a state of hysteria lately over Republican efforts to restrict abortion rights, but they’ve been curiously silent about the efforts from BOTH sides of the aisle to restrict women’s other sexual rights. For example, they’ve said nothing about the recent attempt by over 100 senators and congressmen to “crack down” on certain widely-available materials which have been demonstrated to decrease rape rates, namely porn.
If porn consumption inspired people—men people (asexual men excluded (which is as it should be (kidding!)))—to commit sex crimes, which a not-surprising number of people who went to college in the 80s and 90s still believe, then the current and historically unprecedented ubiquity of hardcore porn (thanks, Internet!) should have led to an explosion of sex crimes, right? It didn't happen. ("Sex crimes against children: Down 53 percent between 1992 and 2006.... Rape: The forcible rape rate in the U.S. has dropped from 41.1 per 100,000 people in 1990 to 28.7 in 2009. That latter figure is also an all-time low." Go read the whole thing.)
Rape is a crime of violence... no question. But the porn explosion may have revealed that rape is also a crime that is inspired, in many instances, by sexual frustration and sexual deprivation. Porn appears to be providing an outlet—surrogate sexual experiences—for men who might otherwise commit sex crimes. As a sex researcher I spoke to earlier this year put it: "Lots of guys who might otherwise be out committing sex crimes are sitting at home now in front of their computers. Want to cut the number of rapes? Make sure everyone has high-speed Internet access, a laptop, and some privacy."
So let's hear it for porn, right?
5
If we're cheering for porn, couldn't we take a minute to request good porn, you know, with actors who have some chemistry, and actually look like they're having fun instead of regarding each other with the detached expressions of people digging for ear wax?
6
Your main point that porn does not cause rape is spot-on, but I can't help but chime in on one comment you make here...That rape "seems to be inspired, in many instances, by sexual frustration and deprivation." Perhaps in some cases, but you were closer to the mark when you said rape is a crime of violence. It is more often a crime about abuse, power, violence, control, hatred than it is a crime related to sex. Many rapists are unable to climax during a rape--that isn't the objective. The objective is to hurt. To dominate and assert control through force and violence.
7
@5: Gone are the days when the entire porn industry was run by a handful of guys from the Valley who, if they weren't making cheesy sex films, would otherwise be pumping gas.
These days, you can find just about anything you want. Personally, I love the amateur couples genre precisely because it features actual couples rather than detached actors. You kind of have to dig around a bit to find the hot ones, though.
These days, you can find just about anything you want. Personally, I love the amateur couples genre precisely because it features actual couples rather than detached actors. You kind of have to dig around a bit to find the hot ones, though.
8
It really wouldn't matter when you were in college: whether it's from a feminist perspective or a reactionary religious one porn hate is usually predicated on policing other people's sexuality and imposing your own views wearing a "social good" disguise. It's the assertion and imposition of the social dominance a given ideology and such things are absolutely immune to both facts and the desire of other people to live their lives without third-party interference.
9
You're only referencing half of the debate, Dan. the idea was that people who were introduced to sex only through porn might think that rape and rough sex were the norm (and there are certainly a lot of men and women who think sex starts with heavy penetration and little regard for getting chicks off, according to those who write to you).
That idea led to two theories: one, that porn taught people that rape-style sex was the norm and increased incidents of rape.
Two, that porn provided a safety valve that prevented rape, particularly when horny people were under the influence of drugs and alcohol. It seems the latter is gaining traction.
That idea led to two theories: one, that porn taught people that rape-style sex was the norm and increased incidents of rape.
Two, that porn provided a safety valve that prevented rape, particularly when horny people were under the influence of drugs and alcohol. It seems the latter is gaining traction.
10
@5 I know what you mean C. I think I may be the only gay man in America who finds 99% of porn unappealing.
11
I dont easily buy this theory that the decline in rape and increase in accessibility to porn are hand in hand. They could be distantly related, but just comparing one set of numbers to the other isn't convincing enough to say that potential rapists don't commit crimes because of access to porn. Rape is much more about aggression and power than it is about being horny.
Women's groups are curiously silent about this? Why is it surprising that feminists aren't up in arms about a porn ban? Not saying you cant be both--a fan of porn and a feminist--of course you can be both. But what percent of organized feminist groups support hardcore porn? This isn't surprising at all.
Women's groups are curiously silent about this? Why is it surprising that feminists aren't up in arms about a porn ban? Not saying you cant be both--a fan of porn and a feminist--of course you can be both. But what percent of organized feminist groups support hardcore porn? This isn't surprising at all.
12
I wasn't in college in 1987, I was in 7th grade watching a video of Ted Bundy telling James Dobson that porn turned him into a serial rapist and killer.
13
@3 and @4:
I was in school in the late 80s. What I remember are arguments from certain schools within anti-porn feminism that the acceptability of porn related not to the material but who was viewing it. For example, pictures of women in bondage would be acceptable if being consumed by lesbians but not by straight men because of the power and `objectification/consumption' dynamics.
I was in school in the late 80s. What I remember are arguments from certain schools within anti-porn feminism that the acceptability of porn related not to the material but who was viewing it. For example, pictures of women in bondage would be acceptable if being consumed by lesbians but not by straight men because of the power and `objectification/consumption' dynamics.
14
@7:
Definitely agree with you there.
Hmmm, the first time I saw a porn movie was actually on a college campus back in the early 1970's. It did inspire some very nice "statutory rape" on the part of my boyfriend. ;-)
Definitely agree with you there.
Hmmm, the first time I saw a porn movie was actually on a college campus back in the early 1970's. It did inspire some very nice "statutory rape" on the part of my boyfriend. ;-)
16
Correlation is not causation, etc., so caveat on those stats, Dan. But there is a larger issue here. Porn is absolutely re-writing our culture in all kinds of ways. Some of those ways are awesome, such as the ability of porn to help folks find out what they like and figure out how to be good at it. Also, the ubiquity of porn de-mythologizes sex into the biological function it is, a radical social change that may be a human civilizational first. But of course there is also a downside. I don't really buy "porn addiction", but yeah, porn can serve to create a sense of unreality in sexual relationships. It can also keep some folks, especially men, from motivating themselves to actually going out and forming human relationships. Unfortunately, for some lost souls, "forming human relationships" means forced sex, so the general pallative effect of porn is maybe keeping them from acting out, but it's also keeping a lot of non-violent folks from acting out as well. We become watchers instead of doers. In the case of rapists, that's great. In the case of the rest of us, maybe not so much.
17
@11: "I dont easily buy this theory that the decline in rape and increase in accessibility to porn are hand in hand... "
One can easily and properly argue correlation v. causation. (The decline could be occasioned by a diminishment in reporting, or a part of the general crime drop over the same period, to take just two examples.) But I'm sure is that there is a very direct correlation between people rejecting data which doesn't match their cause. And I'm pretty damned sure that if the rape stats had linked upwards with porn consumption that people would be utterly certain of cause and effect.
One can easily and properly argue correlation v. causation. (The decline could be occasioned by a diminishment in reporting, or a part of the general crime drop over the same period, to take just two examples.) But I'm sure is that there is a very direct correlation between people rejecting data which doesn't match their cause. And I'm pretty damned sure that if the rape stats had linked upwards with porn consumption that people would be utterly certain of cause and effect.
18
@11 - You're missing the point, a little bit. The point isn't "look, because porn is freely available, and the sexcrime numbers are down, that shows a link to porn reducing crime."
The point is that the assertion/hypothesis of the antisex/antiporn people is that porn needs to be banned precisely because it can/will/may increase the sexcrime rate. The numbers show that hypothesis to be provably false. Porn is more freely available now than ever before, and the crime rates are lower than ever. That would seem to be a clear demonstration that the "porn leads to rape" assertion is, well, horsecrap.
The point is that the assertion/hypothesis of the antisex/antiporn people is that porn needs to be banned precisely because it can/will/may increase the sexcrime rate. The numbers show that hypothesis to be provably false. Porn is more freely available now than ever before, and the crime rates are lower than ever. That would seem to be a clear demonstration that the "porn leads to rape" assertion is, well, horsecrap.
19
Why oh why would any ostensibly "pro women's rights" article start with the sentence "Women’s groups have been in a state of hysteria lately..."?
I'd expect the same writer to pen such cringe-worthy metaphors as, "Chinese groups working themselves into a lather", "Men's group gets dicked over", or "LGBT groups queer study results."
I'd expect the same writer to pen such cringe-worthy metaphors as, "Chinese groups working themselves into a lather", "Men's group gets dicked over", or "LGBT groups queer study results."
21
@11 It's surprising because if you're a feminist that doesn't support a woman's right to do whatever the hell she damn well pleases with her body that doesn't hurt anybody else, like being a sex worker, you're a bad feminist, and it's surprising so many feminist groups could be so thorougly filled with ranks of bad feminists.
22
@16
I think us becoming "watchers" instead of "doers" is a social reaction to the HIV/AIDS panic from the 1990's which popularized porn (and non-penetrative kink) as the safe alternative to "doing it." This is the new so-called concern-troll" argument against porn -- it makes people have bad sex! Though we don't know if people had good sex before porn. Like there was even a time before porn.
And the updated feminist argument is that easily available internet porn results in the exploitation of women - AKA sex trafficking, etc. Which really is more of an argument against capitalism and the lack of political power for women in poor countries.
I think us becoming "watchers" instead of "doers" is a social reaction to the HIV/AIDS panic from the 1990's which popularized porn (and non-penetrative kink) as the safe alternative to "doing it." This is the new so-called concern-troll" argument against porn -- it makes people have bad sex! Though we don't know if people had good sex before porn. Like there was even a time before porn.
And the updated feminist argument is that easily available internet porn results in the exploitation of women - AKA sex trafficking, etc. Which really is more of an argument against capitalism and the lack of political power for women in poor countries.
23
#11 One answer to your question of "But what percent of organized feminist groups support hardcore porn?" is that the article linked is on a Sex Workers' Blog called "Bound, Not Gagged."
25
You can cross out "About Porn in 1987" from that headline and get an accurate impression of the state of ungraduate knowledge on any subject, at any time.
26
@9 That's an argument for making good porn more readily available and easier to find. Besides, I find the whole porn will give you an unrealistic view of sex argument pretty ridiculous when we have kids watching Disney films, tons of people watching romance movies, and porn for women is the biggest market for books We call them romance novels, and they are the biggest sellers. They are porn. They've been selling for ages. And none of those things give people realistic views of relationships or sex. You can argue that's a problem. In fact, I would argue that it is a problem that we don't give people more information and realistic views of relationships. But why single out some types of porn, when vast chunks of the culture are feeding that? Oh, and add in most magazines aimed at giving advice on such matters such as teen magazines and women's magazines with articles like "10 Things He Won't Tell You But Wishes You Knew".
27
Can we dispense with the "forcible rape" language, already? ALL rape is forcible. The idea of rape is to *force* your will on another.
28
I am loathe to buy the argument that ubiquity of porn caused the decline in rapes (even though I am both pro-porn and, um , anti-rape), but it is pretty clear that ubiquity of porn is not causing rapes.
But it's really beside the point. To be a fanatic (about anything) is to be immune to evidence to the contrary, whether we are talking about this, the president's birth certificate, climate change, evolution, vaccines, etc., etc.
But it's really beside the point. To be a fanatic (about anything) is to be immune to evidence to the contrary, whether we are talking about this, the president's birth certificate, climate change, evolution, vaccines, etc., etc.
29
Excuse me for changing the subject, but I had to laugh at @18's comment. Change just a couple of words and you get this:
Guns are more freely available now than ever before, and the crime rates are lower than ever. That would seem to be a clear demonstration that the "guns lead to crime" assertion is, well, horsecrap.
30
@ 18, 24
This is what Dan wrote: As a sex researcher I spoke to earlier this year put it: "Lots of guys who might otherwise be out committing sex crimes are sitting at home now in front of their computers. Want to cut the number of rapes? Make sure everyone has high-speed internet access, a laptop, and some privacy."
The sex researcher is clearly stating that access to porn decreases the number of rapes. SLOG commenters are, rightly, questioning this logic if it's merely based on the numbers presented.
Could it be true? The numbers don't tell us that. The numbers do tell us that there wasn't an explosion of sex crime, so porn wasn't the villain that everyone expected it to be. You are definitely right about that and I completely agree with that. I just don't agree with the sex researcher. I'm thinking this researcher should actually try researching instead of implying causality by meshing two numbers together.
This is what Dan wrote: As a sex researcher I spoke to earlier this year put it: "Lots of guys who might otherwise be out committing sex crimes are sitting at home now in front of their computers. Want to cut the number of rapes? Make sure everyone has high-speed internet access, a laptop, and some privacy."
The sex researcher is clearly stating that access to porn decreases the number of rapes. SLOG commenters are, rightly, questioning this logic if it's merely based on the numbers presented.
Could it be true? The numbers don't tell us that. The numbers do tell us that there wasn't an explosion of sex crime, so porn wasn't the villain that everyone expected it to be. You are definitely right about that and I completely agree with that. I just don't agree with the sex researcher. I'm thinking this researcher should actually try researching instead of implying causality by meshing two numbers together.
31
I hear ya, Lissa. How about: Legolas combing his hair for you, and Viggo fixing lasagne for me, naked, except for the sword...
You and I would be on the sofa, refilling our wine glasses, snapping a few pics on our phones.
You and I would be on the sofa, refilling our wine glasses, snapping a few pics on our phones.
32
@27: I think that the tautology comes from the early days of the "date rape" debates, leading people to erroneously assume that such a dark crime needed shiny adjectives.
33
1) No one has ever established a connection, positive or negative, between porn and sex crimes.
2) Porn is not criminal. Obscenity is.
3) The "boys" who produced porn in the 1970s and 1980s were largely professional actors/actresses working with professional crews. The sloppy crap started to appear when the price of video cameras dropped.
2) Porn is not criminal. Obscenity is.
3) The "boys" who produced porn in the 1970s and 1980s were largely professional actors/actresses working with professional crews. The sloppy crap started to appear when the price of video cameras dropped.
34
@30:
Part of what concerns some folks is that the anti-porners use what we can call cop logic: if a given fact A is present, it's proof that you did it, but A's absence can't be taken as proof that you're innocent. (GSR on the hand? You shot him! No GSR! Ah, it's only absent because you washed it off! That sort of thing.) If there had been an increase in sex crime corresponding to porn availability rates the forces of Decency! and Order! would be all over it like white on rice. The fact that the rates markedly dropped will not be a reason for, say, prosecutors or MacKinnonite professors, to abandon their long held commitment to its eradication. Heads they win, tails you lose.
Part of what concerns some folks is that the anti-porners use what we can call cop logic: if a given fact A is present, it's proof that you did it, but A's absence can't be taken as proof that you're innocent. (GSR on the hand? You shot him! No GSR! Ah, it's only absent because you washed it off! That sort of thing.) If there had been an increase in sex crime corresponding to porn availability rates the forces of Decency! and Order! would be all over it like white on rice. The fact that the rates markedly dropped will not be a reason for, say, prosecutors or MacKinnonite professors, to abandon their long held commitment to its eradication. Heads they win, tails you lose.
35
@18 That actually makes sense. I think that point is a good one. Though it seems like both points are being asserted in the post.
@21 I see what you mean, and I'm not arguing one way or another on what makes a good feminist. But if most organized feminist groups are full of those kids of members--the ones who are not supporters of hardcore porn--then it's certainly no surprise that they're not fighting this legislation. Comparing it to defunding Planned Parenthood is a bit much.
@21 I see what you mean, and I'm not arguing one way or another on what makes a good feminist. But if most organized feminist groups are full of those kids of members--the ones who are not supporters of hardcore porn--then it's certainly no surprise that they're not fighting this legislation. Comparing it to defunding Planned Parenthood is a bit much.
36
@22
I totally see how STDs drive a lot of scared folks into finding refuge in porn, although I think that's a larger argument for much of media plying on our instinctual fears (see News, Fox). As far as the concern-troll argument, when is ignorance ever better? Besides one bad porn-inspired move that backfired once, I can say that porn has been a great help to my sex life, though because as humans we are all different, nothing beats hands-on experience.
You are right on about the whole confusion of economic exploitation with porn. Economic exploitation is economic exploitation. Maybe porn is unique because you see what is claimed as the exploitation right there before you on media, but if you've ever seen a young woman with scarred and deformed hands caused by hours and hours sewing your jeans for you, you know that exploitation comes in lots of forms. It's about the money, not the sex. Interestingly, internet porn is giving rise to an anti-commercial alt-porn culture of people who perform for free as a form of validation, titillation, or whatever it is that turns their particular crank. This isn't going to do anything but grow with the increased documentation of our lives in the digital world. I wouldn't be surprised of the shock of seeing someone you know doing porn starts wearing off, and it becomes no more shocking then watching someone you know play sports. Not that commercial enterprises won't find a way to make money on this new porn-casual culture (see Apparel, American).
I totally see how STDs drive a lot of scared folks into finding refuge in porn, although I think that's a larger argument for much of media plying on our instinctual fears (see News, Fox). As far as the concern-troll argument, when is ignorance ever better? Besides one bad porn-inspired move that backfired once, I can say that porn has been a great help to my sex life, though because as humans we are all different, nothing beats hands-on experience.
You are right on about the whole confusion of economic exploitation with porn. Economic exploitation is economic exploitation. Maybe porn is unique because you see what is claimed as the exploitation right there before you on media, but if you've ever seen a young woman with scarred and deformed hands caused by hours and hours sewing your jeans for you, you know that exploitation comes in lots of forms. It's about the money, not the sex. Interestingly, internet porn is giving rise to an anti-commercial alt-porn culture of people who perform for free as a form of validation, titillation, or whatever it is that turns their particular crank. This isn't going to do anything but grow with the increased documentation of our lives in the digital world. I wouldn't be surprised of the shock of seeing someone you know doing porn starts wearing off, and it becomes no more shocking then watching someone you know play sports. Not that commercial enterprises won't find a way to make money on this new porn-casual culture (see Apparel, American).
38
I would be super cautious about causation and correlation.
That said (and yeah, I was in college back then) I've never thought that porn churned out rapists b the dozen. I do have two major points, the first is the same as Canucks - BY THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, CAN'T PORN AT LEAST *LOOK* LIKE EVERYONE IN IT IS HAVING A GOOD TIME, and second (closely related) what is depicted in porn is not interesting to me by and large; if a dude (or dudette! tho curiously I've not had that problem) treats me the way women are often treated in porn, I'm going to break a few of his (or her!) unmentionables. Do I want a partner who has learned about "how sex works" from porn? Er, no, not really.
For me the big question has always been whether porn *reflects* the way people think about sex or *directs* the way people think about sex. And in the end, I'm willing to bet a little bit of both.
So... better quality porn? More porn for a variety of POV's? Something.
And I'm not sure I buy that "sit him in front of a high connection and he won't e raping argument." There's all kinds of arguments constructed for whatever scenario you want -- I've had cops tell me in detail about those guys who lure girls to their places in online chats -- there's a sizeable contingent who believe the internet is a haven for sexual predators and has enabled all kinds of crap we didn't have before *shrug*.
The decrease in overall crime rate correlates with quite a few things actually. One of the more interesting ones I came across a bit back was the correlation of decrease-in-crime with increase in lead regulation. As a poison, lead is well known to reduce inhibition and self control (eg tendencies to higher violence) as well as higher cognitive function. Pick out of these many correlations what you will :)
More...
That said (and yeah, I was in college back then) I've never thought that porn churned out rapists b the dozen. I do have two major points, the first is the same as Canucks - BY THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, CAN'T PORN AT LEAST *LOOK* LIKE EVERYONE IN IT IS HAVING A GOOD TIME, and second (closely related) what is depicted in porn is not interesting to me by and large; if a dude (or dudette! tho curiously I've not had that problem) treats me the way women are often treated in porn, I'm going to break a few of his (or her!) unmentionables. Do I want a partner who has learned about "how sex works" from porn? Er, no, not really.
For me the big question has always been whether porn *reflects* the way people think about sex or *directs* the way people think about sex. And in the end, I'm willing to bet a little bit of both.
So... better quality porn? More porn for a variety of POV's? Something.
And I'm not sure I buy that "sit him in front of a high connection and he won't e raping argument." There's all kinds of arguments constructed for whatever scenario you want -- I've had cops tell me in detail about those guys who lure girls to their places in online chats -- there's a sizeable contingent who believe the internet is a haven for sexual predators and has enabled all kinds of crap we didn't have before *shrug*.
The decrease in overall crime rate correlates with quite a few things actually. One of the more interesting ones I came across a bit back was the correlation of decrease-in-crime with increase in lead regulation. As a poison, lead is well known to reduce inhibition and self control (eg tendencies to higher violence) as well as higher cognitive function. Pick out of these many correlations what you will :)
39
On the subject of porn addiction, I found this article really eye-opening:
http://www.alternet.org/sex/146957/is_po…
Basically: the author is a sex therapist who's had a lot of patients with porn addictions; she's not categorically against porn, but she thinks that the availability and severity of Internet porn really has led to a lot of addiction, and that we should start thinking of this as a serious public health issue.
Anyway, I feel pretty conflicted about (Internet) porn. I do think that people should basically have the right to make it, view it, etc., but the specifics of porn in our society right now are kind of troubling; media has power, after all. If we can agree that, for example, being exposed to lots of racist media is likely to engender racist attitudes, or being exposed to lots of sexist media is likely to engender sexist attitudes, then really, why wouldn't the values and ethics of porn influence peoples' sexualities (especially if we're talking about people viewing porn from a young age, when their sense of sex is still developing)? Basically, the situation right now is that lots of people have access to lots of very compelling, visceral media in which women are expected to do all sorts of extreme shit for the (more-or-less) sole purpose of male gratification; it's hard for me to believe that this won't have some sort of corrosive effect on our society.
(And, I'm not saying that ALL porn is like that, but I think it's pretty obvious that this is the basic - ahem - thrust of a lot of straight porn.)
http://www.alternet.org/sex/146957/is_po…
Basically: the author is a sex therapist who's had a lot of patients with porn addictions; she's not categorically against porn, but she thinks that the availability and severity of Internet porn really has led to a lot of addiction, and that we should start thinking of this as a serious public health issue.
Anyway, I feel pretty conflicted about (Internet) porn. I do think that people should basically have the right to make it, view it, etc., but the specifics of porn in our society right now are kind of troubling; media has power, after all. If we can agree that, for example, being exposed to lots of racist media is likely to engender racist attitudes, or being exposed to lots of sexist media is likely to engender sexist attitudes, then really, why wouldn't the values and ethics of porn influence peoples' sexualities (especially if we're talking about people viewing porn from a young age, when their sense of sex is still developing)? Basically, the situation right now is that lots of people have access to lots of very compelling, visceral media in which women are expected to do all sorts of extreme shit for the (more-or-less) sole purpose of male gratification; it's hard for me to believe that this won't have some sort of corrosive effect on our society.
(And, I'm not saying that ALL porn is like that, but I think it's pretty obvious that this is the basic - ahem - thrust of a lot of straight porn.)
40
so.....
Why won't Danny reveal his position on legalizing polygamy?
Come out of the closet, Danny.....
Why won't Danny reveal his position on legalizing polygamy?
Come out of the closet, Danny.....
41
Ballard Pimp @33 indulges in a bit of disingenuous sophistry with “Porn is not criminal. Obscenity is.” "Obscenity" in an American legal context is governed by the Miller standard (1973) and includes evaluation of community standards and artistic merit. Leaving aside the capacity of the court to rig matters so that a defendant can’t call evidence on either (as happened to the pornographer John Stagliano recently), such a measuring stick begs two pertinent questions.
First, why is there a "community" test for a product which is now privately produced and privately consumed, without any “community” component? As Stagliano accurately noted in an interview, Miller was laid (heh) down in an era when pornography could only be consumed in a place with a public face: there was the porn theatre and its marquee was visible to all members of the public, ergo there was a rationale for a community standards test in an obscenity case. I can see the public's right to have a say in whether there is a porn theatre on their main street and in whether or not schoolkids see "Squirter Milk Scat MILFs" in twelve-inch-high letters on their way to dance class. But if the film in question never has any public component (it's ordered privately on the internet, shipped in anonymous packaging and consumed privately) why must a public standard component of the test be applied? To be blunt, why is the “community” getting a say in what people jack to? (Also, what community? If a California company produces a movie that’s internet-ordered by somebody in Chicago and routed through a server in Georgia, whose so-called standards apply? And how can you measure those "standards"? People are not generally forthcoming about their kinks, for example. And at what percentage of participants does a consensual act between consenting adults critical-mass itself from obscene to acceptable?)
Second, why should an obscenity test incorporate artistic merit, even as a defence? If the law considers something so bad that it requires criminalization then quality it is shouldn’t factor into the equation. The First Amendment, for example, doesn’t require that a speech be Lincolnesque in its majesty for it to be protected. It’s either protected or it is not. The loathsomeness of the ad parody in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell was protected, so why shouldn’t differing forms of adult sexuality be held to a “merit” standard?
More...
First, why is there a "community" test for a product which is now privately produced and privately consumed, without any “community” component? As Stagliano accurately noted in an interview, Miller was laid (heh) down in an era when pornography could only be consumed in a place with a public face: there was the porn theatre and its marquee was visible to all members of the public, ergo there was a rationale for a community standards test in an obscenity case. I can see the public's right to have a say in whether there is a porn theatre on their main street and in whether or not schoolkids see "Squirter Milk Scat MILFs" in twelve-inch-high letters on their way to dance class. But if the film in question never has any public component (it's ordered privately on the internet, shipped in anonymous packaging and consumed privately) why must a public standard component of the test be applied? To be blunt, why is the “community” getting a say in what people jack to? (Also, what community? If a California company produces a movie that’s internet-ordered by somebody in Chicago and routed through a server in Georgia, whose so-called standards apply? And how can you measure those "standards"? People are not generally forthcoming about their kinks, for example. And at what percentage of participants does a consensual act between consenting adults critical-mass itself from obscene to acceptable?)
Second, why should an obscenity test incorporate artistic merit, even as a defence? If the law considers something so bad that it requires criminalization then quality it is shouldn’t factor into the equation. The First Amendment, for example, doesn’t require that a speech be Lincolnesque in its majesty for it to be protected. It’s either protected or it is not. The loathsomeness of the ad parody in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell was protected, so why shouldn’t differing forms of adult sexuality be held to a “merit” standard?
42
39
You are wise.
You are wasting your time on Slog, however...
Here's a correlation for Danny:
Compare the sales of Viagra and other similar products to the availability of porn.
What?!
Porn makes men's dicks limp....
As @39 notes, exposure to something DOES affect the consumer.
Pornography presents a grossly distorted and unhealthy depiction of sex.
Consumers of pornography absorb that distorted unhealthy attitude toward sex.
How many losers write in to Danny
claiming to be in a great relationship
with someone they love
and everything is perfect
except
the sex doesn't cut it for them....
Why?
Because they have unrealistic (and unattainable) expectations about sex.
Normal Healthy People in Love
should be able to enjoy sex together.
(it isn't really that complicated.....)
Losers who buy into the image of sex depicted in porn
are doomed to ever be unsatisfied and disappointed.
(it would be like engineers getting their inspiration from 'Roadrunner' cartoons...)
Danny thinks porn is nifty keen...
Danny has never been in a healthy loving mature relationship.
Danny demands the right to cheat even though he is 'married' to someone the FanBoys all describe as really hot.
Why, Danny?
Perhaps you have cultivated unhealthy unrealistic views on sex.....
You are wise.
You are wasting your time on Slog, however...
Here's a correlation for Danny:
Compare the sales of Viagra and other similar products to the availability of porn.
What?!
Porn makes men's dicks limp....
As @39 notes, exposure to something DOES affect the consumer.
Pornography presents a grossly distorted and unhealthy depiction of sex.
Consumers of pornography absorb that distorted unhealthy attitude toward sex.
How many losers write in to Danny
claiming to be in a great relationship
with someone they love
and everything is perfect
except
the sex doesn't cut it for them....
Why?
Because they have unrealistic (and unattainable) expectations about sex.
Normal Healthy People in Love
should be able to enjoy sex together.
(it isn't really that complicated.....)
Losers who buy into the image of sex depicted in porn
are doomed to ever be unsatisfied and disappointed.
(it would be like engineers getting their inspiration from 'Roadrunner' cartoons...)
Danny thinks porn is nifty keen...
Danny has never been in a healthy loving mature relationship.
Danny demands the right to cheat even though he is 'married' to someone the FanBoys all describe as really hot.
Why, Danny?
Perhaps you have cultivated unhealthy unrealistic views on sex.....
43
@39:
"it's hard for me to believe that this won't have some sort of corrosive effect on our society."
And there's the problem. People are advocating against porn on the basis of intuitive expectation. The fact that there's pretty much zero data showing that it has had a corrosive effect is considered secondary to what people believe must result. It also is a little silly (and pernicious) to premise policy on a nonexistent ability of the vast majority of the public to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Put bluntly, how a man treats a tissue in a bathroom is a world of difference from how he treats the real women in his life.
As for porn addiction, sorry, but tough shit for the addicted. People get addicted to lots of things, but making them illegal or impossible to obtain for the vast masses of people who don't get addicted is wrong at levels of both policy and principle.
"it's hard for me to believe that this won't have some sort of corrosive effect on our society."
And there's the problem. People are advocating against porn on the basis of intuitive expectation. The fact that there's pretty much zero data showing that it has had a corrosive effect is considered secondary to what people believe must result. It also is a little silly (and pernicious) to premise policy on a nonexistent ability of the vast majority of the public to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Put bluntly, how a man treats a tissue in a bathroom is a world of difference from how he treats the real women in his life.
As for porn addiction, sorry, but tough shit for the addicted. People get addicted to lots of things, but making them illegal or impossible to obtain for the vast masses of people who don't get addicted is wrong at levels of both policy and principle.
44
Actually also wanted to note this: "But the porn explosion may have revealed that rape is also a crime that is inspired, in many instances, by sexual frustration and sexual deprivation. "
This is clearly not the case -- or rape victims would be generally pretty, fuckable people. That's not the case. Much of the time, rapists don't even come -- either they use some object or ejaculation doesn't occur. Castration -- chemical or actual -- has not been shown to be an effective treatment. There's plenty of analysis -- feminist & otherwise -- that pin down rape as a crime with motivations other than sexual despite the use of one's sex organs to pull it off.
Also, crime -- in every single category -- is down, overall. It absolutely fascinates me -- and the Internet might even be a factor -- but I am not sure porn itself is anything other than another correlation.
(Just to reiterate: I have no problems with legalizing porn (and for that matter decriminalizing prostitution, etc) AND I seriously doubt that porn is responsible for decreasing forcible rape rates as claimed in the referenced article.)
This is clearly not the case -- or rape victims would be generally pretty, fuckable people. That's not the case. Much of the time, rapists don't even come -- either they use some object or ejaculation doesn't occur. Castration -- chemical or actual -- has not been shown to be an effective treatment. There's plenty of analysis -- feminist & otherwise -- that pin down rape as a crime with motivations other than sexual despite the use of one's sex organs to pull it off.
Also, crime -- in every single category -- is down, overall. It absolutely fascinates me -- and the Internet might even be a factor -- but I am not sure porn itself is anything other than another correlation.
(Just to reiterate: I have no problems with legalizing porn (and for that matter decriminalizing prostitution, etc) AND I seriously doubt that porn is responsible for decreasing forcible rape rates as claimed in the referenced article.)
46
@43 - "And there's the problem. People are advocating against porn on the basis of intuitive expectation. The fact that there's pretty much zero data showing that it has had a corrosive effect is considered secondary to what people believe must result."
This is true, but let me clarify my point - the thing is, the realities of porn right now are very different than they've ever been, and we really don't know what will happen after a generation or two has grown up in this particular media environment. If, for example, you were to try and gauge the effects of porn on current thirty-somethings, you'd still be talking to people who grew up looking at Playboy and Cinemax, with maybe some dirty JPEGs mixed in there. Kids growing up right now have instant access to hours upon hours of the most hardcore videos ever made - I don't think we can really say what sort of effect that will have on people.
Seriously, if you have some data that shows that this really isn't a concern, I'd love to see it - like I said, I believe people should have the right to view porn, so it would make me feel better about that right...
"As for porn addiction, sorry, but tough shit for the addicted. People get addicted to lots of things, but making them illegal or impossible to obtain for the vast masses of people who don't get addicted is wrong at levels of both policy and principle."
It's not about making it illegal - the point is to seriously consider the potential problem. You can support legal access to porn while still admitting that there are issues associated with it (for example, I support legal access to painkillers, but it would be silly to deny that painkiller addiction isn't a serious issue).
This is true, but let me clarify my point - the thing is, the realities of porn right now are very different than they've ever been, and we really don't know what will happen after a generation or two has grown up in this particular media environment. If, for example, you were to try and gauge the effects of porn on current thirty-somethings, you'd still be talking to people who grew up looking at Playboy and Cinemax, with maybe some dirty JPEGs mixed in there. Kids growing up right now have instant access to hours upon hours of the most hardcore videos ever made - I don't think we can really say what sort of effect that will have on people.
Seriously, if you have some data that shows that this really isn't a concern, I'd love to see it - like I said, I believe people should have the right to view porn, so it would make me feel better about that right...
"As for porn addiction, sorry, but tough shit for the addicted. People get addicted to lots of things, but making them illegal or impossible to obtain for the vast masses of people who don't get addicted is wrong at levels of both policy and principle."
It's not about making it illegal - the point is to seriously consider the potential problem. You can support legal access to porn while still admitting that there are issues associated with it (for example, I support legal access to painkillers, but it would be silly to deny that painkiller addiction isn't a serious issue).
47
seandr was onto something: Equating pre-internet porn to the porn available nowadays is like equating the Model T to every form of transportation available today. Any form of sexuality, whether written, pictures or video, is out there, open, and a lot of it is free.
The internet has brought the awareness of the incredible complexity of human sexuality to a level unprecedented in human history. We are living the experiment, and it isn't over yet. Drawing conclusions at this point in time seems a bit premature.
The internet has brought the awareness of the incredible complexity of human sexuality to a level unprecedented in human history. We are living the experiment, and it isn't over yet. Drawing conclusions at this point in time seems a bit premature.
48
Not every expression of rape necessarily coincides with battery. Far more rapes, I am sure, are committed against inebriated and/or incapacitated victims, for example, the passed out sorority sister.
I can't imagine the rape of someone so incapacitated to be purely a manifestation of non-sexual cues. In that case, the causes seem pretty fucking clear; the perpetrator, who typically wouldn't behave so for fear of punishment, takes advantage of the incapacitated subject, thinking her unable to remember and report on said violation. So, he thinks he may have intercourse without consequences to himself.
It is well-established that the Roman games were a manner of public mollification to prevent the otherwise destitute and exploited teeming masses from turning against the relatively tiny ruling elite. Is it such a stretch to believe, then, that the use of pornography can be an effective outlet for sexual tension?
I can't imagine the rape of someone so incapacitated to be purely a manifestation of non-sexual cues. In that case, the causes seem pretty fucking clear; the perpetrator, who typically wouldn't behave so for fear of punishment, takes advantage of the incapacitated subject, thinking her unable to remember and report on said violation. So, he thinks he may have intercourse without consequences to himself.
It is well-established that the Roman games were a manner of public mollification to prevent the otherwise destitute and exploited teeming masses from turning against the relatively tiny ruling elite. Is it such a stretch to believe, then, that the use of pornography can be an effective outlet for sexual tension?
49
No, #11 isn't missing the point. That is ENTIRELY Dan's point -- that porn reduces rape. And he believes it because he's a credulous fucking hack.
You're missing the point, a little bit. The point isn't "look, because porn is freely available, and the sexcrime numbers are down, that shows a link to porn reducing crime."
No, #11 isn't missing the point. That is ENTIRELY Dan's point -- that porn reduces rape. And he believes it because he's a credulous fucking hack.
52
plushnail @46: "if you have some data that shows that this really isn't a concern, I'd love to see it"...
Given that those who are arguing for porn restrictions -- based on nebulous and malleable obscenity laws that are at least four decades out of date --are often seeking to create new laws to enforce their intuitions (intuitions which are currently running against the data) I'd say that the onus is on them -- and you -- to show that it's a problem.
The default setting has to be freedom, and any restriction on that must be justified. I'm not averse to creating laws based on data. I am very averse to creating laws on what people hypothesize must or might be happening.
"I believe people should have the right to view porn, so it would make me feel better about that right..." First half, fair enough and we're in agreement. Second half? Frankly, it's not up to me, the law or the society around us to make you feel better about civil liberties.
Given that those who are arguing for porn restrictions -- based on nebulous and malleable obscenity laws that are at least four decades out of date --are often seeking to create new laws to enforce their intuitions (intuitions which are currently running against the data) I'd say that the onus is on them -- and you -- to show that it's a problem.
The default setting has to be freedom, and any restriction on that must be justified. I'm not averse to creating laws based on data. I am very averse to creating laws on what people hypothesize must or might be happening.
"I believe people should have the right to view porn, so it would make me feel better about that right..." First half, fair enough and we're in agreement. Second half? Frankly, it's not up to me, the law or the society around us to make you feel better about civil liberties.
54
Seriously, if you have some data that shows that this really isn't a concern I'd love to see it
But that's not how science works. If you want to propose a theory, you have to gather the data to support it.
That said, there is zero amount of data that implies availability of pornography causes negative attitudes towards sex and/or women.
The availability of porn exploded not just 10 years ago with the internet, but rather 25 years ago with the VCR. And it's been increasing ever since. That, together with a correlating decrease in sexual violence (and teen pregnancy) indicates that there is no causal connection between the availability of porn and negative sexual behavior.
Now, if you have some data that shows that this really is a concern, I'd love to see it.
But that's not how science works. If you want to propose a theory, you have to gather the data to support it.
That said, there is zero amount of data that implies availability of pornography causes negative attitudes towards sex and/or women.
The availability of porn exploded not just 10 years ago with the internet, but rather 25 years ago with the VCR. And it's been increasing ever since. That, together with a correlating decrease in sexual violence (and teen pregnancy) indicates that there is no causal connection between the availability of porn and negative sexual behavior.
Now, if you have some data that shows that this really is a concern, I'd love to see it.
55
"It's not about making it illegal - the point is to seriously consider the potential problem."
My concern is not rational people like you. My concern is that in many matters pleasurable -- be it sexual or grass or gambling -- they reverse the order of your points, i.e. a problem is seen then move right to making something illegal.
My concern is not rational people like you. My concern is that in many matters pleasurable -- be it sexual or grass or gambling -- they reverse the order of your points, i.e. a problem is seen then move right to making something illegal.
58
I'm all for porn, and sex workers, but BEG is right. Rape is NOT often about getting off. It's about power. To say that "oh, gee whiz, if that boy could just jerk off to some girl on girl, he wouldn't have date-raped his friend" absolves the boy of the responsibility. I know that's not what Dan was saying, but I don't think I'm the only one who is a little leary about his (and many others') argument.
59
http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/imag…
Actually if you read this study by the Stanford Law school, there is a very convincing case to be made for the preventative role of pornography. Basically, because access to the internet progressed at different rates and different times in the United States, the data offer a natural sociological experiment: decrease in sexual violence can be linked to the manipulated variable (internets), rather than some coincidental factor. In fact, for nearly every state investigated, the evidence supports a causal relationship between the availability of "violent" pornography and the decrease in actual incidents of rape.
Sexual violence may not be about sexual frustration, but it would be foolish to assume that rapists aren't in their own way rational actors. Since the benefit of actualizing a desire (rape) is outweighed by the risks (prison), it seems many young men have been willing accept a relatively risk-free substitute ("rape" porn).
Actually if you read this study by the Stanford Law school, there is a very convincing case to be made for the preventative role of pornography. Basically, because access to the internet progressed at different rates and different times in the United States, the data offer a natural sociological experiment: decrease in sexual violence can be linked to the manipulated variable (internets), rather than some coincidental factor. In fact, for nearly every state investigated, the evidence supports a causal relationship between the availability of "violent" pornography and the decrease in actual incidents of rape.
Sexual violence may not be about sexual frustration, but it would be foolish to assume that rapists aren't in their own way rational actors. Since the benefit of actualizing a desire (rape) is outweighed by the risks (prison), it seems many young men have been willing accept a relatively risk-free substitute ("rape" porn).
60
@42 What, you mean to say that viagra sales were lower when it didn't exist? How shocking and surprising! And that sales have been increasing as word has spread and people have come to trust the new drug? Whatever could possibly have caused that??? No drug could possibly ever fit that pattern without some huge sociological cause motivating such bizarre behavior. You should run a study to try to figure out this deep and profound mystery.
61
Huge problem with this analysis: All violent crime went down starting in the early 90s.
Freakonomics suggests that the cause was legalized abortion, not porn. Many children were not born that would've been raised in environments that put them at a high risk of becoming criminals. They also discuss things such as new law enforcement strategies, which contributed somewhat (but not very much, as in their analysis they show that the crime rate declined just about as much even in cities that didn't shake up their police force).
The ubiquity of internet porn (not on the internet, but in the availability of the internet to a large portion of the population) didn't start in 1992 either, but really not until a few years later.
That said, I don't think that porn is irrelevant to those things, just cautioning against strident claims. And certainly if the claims about porn being harmful and encouraging rape haven't been borne out by the evidence - but it is questionable how helpful it is, rather than being mostly neutral.
A good way to evaluate this claim would be to examine rape rates in metropolitan areas based on the time that internet arrived in those areas/install rates/etc. This is similar to how researchers have been establishing that TV is very good for women's rights in India - people in towns where TV is available become more accepting of women being independent, educated, etc. A well-researched and constructed investigation could investigate internet porn in a similar fashion.
Freakonomics suggests that the cause was legalized abortion, not porn. Many children were not born that would've been raised in environments that put them at a high risk of becoming criminals. They also discuss things such as new law enforcement strategies, which contributed somewhat (but not very much, as in their analysis they show that the crime rate declined just about as much even in cities that didn't shake up their police force).
The ubiquity of internet porn (not on the internet, but in the availability of the internet to a large portion of the population) didn't start in 1992 either, but really not until a few years later.
That said, I don't think that porn is irrelevant to those things, just cautioning against strident claims. And certainly if the claims about porn being harmful and encouraging rape haven't been borne out by the evidence - but it is questionable how helpful it is, rather than being mostly neutral.
A good way to evaluate this claim would be to examine rape rates in metropolitan areas based on the time that internet arrived in those areas/install rates/etc. This is similar to how researchers have been establishing that TV is very good for women's rights in India - people in towns where TV is available become more accepting of women being independent, educated, etc. A well-researched and constructed investigation could investigate internet porn in a similar fashion.
62
I don't understand these people saying that rape isn't about sex. We know the vast majority of rapes occur on dates with women of childbearing age. We know that people sometimes use violence to get something they want. We know that men sometimes get angry when they're denied sex. We know that people who get angry sometimes lose control and commit horrible acts to get what they want. It seems likely that obtaining sexual gratification is one major motive for committing rape.
63
@61 ForkyMcSpoon: "A good way to evaluate this claim would be to examine rape rates in metropolitan areas based on the time that internet arrived in those areas/install rates/etc."
This is precisely what the study I cited does.
This is precisely what the study I cited does.
64
@59 D'oh!
I didn't see your link before I posted, and that's exactly the method that the researcher used in that study. Great minds think alike, I suppose.
In that case, I would be more likely to agree that porn probably has a slight ameliorative effect on rape incidence.
I didn't see your link before I posted, and that's exactly the method that the researcher used in that study. Great minds think alike, I suppose.
In that case, I would be more likely to agree that porn probably has a slight ameliorative effect on rape incidence.
66
@43, 46
Good discussion.
I have concerns about porn along these lines too. I don't think it should be illegal, or shameful, by any means. But I do hope that people will recognize its potential to be an unhealthy thing in a person's life, now that it's available constantly and endlessly.
I like how Sarah Silverman talked about it in her book. She said that it should be a treat, like a cookie. It's not good for you all day every day, but once in a while, it's awesome. :)
And I do tend to think that, for somebody who fetishizes something that would be all kinds of wrong in real life, porn has the potential to be a release valve. Those people, who would otherwise starve, should eat all the cookies they like. It's better than the alternative.
Good discussion.
I have concerns about porn along these lines too. I don't think it should be illegal, or shameful, by any means. But I do hope that people will recognize its potential to be an unhealthy thing in a person's life, now that it's available constantly and endlessly.
I like how Sarah Silverman talked about it in her book. She said that it should be a treat, like a cookie. It's not good for you all day every day, but once in a while, it's awesome. :)
And I do tend to think that, for somebody who fetishizes something that would be all kinds of wrong in real life, porn has the potential to be a release valve. Those people, who would otherwise starve, should eat all the cookies they like. It's better than the alternative.
67
The downside to Silverman's analogy is that it makes me into sexual broccoli, and I really think that I am AT LEAST a good homemade Chex Mix. :-/
68
@27: No, "forcible rape" is a specific term that does not include, say, rape of an unconscious person. Rape is often defined in terms of lack of consent, which does not necessarily mean force was used.
69
One time I used my hubby's laptop to look at rape porn. The next day he went to work and fired up the computer to show clients pics of his work...whoops. They got an eyeful:)
70
This reminds me of a small-breasted stripper I knew who often played as though she was underage (pigtails and pleated skirts) and always got all the horrible creepy men. And while it really skeezed her out, she said she was a lot happier knowing they were getting their kicks with her and not someone who was actually underage.
71
You all better watch what you say about porn. The Jan. 17, 1994 Northridge earthquake was god's revenge for all those porno movies being filmed in the San Fernando Valley.
72
Lissa @56: The candles are flickering, casting shadows on the log walls. Viggo's unkempt hair falls into his face, I gently push it out of the way with a spatula. He is putting a light dusting of asiago on the lasagne, while humming a Danish folk song about a Canadian girl who has sex with a legendary warrior. You are sitting on the counter, Legolas is standing between your legs as you braid his hair. He says, "Ow!" in a petulant voice, you swat him with the hairbrush, just hard enough. They feed us lasagne at a rough hewn pine table, while the wind howls outside. Soon, we will do the same.
75
I've been formulating a theory for the past couple of weeks now. Don't know why it's taken me so long to come up with this idea, but here it is: misogyny is caused by men's sexual frustration. In societies that rigidly control women's sexuality, men don't get enough sex. They blame women for this lack of sex (because they could have all the sex they wanted if "their" women would just fuck them) and also blame women for being attractive, as if women are rubbing their faces in the fact that the men can't get laid as often as they want. How dare you look so hot when you won't fuck me!
I am a woman. I recently came up with this theory because I have noticed how *angry* men get when I won't fuck them. They seem to think that my not fucking them is a hostile act.
Now-- the solution is not for us straight ladies to fuck men when we don't want to. No. But a potential solution is to a) get rid of the whole monogamy thing; b) legalize sex work; and c) promote porn usage (a la this thread). Basically, anything to lessen men's sexual frustration is, I'm thinking, likely to lessen men's hostility to women. This would maybe lead to more equal pay, less violence against women in the home, less rape and maybe even less violence worldwide.
It's just a thought that has only had a couple of weeks of hashing out. I'd be interested to see what other people think.
I am a woman. I recently came up with this theory because I have noticed how *angry* men get when I won't fuck them. They seem to think that my not fucking them is a hostile act.
Now-- the solution is not for us straight ladies to fuck men when we don't want to. No. But a potential solution is to a) get rid of the whole monogamy thing; b) legalize sex work; and c) promote porn usage (a la this thread). Basically, anything to lessen men's sexual frustration is, I'm thinking, likely to lessen men's hostility to women. This would maybe lead to more equal pay, less violence against women in the home, less rape and maybe even less violence worldwide.
It's just a thought that has only had a couple of weeks of hashing out. I'd be interested to see what other people think.
76
@52/55 and 54 - Honestly, I wasn't being sarcastic when I said that I'd love to see some data showing that Internet porn isn't a concern - like I said, I support the right to make and view porn, and I'd be happy if it turned out that Internet porn is basically harmless. (If anyone knows of a recentish study on how peoples' attitudes towards sexuality have been influenced [or not] by consumption of hardcore porn from a young age, please post a link.)
That said, it seems like there is lots of anecdotal evidence about Internet porn having a deleterious effect on peoples' sexuality (on a recent SL podcast, for example, Dan talked about the phenomenon of young women feeling pressured to emulate the behavior and sexual scope of porn actresses). Basically, I think it's always good to be critical of the messages sent by media - any media - and since porn is an especially visceral sort of media, it's probably good to be extra wary of the messages it sends.
That said, it seems like there is lots of anecdotal evidence about Internet porn having a deleterious effect on peoples' sexuality (on a recent SL podcast, for example, Dan talked about the phenomenon of young women feeling pressured to emulate the behavior and sexual scope of porn actresses). Basically, I think it's always good to be critical of the messages sent by media - any media - and since porn is an especially visceral sort of media, it's probably good to be extra wary of the messages it sends.
77
@75: I'd agree, and also note that in more traditionalist, misogynistic societies it was only the richest men who would have access to women, and thus possibly misogyny would be a way for the wealthy to turn the rage of poor men away from them and toward women, fending off possible revolts.
Aside from your three suggestions, d) promote and encourage women's as well as men's sexuality. Slut-shaming is a major obstacle on the path towards a healthy sex life for all.
That said, no one likes to be rejected, women or men, and anger is a pretty natural reaction to rejection. (EricaP noted earlier that she was surprised to find that men needed sex to feel connected and content with a relationship, which is just the flip side of the coin. I was surprised that she was surprised, because it seems very natural and obvious to me. Doesn't everyone get angry when rejected? Sex = personal acceptance = lack of rejection.)
Aside from your three suggestions, d) promote and encourage women's as well as men's sexuality. Slut-shaming is a major obstacle on the path towards a healthy sex life for all.
That said, no one likes to be rejected, women or men, and anger is a pretty natural reaction to rejection. (EricaP noted earlier that she was surprised to find that men needed sex to feel connected and content with a relationship, which is just the flip side of the coin. I was surprised that she was surprised, because it seems very natural and obvious to me. Doesn't everyone get angry when rejected? Sex = personal acceptance = lack of rejection.)
78
Also, @54 again -
"The availability of porn exploded not just 10 years ago with the internet, but rather 25 years ago with the VCR. And it's been increasing ever since."
Porn consumption may have surged with VHS but, like I said, I really feel that the landscape is just different now, what with the Internet and all. The same could be said for music, movies, magazines, books - all things which are undergoing profound changes in the Internet era.
"The availability of porn exploded not just 10 years ago with the internet, but rather 25 years ago with the VCR. And it's been increasing ever since."
Porn consumption may have surged with VHS but, like I said, I really feel that the landscape is just different now, what with the Internet and all. The same could be said for music, movies, magazines, books - all things which are undergoing profound changes in the Internet era.
80
@78, I completely understand the impression you're getting from today's internet pornography. It's true that, just as some people ruin their lives with compulsive gambling or video gaming for example, the same has occurred with pornography. But this is not an indicator that pornography ruins lives more than say, an obsession with baseball or celebrity gossip does.
I was also being serious when I said that you asking for data to show that pornography shouldn't be a concern is simply not how science works. You don't look for evidence that there isn't a problem in a given area. If you can't find evidence that there is a problem, this is a good indicator that one doesn't exist and that you should question your feelings that one does exist.
I noticed that you often talk of "feeling" that pornography could be a concern. Most of us have, at one time or another, had similar feelings about a seeming potential danger, not based on observation or documentation, but something more personal and more important to us than the observations of strangers. But when presented with objective facts, I think we have an responsibility to dismiss the feelings we had that caused us to be concerned. False concerns not only take focus away from genuine ones, but they rob us of precious moments of serenity in a short lifetime.
So, the fact that there is no scientific evidence demonstrating that pornography causes negative sexual behavior, suggests that there is no problem with pornography on a societal level. That would change however, if scientific evidence was presented that demonstrated that pornography caused negative sexual behavior. That's the great thing about science. It requires us to change our conclusions based on the available evidence.
Sorry for rambling and thanks for your patience.
More...
I was also being serious when I said that you asking for data to show that pornography shouldn't be a concern is simply not how science works. You don't look for evidence that there isn't a problem in a given area. If you can't find evidence that there is a problem, this is a good indicator that one doesn't exist and that you should question your feelings that one does exist.
I noticed that you often talk of "feeling" that pornography could be a concern. Most of us have, at one time or another, had similar feelings about a seeming potential danger, not based on observation or documentation, but something more personal and more important to us than the observations of strangers. But when presented with objective facts, I think we have an responsibility to dismiss the feelings we had that caused us to be concerned. False concerns not only take focus away from genuine ones, but they rob us of precious moments of serenity in a short lifetime.
So, the fact that there is no scientific evidence demonstrating that pornography causes negative sexual behavior, suggests that there is no problem with pornography on a societal level. That would change however, if scientific evidence was presented that demonstrated that pornography caused negative sexual behavior. That's the great thing about science. It requires us to change our conclusions based on the available evidence.
Sorry for rambling and thanks for your patience.
81
@iluvgays
I think, while your point is very fair, that it doesn't quite jibe with the historical record. Misogyny predates the contemporary phenomenon of having large numbers of men who can't find regular sexual partners. Before the Industrial Revolution (which made feminism and women's liberation possible), women essentially traded sexual liberty for material security, and the most of men traded sexual variety for sure monogamy. Yes, I know this leaves out the dizzying array of sexual alternatives, but I would point out that, excluding either polygamous societies and the wealthy, most pre-modern human sexual relationships were of the readily recognizable type still idealized today: lifetime monogamy between a heterosexual couple. Of course, misogyny is a salient feature of virtually every social construction hitherto. That's not to say it nixes your theory, but being a materialist and historicist, I'd sooner ascribe the long-standing global phenomenon of patriarchy to the material conditions of life, rather than a very hazy and anecdotal assertion that it's all resentment.
That said, I really, really, really wish our society would have a conversation about what you're talking about. In a world of sexual liberation for women, there is a new potential source of misogyny, namely male resentment of female sexual privelege. By privelege, I mean this: any woman of reasonable attractiveness can, if she is so inclined, a sexual relationship with nine out of ten men. A man has no such marketability. Now I'm not sitting on that nine-out-of-ten number, but I do recall a university study that showed that when approached by a woman judged by a panel of men as being of average attractiveness and asked to have a spontaneous sexual encounter, ninety percent of men responded in the affirmative. When the situation was reversed, not a single woman responded in the affirmative. Again, I'm not sitting on that number or standing by the study, but I think a reasonable person would agree that it has the ring of truth about it. Couple that with the fact that women no longer damage future their availibility/desirability by having sexual relationships, and you end up with women holding a great deal more responsibility in determining the winners and losers of the sexual market. Where once a man simply chose his partner and that was that, now women are asked to have agency in the process, to _choose_ from a variety of potential partners, freely, which means some men are _chosen_ and others aren't. That gives power to the most desireable men (let's call them Jack the Lads), who are, under these conditions, going to be getting a lot more sex, while the most of men (let's call them the Joe Blows). In the bad old days, even a homely Joe Blow with small social and financial status could be assured of some kind of sexual life, because there was almost certainly going to be a woman out there who needed him to support her. Further, the Jack the Lad wasn't much better off; unless he was of the social strata capable of supporting mistresses or multiple wives, he ended up with exactly the same outcome.
I speak with authority when I say this: it hurts, it really hurts, not to be chosen. It's not that men feel entitled to sexual access (though obviously there are plenty of those), but where once men could say "c'est la vie, there's one out there for me," now we might say "I'm ugly, I'm unattractive, I'm annoying, girls don't like me." Your solutions of non-monogamy, porn, and prostitution do would not provide meaningful consolation, because in the first situation it just means more Jack the Lads getting more women, and in the latter two cases it doesn't resolve the problem of being rejected. Even if there were 100% realistic sexbot companions availible, the pain of rejection and the accompanying resentment would endure. It's never _not_ going to hurt when you're amorous feelings suffer rebuke instead of validation. This is the horror of the "friend zone" for men, right? We men aren't wired for that, and no amount of gender equity and social progress will alleviate that agony. When you turn a man down, when you put him in the friend zone, you are inevitably making a value judgment about him as a person. You think you're saying "you're not my type," but what you're really saying is "you are not good enough," which properly translated reads "something is wrong with you." Meanwhile the Jack the Lads are reaping the rewards of the more open market, further undermining the sexual security and self esteem of the Joe Blows. You cannot take the sting out of that, no matter how availible the non-intercourse alternatives are. Neither a prostitute nor a lifetime account to www.fuckingallthetime.com can compare to ecstacy of mutual desire and the exhilaration of romantic conquest.
I recall a conversation with a female friend discussing the very problem you were speaking to: when she rejected men, they got angry, and that meant losing their company. "It's not personal!" she said. "Of course it's personal," I responded. "Everything is personal when it's happening to you." It is unreasonable to expect a human being to accept rejection, to accept a value judgment against them, with a smile. When those feelings of rejection and inadequacy are allowed to fester, they can definitely manifest as misogyny. As the old misogyny of material power differences fade, I definitely think we're going to see the emergence of a new misogyny of resentment. The best way to counteract this new misogyny, besides destroying the old one, is to have a more open, non-judgmental dialogue about romantic expectation. I think we need a new set of ground rules for relationships between the sexes, one that affirms male sexual inclination without reinforcing patriarchal entitlement, and one that reinforces the gains we've made in terms of sexual liberation of women over the last century. I don't know what those rules would look like, and I don't know if this problem can even be mitigated. But we definitely should start having a conversation about it.
More...
I think, while your point is very fair, that it doesn't quite jibe with the historical record. Misogyny predates the contemporary phenomenon of having large numbers of men who can't find regular sexual partners. Before the Industrial Revolution (which made feminism and women's liberation possible), women essentially traded sexual liberty for material security, and the most of men traded sexual variety for sure monogamy. Yes, I know this leaves out the dizzying array of sexual alternatives, but I would point out that, excluding either polygamous societies and the wealthy, most pre-modern human sexual relationships were of the readily recognizable type still idealized today: lifetime monogamy between a heterosexual couple. Of course, misogyny is a salient feature of virtually every social construction hitherto. That's not to say it nixes your theory, but being a materialist and historicist, I'd sooner ascribe the long-standing global phenomenon of patriarchy to the material conditions of life, rather than a very hazy and anecdotal assertion that it's all resentment.
That said, I really, really, really wish our society would have a conversation about what you're talking about. In a world of sexual liberation for women, there is a new potential source of misogyny, namely male resentment of female sexual privelege. By privelege, I mean this: any woman of reasonable attractiveness can, if she is so inclined, a sexual relationship with nine out of ten men. A man has no such marketability. Now I'm not sitting on that nine-out-of-ten number, but I do recall a university study that showed that when approached by a woman judged by a panel of men as being of average attractiveness and asked to have a spontaneous sexual encounter, ninety percent of men responded in the affirmative. When the situation was reversed, not a single woman responded in the affirmative. Again, I'm not sitting on that number or standing by the study, but I think a reasonable person would agree that it has the ring of truth about it. Couple that with the fact that women no longer damage future their availibility/desirability by having sexual relationships, and you end up with women holding a great deal more responsibility in determining the winners and losers of the sexual market. Where once a man simply chose his partner and that was that, now women are asked to have agency in the process, to _choose_ from a variety of potential partners, freely, which means some men are _chosen_ and others aren't. That gives power to the most desireable men (let's call them Jack the Lads), who are, under these conditions, going to be getting a lot more sex, while the most of men (let's call them the Joe Blows). In the bad old days, even a homely Joe Blow with small social and financial status could be assured of some kind of sexual life, because there was almost certainly going to be a woman out there who needed him to support her. Further, the Jack the Lad wasn't much better off; unless he was of the social strata capable of supporting mistresses or multiple wives, he ended up with exactly the same outcome.
I speak with authority when I say this: it hurts, it really hurts, not to be chosen. It's not that men feel entitled to sexual access (though obviously there are plenty of those), but where once men could say "c'est la vie, there's one out there for me," now we might say "I'm ugly, I'm unattractive, I'm annoying, girls don't like me." Your solutions of non-monogamy, porn, and prostitution do would not provide meaningful consolation, because in the first situation it just means more Jack the Lads getting more women, and in the latter two cases it doesn't resolve the problem of being rejected. Even if there were 100% realistic sexbot companions availible, the pain of rejection and the accompanying resentment would endure. It's never _not_ going to hurt when you're amorous feelings suffer rebuke instead of validation. This is the horror of the "friend zone" for men, right? We men aren't wired for that, and no amount of gender equity and social progress will alleviate that agony. When you turn a man down, when you put him in the friend zone, you are inevitably making a value judgment about him as a person. You think you're saying "you're not my type," but what you're really saying is "you are not good enough," which properly translated reads "something is wrong with you." Meanwhile the Jack the Lads are reaping the rewards of the more open market, further undermining the sexual security and self esteem of the Joe Blows. You cannot take the sting out of that, no matter how availible the non-intercourse alternatives are. Neither a prostitute nor a lifetime account to www.fuckingallthetime.com can compare to ecstacy of mutual desire and the exhilaration of romantic conquest.
I recall a conversation with a female friend discussing the very problem you were speaking to: when she rejected men, they got angry, and that meant losing their company. "It's not personal!" she said. "Of course it's personal," I responded. "Everything is personal when it's happening to you." It is unreasonable to expect a human being to accept rejection, to accept a value judgment against them, with a smile. When those feelings of rejection and inadequacy are allowed to fester, they can definitely manifest as misogyny. As the old misogyny of material power differences fade, I definitely think we're going to see the emergence of a new misogyny of resentment. The best way to counteract this new misogyny, besides destroying the old one, is to have a more open, non-judgmental dialogue about romantic expectation. I think we need a new set of ground rules for relationships between the sexes, one that affirms male sexual inclination without reinforcing patriarchal entitlement, and one that reinforces the gains we've made in terms of sexual liberation of women over the last century. I don't know what those rules would look like, and I don't know if this problem can even be mitigated. But we definitely should start having a conversation about it.
82
@81 Are there really all that many guys out there who can't be assured of some kind of sex life? My impression is that men feel a more powerful urge to have sex, but women feel a more powerful urge to be partnered. Guys shouldn't take it personally when women reject their sexual advances, but girls shouldn't take it personally when guys stop hanging out with them once its clear there isn't going to be a sexual relationship.
83
The only place where I'd be concerned is the stunning ubiquity of internet porn. Being exposed to such a thing as "Rule 34" in adulthood might be a very different thing developmentally than being exposed to same as a randy thirteen year-old awash in new hormones.
84
All this arguing is missing the point of the article, as usual. You can argue all day over what motivates rapists or whether porn leads to other social ills. You can debate causation and correlation all you like. This data proves only 1 thing. If porn leads to rape then naturally giving virtually everyone access to virtually unlimited quantities (hehe tities) of virtually any kind of porn (amateur, BDSM, rape, hentai, etc) should have led to a massive increase in rape. Instead, during the period porn became extensively available rape cases dropped dramatically. All this proves is that EXTENSIVE AVAILABILITY TO PORN FOR ALL DOES NOT LEAD TO INCREASES IN RAPE. That's all we can be sure of and that is enough for me.
85
@77 – You're misquoting me. I was surprised to learn that (some) men feel connected to whoever they're having sex with (rather than sex & connection meshing in a more symbiotic relationship, where the sex strengthens the connection and the connection improves the sex). Guys often say, "oh, honey, the sex with that other person was meaningless; men can separate sex & emotion." So, yes, I was surprised to hear guys on Slog say the opposite -- that they didn't feel connected to the person they had married, and would instead feel connected to any other woman who would put out more. Also, that they would feel connected to a woman who was just "enduring" the sex, as long as she allowed them access. That is, they would feel "connected" regardless of whether she was enjoying the sex herself.
@81 – well, if it sucks for men to be rejected for sex and to learn that someone only wants to be friends; it sucks equally for women to learn that someone is not interested in hanging out with them as a friend, but only as a potential sex partner.
@81 – well, if it sucks for men to be rejected for sex and to learn that someone only wants to be friends; it sucks equally for women to learn that someone is not interested in hanging out with them as a friend, but only as a potential sex partner.
86
@82: I think that's fair, and I'm glad you brought that aspect of the dynamic up, because I was this close to ripping chaseacross a new one. It's good to be reminded that women have unrealistic expectations and thin skins too.
That being said:
@81: You are, I think, for one thing, misinterpreting the study you cite. It is not a demonstration of female sexual privilege. The reason woman are unlikely to say yes to sex with a Random Dude is that women have a lot more to lose.
We run the risk of pregnancy, and who knows where will Random dude be then?
It's easier to catch an STD if you're the catcher rather than the pitcher in a sexual encounter.
Sleeping with Random Dudes, unfair as it still is in this day and age, can give us a reputation as a Slut.
Random Dude could hurt or kill us, with the added bonus of being posthumously blamed for being stupid enough to go off with Random Dude in the first place.
Yeah. That's some privilege we gots there ain't it?
And FYI, this brand of misogyny is anything but new.
I whole heartedly agree with you that we should be open and honest about our romantic/sexual expectations. Feelings will get hurt on both sides, of course, but that's life.
That being said:
@81: You are, I think, for one thing, misinterpreting the study you cite. It is not a demonstration of female sexual privilege. The reason woman are unlikely to say yes to sex with a Random Dude is that women have a lot more to lose.
We run the risk of pregnancy, and who knows where will Random dude be then?
It's easier to catch an STD if you're the catcher rather than the pitcher in a sexual encounter.
Sleeping with Random Dudes, unfair as it still is in this day and age, can give us a reputation as a Slut.
Random Dude could hurt or kill us, with the added bonus of being posthumously blamed for being stupid enough to go off with Random Dude in the first place.
Yeah. That's some privilege we gots there ain't it?
And FYI, this brand of misogyny is anything but new.
I whole heartedly agree with you that we should be open and honest about our romantic/sexual expectations. Feelings will get hurt on both sides, of course, but that's life.
87
This discussion is so interesting. I realized here that there are at least four types of rejection: 1) rejecting sex from someone you don't know; 2) rejecting sex from a friend; 3) rejecting sex from your regular partner; 4) rejecting a relationship but not sex.
When I wrote my first post, the rejection I had in mind was rejection (1): men who approach me for sex without knowing me (guys at bars...guys ON THE STREET), and I reject them, those guys get *angry*. They call me names. Tell me I'm a bitch for talking to them when I won't fuck them. And I don't accept drinks from men I don't know, either. But sometimes I will, like, have a freaking conversation with someone at a bar and then they'll want to move it beyond that, I say no, and then they get angry and say I was "wasting their time."
Re: rejection (2). Not sure about that phenomenon. Turns out I eventually fuck all my male friends. So maybe patience is in order?
Re: rejection (3). I feel like this is a whole other ball of wax.
Re: rejection (4). Thing is, I don't get angry when someone doesn't want a relationship with me. I get hurt and sad. But angry? It's not my go-to emotional response on this.
So, when men are rejected (under one or more of these scenarios) why anger, specifically?
When I wrote my first post, the rejection I had in mind was rejection (1): men who approach me for sex without knowing me (guys at bars...guys ON THE STREET), and I reject them, those guys get *angry*. They call me names. Tell me I'm a bitch for talking to them when I won't fuck them. And I don't accept drinks from men I don't know, either. But sometimes I will, like, have a freaking conversation with someone at a bar and then they'll want to move it beyond that, I say no, and then they get angry and say I was "wasting their time."
Re: rejection (2). Not sure about that phenomenon. Turns out I eventually fuck all my male friends. So maybe patience is in order?
Re: rejection (3). I feel like this is a whole other ball of wax.
Re: rejection (4). Thing is, I don't get angry when someone doesn't want a relationship with me. I get hurt and sad. But angry? It's not my go-to emotional response on this.
So, when men are rejected (under one or more of these scenarios) why anger, specifically?
88
@Lissa
I think we ought to get as far away from the instinct to jump down anyone's throat- that's precisely the posture that prevents progress.
I fully appreciate your position. Of course women have greater sexual reserve, since the stand to lose more from the encounter. The risk of pregnancy, infection, and assault are very real, and I wasn't diminishing them by enlisting the study into my argument. The "point" of the study doesn't matter; any set of data can is subject to interpretation. I'm trying to convey an aspect of male experience and psyche that is really under-represented in the wider conversation about gender and sexuality, one that, while perhaps not new per se (the characterization of women as being unreasonably desirous of sex, of being voracious vixens, probably emerges from this), is, I think, poised to become a predominant form of misogyny in this country. I think The Social Network is unusually apt articulation of this experience.
As to the isue of thin skins on both sides, I can appreciate how annoying it must be to enjoy a guy's company and then one day have to ask the question "Was it all because he only wanted a sex partner?" It seems to reduce both the authenticity and meaningfulness of the relationship. But the implication there is that he merely wanted a sex partner, when I think, if a guy hangs around that long, he was probably looking for more.
My advice to women, and I'm speaking from a narrow male perspective, is that
I think we ought to get as far away from the instinct to jump down anyone's throat- that's precisely the posture that prevents progress.
I fully appreciate your position. Of course women have greater sexual reserve, since the stand to lose more from the encounter. The risk of pregnancy, infection, and assault are very real, and I wasn't diminishing them by enlisting the study into my argument. The "point" of the study doesn't matter; any set of data can is subject to interpretation. I'm trying to convey an aspect of male experience and psyche that is really under-represented in the wider conversation about gender and sexuality, one that, while perhaps not new per se (the characterization of women as being unreasonably desirous of sex, of being voracious vixens, probably emerges from this), is, I think, poised to become a predominant form of misogyny in this country. I think The Social Network is unusually apt articulation of this experience.
As to the isue of thin skins on both sides, I can appreciate how annoying it must be to enjoy a guy's company and then one day have to ask the question "Was it all because he only wanted a sex partner?" It seems to reduce both the authenticity and meaningfulness of the relationship. But the implication there is that he merely wanted a sex partner, when I think, if a guy hangs around that long, he was probably looking for more.
My advice to women, and I'm speaking from a narrow male perspective, is that
89
@87: I love how you've broken things down. I think the anger stems from the idea that men are entitled to what they want simply because they want it. How dare women deny them pussy? Don't we know they want it? Even people like chaseacross, who does not strike me as the sort of person who would yell at you for rejecting his advances in a bar, is operating under the assumption that he should be getting laid. That that is how the world is supposed to work. The fact that there are actual people attached to the pussy, who might have an opinion on the matter, is something that is lost sight of.
90
@ iluvgays 81
Oh, well if we're talking the rejection (1), then that's just ugly, part-off-the-problem entitlement. To hell with that.
As to the other scenarios, it's like I said: men experience rejection as a value judgment on them, which is what it is. If both genders would appreciate the fact that sex isn't an arbitrary collison between objects in space but a complicated social exchange that involves value judgments between partners and the "market" as a whole, we'd all be better served, just as we're well served by having a frank conversation about it.
Oh, well if we're talking the rejection (1), then that's just ugly, part-off-the-problem entitlement. To hell with that.
As to the other scenarios, it's like I said: men experience rejection as a value judgment on them, which is what it is. If both genders would appreciate the fact that sex isn't an arbitrary collison between objects in space but a complicated social exchange that involves value judgments between partners and the "market" as a whole, we'd all be better served, just as we're well served by having a frank conversation about it.
91
@90, if you're going to start talking about "value" and "markets" then you have to acknowledge that an offer of sex from a woman is "worth more" than an offer of sex from a man, because there's a lot more of the latter around. So then don't feel "rejected" when she doesn't take your "offer", when she won't trade a cow worth $200.00 for a milking pail worth $2.00. Instead, think about what you have to offer that might bring you up in value. Security, companionship, charm, being sensitive to what she wants (in and out of bed) and not assuming that you already know.
(I don't agree with this market-based view of sex, but if you're gonna go there, then follow it through and think about what that view really entails.)
(I don't agree with this market-based view of sex, but if you're gonna go there, then follow it through and think about what that view really entails.)
92
@Lissa
I take some offense at the presumption that men, and specifically myself, feel entitled to sex. I'm as against the patriarchal culture of entitlement as anyone. I will say, though, that I think every person, male and female (and everyone in between), with a sexual life feels like they deserve sex. Would it possible to have romantic self-confidence and self esteem otherwise? That's not a rhetorical question; I'd really like to know if there's a self-assured, sexually active person out there who feels differently.
I and and the most of decent ment are acutely aware that there are people, free agents, who govern sexual access and experience. My point is that rejection is inevitably a value judgment against the rejected person, that there is no getting around the fact, and that it's always going to hurt. I don't think drawing attention to this aspect of gender relations diminishes the agency of women. There's room in the conversation of gender studies and sexual politics to acknowledge, in a non-judgmental way, this as an issue worth further dialogue.
I take some offense at the presumption that men, and specifically myself, feel entitled to sex. I'm as against the patriarchal culture of entitlement as anyone. I will say, though, that I think every person, male and female (and everyone in between), with a sexual life feels like they deserve sex. Would it possible to have romantic self-confidence and self esteem otherwise? That's not a rhetorical question; I'd really like to know if there's a self-assured, sexually active person out there who feels differently.
I and and the most of decent ment are acutely aware that there are people, free agents, who govern sexual access and experience. My point is that rejection is inevitably a value judgment against the rejected person, that there is no getting around the fact, and that it's always going to hurt. I don't think drawing attention to this aspect of gender relations diminishes the agency of women. There's room in the conversation of gender studies and sexual politics to acknowledge, in a non-judgmental way, this as an issue worth further dialogue.
93
@88: This "New Misogyny" is not new. It can be boiled down to this: One person thinking they are entitled to the use of another person's body because they want it. That's it. The rest is just window dressing. Rationalize until the cows come home, but nobody owes anybody pussy. Full Stop.
Oh and this!
When you turn a man down, when you put him in the friend zone, you are inevitably making a value judgment about him as a person. You think you're saying "you're not my type," but what you're really saying is "you are not good enough," which properly translated reads "something is wrong with you."
What the fuck? No. You are being told you're not some one's type. The rest of that's you saying shit about yourself and maybe you should see some one about it.
Oh and this!
When you turn a man down, when you put him in the friend zone, you are inevitably making a value judgment about him as a person. You think you're saying "you're not my type," but what you're really saying is "you are not good enough," which properly translated reads "something is wrong with you."
What the fuck? No. You are being told you're not some one's type. The rest of that's you saying shit about yourself and maybe you should see some one about it.
94
@EricaP
I think I'm using a well-established paradigm in terms of thinking of a sexual marketplace. There was a wonderful article in Slate recently on the subject, about sexual dynamics on college campuses that improve male marktability. I'm not going to hew too closely to that paradigm except insofar as it's useful. I think men generally have a kind of commodity perspective, and that contributes to masculine anxiety (and by extension masculine resentment and misogyny). I would say that the economic paradigm is definitely reductionist and ignores some of the less tangible dimensions of human chemistry. Love and desire are an alchemy rather than a science, for better or for worse. And I think we can, without getting too sexist, say that men would much prefer a science, at least in this regard.
The issue of how men can improve their percieved value, and the efficacy of your suggestions, would be a great discussion, but I feel it'd be a bit of wide of the point I'm trying to make (though if that's something you'd like to talk about at another venue, I'd be more than happy to pursue that digression with you).
I think I'm using a well-established paradigm in terms of thinking of a sexual marketplace. There was a wonderful article in Slate recently on the subject, about sexual dynamics on college campuses that improve male marktability. I'm not going to hew too closely to that paradigm except insofar as it's useful. I think men generally have a kind of commodity perspective, and that contributes to masculine anxiety (and by extension masculine resentment and misogyny). I would say that the economic paradigm is definitely reductionist and ignores some of the less tangible dimensions of human chemistry. Love and desire are an alchemy rather than a science, for better or for worse. And I think we can, without getting too sexist, say that men would much prefer a science, at least in this regard.
The issue of how men can improve their percieved value, and the efficacy of your suggestions, would be a great discussion, but I feel it'd be a bit of wide of the point I'm trying to make (though if that's something you'd like to talk about at another venue, I'd be more than happy to pursue that digression with you).
95
@92: I absolutely acknowledge that rejection hurts. We are in complete agreement there. I have been dumped for not putting out and that hurt. I have also endured what you describe as the typical male experience of sexual rejection. I have wanted to fuck more than one hot friend of mine (not even have a boyfriend/girlfriend thing mind you, just NSA sex) and have been rebuffed. And that hurt. I do not judge you for having feelings.
96
@85: Sorry for misquoting you! It got slightly jumbled in my head.
Basically, what I think is going on is that the guys in question feel disconnected because they're getting rejected, so someone being willing to offer sex feels like acceptance (even from someone random or someone who's not into it). The point is that we feel connected to people who accept us and make us feel worthwhile, and a woman "letting" you have sex is a form of acceptance.
@89, 91, 93: That's exactly it... being rejected is being told that you don't have as much to offer. You're right that "think about what you have to offer that might bring you up in value" is the right idea.
Thinking that people have specific "types" and you get rejected because of what "type" you are is a little silly: "you are not my type" is usually a polite way of saying "I'm not that attracted to you (you don't bring enough to the table)."
I think this discussion of "entitlement" is completely off the mark. Everyone deserves a good sex life, just like everyone deserves happiness, food, good health, and so on. If you understand that rejection hurts, then you should understand that anger can be a natural reaction and doesn't indicate entitlement or ownership and losing sight of the actual people involved.
Basically, what I think is going on is that the guys in question feel disconnected because they're getting rejected, so someone being willing to offer sex feels like acceptance (even from someone random or someone who's not into it). The point is that we feel connected to people who accept us and make us feel worthwhile, and a woman "letting" you have sex is a form of acceptance.
@89, 91, 93: That's exactly it... being rejected is being told that you don't have as much to offer. You're right that "think about what you have to offer that might bring you up in value" is the right idea.
Thinking that people have specific "types" and you get rejected because of what "type" you are is a little silly: "you are not my type" is usually a polite way of saying "I'm not that attracted to you (you don't bring enough to the table)."
I think this discussion of "entitlement" is completely off the mark. Everyone deserves a good sex life, just like everyone deserves happiness, food, good health, and so on. If you understand that rejection hurts, then you should understand that anger can be a natural reaction and doesn't indicate entitlement or ownership and losing sight of the actual people involved.
97
@Lissa
I'm not putting up window dressing to cover repugnant entitlement, and I think I've been as clear as possible in asserting that sexual access is not a right or entitlement of anyone, ever. I resent the implication, and suggest that that kind of spurious assertion is exactly what makes conversations about sex and gender so frought.
As to the issue of value judgments, I'm trying to tease out why men get angry at rejection. Male perception, hell, -human- perception, is in my experience filtered through lenses of value and comparison. I don't think think that view necessarily disordered or very wide of the mark. I would say that desire, attraction, love, and other such things have a definite arbitrariness to them. I'm reminded of that Clint Eastwood line, repeated by Felicia 'Snoop' Pearson from The Wire: "'Deserve' has got nothing to do with it." Though as I said, we all feel like we deserve some tenderness, don't we?
I think it serves to return to my main point: that it's unreasonable to expect men, and people in general, to take rejection with a smile (though obiously strangers in a bar/on the street ought to manifest some discretion and less entitlement). I'm trying to offer some explication and complication from a male perspective. I'm not proffering my own experience unless I explicitly say as much. I'm all for contentious debate, but some civility.
I'm not putting up window dressing to cover repugnant entitlement, and I think I've been as clear as possible in asserting that sexual access is not a right or entitlement of anyone, ever. I resent the implication, and suggest that that kind of spurious assertion is exactly what makes conversations about sex and gender so frought.
As to the issue of value judgments, I'm trying to tease out why men get angry at rejection. Male perception, hell, -human- perception, is in my experience filtered through lenses of value and comparison. I don't think think that view necessarily disordered or very wide of the mark. I would say that desire, attraction, love, and other such things have a definite arbitrariness to them. I'm reminded of that Clint Eastwood line, repeated by Felicia 'Snoop' Pearson from The Wire: "'Deserve' has got nothing to do with it." Though as I said, we all feel like we deserve some tenderness, don't we?
I think it serves to return to my main point: that it's unreasonable to expect men, and people in general, to take rejection with a smile (though obiously strangers in a bar/on the street ought to manifest some discretion and less entitlement). I'm trying to offer some explication and complication from a male perspective. I'm not proffering my own experience unless I explicitly say as much. I'm all for contentious debate, but some civility.
99
@Ken
Being an English teacher has its downsides. :)
@BlackRose
Well put! I agree entirely, and I'm glad you take the same tack in terms of classifying a healthy sex life as being a necessary component of having a rich, full life. That doesn't mean people are entitled to other peoples' bodies (I'm thinking of the horrible compulsory sex from Brave New World where "everyone belongs to everyone"). It just means we need to reckon with the consequences of rejection in a sensitive and affirming way, rather than dismissing them. I do think that sensitivity is in no way an obligation when it comes to random street/bar propositions, but elsewhere it's the compassionate thing.
Being an English teacher has its downsides. :)
@BlackRose
Well put! I agree entirely, and I'm glad you take the same tack in terms of classifying a healthy sex life as being a necessary component of having a rich, full life. That doesn't mean people are entitled to other peoples' bodies (I'm thinking of the horrible compulsory sex from Brave New World where "everyone belongs to everyone"). It just means we need to reckon with the consequences of rejection in a sensitive and affirming way, rather than dismissing them. I do think that sensitivity is in no way an obligation when it comes to random street/bar propositions, but elsewhere it's the compassionate thing.
100
@96 "Everyone deserves a good sex life, just like everyone deserves happiness, food, good health, and so on" - I don't know what you mean by "deserve." Why not just say everyone wants such things? Certainly, everyone doesn't get them. So why talk about "deserving," except to justify being angry when the world doesn't give you what you want on a silver platter?
@97 A guy who takes rejection with a smile may thereby improve his chances of getting into her pants two weeks later. Or maybe not, depends on the girl, the guy, and whether she has any interest in what he's offering. A guy who shows anger upon being rejected has revealed the sick truth about himself, and will never get into her pants unless she is self-destructive.
@97 A guy who takes rejection with a smile may thereby improve his chances of getting into her pants two weeks later. Or maybe not, depends on the girl, the guy, and whether she has any interest in what he's offering. A guy who shows anger upon being rejected has revealed the sick truth about himself, and will never get into her pants unless she is self-destructive.
101
@EricaP
"The sick truth about himself"? Haven't we established that it isn't sick to have strong negative feelings when it comes to rejection? If we're going to call that sick, we're going to have to clinicalize a lot of human behavior, and I don't think we have room at our asylums.
"The sick truth about himself"? Haven't we established that it isn't sick to have strong negative feelings when it comes to rejection? If we're going to call that sick, we're going to have to clinicalize a lot of human behavior, and I don't think we have room at our asylums.
102
@101 - if someone gets visibly angry at me ("shows anger") because I don't want to have sex with them -- if they yell, or swear at me, or move their body in a threatening way -- that's way beyond acceptable behavior. Maybe you have a different definition of "showing anger"?
103
Suppose I agreed to sex, but not anal – someone who feels he "deserves sex" probably feels he "deserves anal" too. So now he's angry, and I'm naked. Tell me you'd sign up for that, chaseacross. Tell me you'd get naked around a woman who reacted to getting served the wrong drink by slamming her glass down on the counter and swearing at the bartender.
104
If you believe that the burden of proof should be on people who want to ban things, then it's not necessary to show that pornography reduces rape. It's only necessary to show that pornography hasn't been shown to increase rape.
105
EricaP: That's more a question of how you deal with or express the anger. There are unhealthy ways to deal with anger, of course. I completely agree that you have a more likely chance of having sex or a good relationship with someone if you don't show your anger (or at least if you express it in a more healthy way).
As far as deserving things, I said that as a way of responding to Lissa's comments about entitlement. Basically my point was that we can agree that as a society, everyone should have certain things -- health care, education, good sexual relationships, for instance -- and then work towards helping everyone get those things, without there being any need to say that anyone is entitled to anyone's body. chaseacross said it well in post #99.
An analogy is that everyone deserves health care, but no one is entitled to anyone else's medical services. Everyone deserves food but no one is entitled to take my sandwich without my permission.
We could also say that everyone wants these things, but "deserve" is making a stronger, normative claim: these are things that everyone should have if they want, and we should all work to help everyone have them.
As far as deserving things, I said that as a way of responding to Lissa's comments about entitlement. Basically my point was that we can agree that as a society, everyone should have certain things -- health care, education, good sexual relationships, for instance -- and then work towards helping everyone get those things, without there being any need to say that anyone is entitled to anyone's body. chaseacross said it well in post #99.
An analogy is that everyone deserves health care, but no one is entitled to anyone else's medical services. Everyone deserves food but no one is entitled to take my sandwich without my permission.
We could also say that everyone wants these things, but "deserve" is making a stronger, normative claim: these are things that everyone should have if they want, and we should all work to help everyone have them.
106
@105 sure, our society supports people getting some minimal level of care (medical, nutritional, educational, mental health), and I can see how healthy sexual relationships fit in there. But that doesn't entitle you to show anger at a specific person who isn't interested in having sex with you.
When I spoke about "showing anger," I was picturing a stranger or acquaintance getting angry at me for turning him down. It's true that strong emotions are more acceptable in the context of a long-term relationship. But I tell you I would divorce someone who consistently showed anger when I wasn't in the mood. (And yet he can go screw other people with my blessing.) I put up with enough anger from my mom; I wouldn't live with that kind of emotional blackmail again.
When I spoke about "showing anger," I was picturing a stranger or acquaintance getting angry at me for turning him down. It's true that strong emotions are more acceptable in the context of a long-term relationship. But I tell you I would divorce someone who consistently showed anger when I wasn't in the mood. (And yet he can go screw other people with my blessing.) I put up with enough anger from my mom; I wouldn't live with that kind of emotional blackmail again.
107
@106: Agree completely: it's best not to show anger at a stranger or acquaintance, and even in a relationship it's best to deal with anger by talking about it rather than yelling or getting physically aggressive.
108
@EricaP 104
I haven't the slightest idea where you're coming from on that. I don't remember ever suggesting anything remotely analogous to what you're talking about. I've been fairly specific about what is and isn't acceptable. My point is that it's unreasonable to expect a rejection to be anything other than a frustrating negative experience. I've specifically articulated that expectations of recriprocation are extremely low in certain contexts (street/bar/etc), and that entitlement is a clear part of the problem. I would assume it's understood that egregious behavior is egregious. Dialogue is only possible if we're attentive to what other people are saying.
I haven't the slightest idea where you're coming from on that. I don't remember ever suggesting anything remotely analogous to what you're talking about. I've been fairly specific about what is and isn't acceptable. My point is that it's unreasonable to expect a rejection to be anything other than a frustrating negative experience. I've specifically articulated that expectations of recriprocation are extremely low in certain contexts (street/bar/etc), and that entitlement is a clear part of the problem. I would assume it's understood that egregious behavior is egregious. Dialogue is only possible if we're attentive to what other people are saying.
109
Hey, I want to get back to the question of "why anger?" Why not sadness? Why anger, specifically?
And I'm not talking about how people express their anger (appropriately or not), but why do men FEEL anger when rejected.
And I'm not talking about how people express their anger (appropriately or not), but why do men FEEL anger when rejected.
110
85/Erica: well, if it sucks for men to be rejected for sex and to learn that someone only wants to be friends; it sucks equally for women to learn that someone is not interested in hanging out with them as a friend, but only as a potential sex partner.
It also sucks equally (I would certainly think) for women to be rejected for sex, to learn that a guy they like and are attracted to only wants to be friends.
Your wording in the second part of your sentence is interesting. If a man is not interested in hanging around with a woman once she makes it clear to him that she doesn't find him sexually attractive, that doesn't mean he viewed her only as a potential sex partner. It may be just as likely that he saw her as a good friend, that he really liked who she was as a person, and hoped that she would become a sex partner in addition to that.
When you like someone and they like you but you're sexually attracted to them and they don't feel the same way about you, it's very difficult to want to continue to hang out with that person as friends. Some people can do that (and good for them) but I think they're in a very small minority.
It also sucks equally (I would certainly think) for women to be rejected for sex, to learn that a guy they like and are attracted to only wants to be friends.
Your wording in the second part of your sentence is interesting. If a man is not interested in hanging around with a woman once she makes it clear to him that she doesn't find him sexually attractive, that doesn't mean he viewed her only as a potential sex partner. It may be just as likely that he saw her as a good friend, that he really liked who she was as a person, and hoped that she would become a sex partner in addition to that.
When you like someone and they like you but you're sexually attracted to them and they don't feel the same way about you, it's very difficult to want to continue to hang out with that person as friends. Some people can do that (and good for them) but I think they're in a very small minority.
111
@109: Well, not everyone does: some people feel sad or hurt instead, for instance. But I think anger is a pretty common reaction to rejection (for men as well as women).
chaseacross summed it up pretty well in 81/90/92. It's a very personal rejection, much like being insulted or told you're worthless. How do you feel when someone rejects you (not necessarily sexually)?
I think a big part of it is that it often feels unfair and unreasonable. People are complicated and their attraction and sexuality isn't always easy to understand and predict. Especially because, well, sex can be a win-win situation: it's a huge benefit with very little cost and downside. As Lissa pointed out in #86, women are much more selective because the risks are greater for women, but men can't directly experience what that feels like, so it can seem unreasonable and hard to understand. Like, wouldn't we all be better off if we all had great sex with each other, rather than limiting it to just one or a few people? (I know there are many reasons why that doesn't work for a lot of people, but that's the thought process at least.)
chaseacross summed it up pretty well in 81/90/92. It's a very personal rejection, much like being insulted or told you're worthless. How do you feel when someone rejects you (not necessarily sexually)?
I think a big part of it is that it often feels unfair and unreasonable. People are complicated and their attraction and sexuality isn't always easy to understand and predict. Especially because, well, sex can be a win-win situation: it's a huge benefit with very little cost and downside. As Lissa pointed out in #86, women are much more selective because the risks are greater for women, but men can't directly experience what that feels like, so it can seem unreasonable and hard to understand. Like, wouldn't we all be better off if we all had great sex with each other, rather than limiting it to just one or a few people? (I know there are many reasons why that doesn't work for a lot of people, but that's the thought process at least.)
112
109/iluvgays, people can react, of course, in different ways to any kind of rejection, not just a sexual/romantic one. Someone can be sad they got rejected for a job they wanted, or they can get pissed off. Someone can get depressed because the college they wanted to attend rejected them, or they can become furious.
It may be the case that men tend to get more angry than sad over any kind of rejection, whereas women are the opposite.
It may be the case that men tend to get more angry than sad over any kind of rejection, whereas women are the opposite.
113
Chaseacross:
Starting @100 I said "A guy who shows anger upon being rejected has revealed the sick truth about himself." You replied that it wasn't sick to have strong negative feelings.
I asked if you understood something else by "showing anger," something besides yelling, swearing, or threatening people. (And I tried to show why yelling, swearing or threatening might seem particularly scary to someone considering a sexual relationship.)
Now @108 you say of course no one should display "egregious behavior," that's not what you're talking about. Well – what are you talking about? What does "showing anger" look like, in your experience, if not yelling, swearing, and using threatening body language?
@99 you said you're asking women to be "sensitive and affirming" when they reject their friends & acquaintances for sex. Is there really an epidemic of women who laugh and insult or mock the guy? I've never seen that, but then women can be plenty cruel. Is that what you mean? Can you explain what that looks like, when a woman cruelly rejects a man's advances?
Starting @100 I said "A guy who shows anger upon being rejected has revealed the sick truth about himself." You replied that it wasn't sick to have strong negative feelings.
I asked if you understood something else by "showing anger," something besides yelling, swearing, or threatening people. (And I tried to show why yelling, swearing or threatening might seem particularly scary to someone considering a sexual relationship.)
Now @108 you say of course no one should display "egregious behavior," that's not what you're talking about. Well – what are you talking about? What does "showing anger" look like, in your experience, if not yelling, swearing, and using threatening body language?
@99 you said you're asking women to be "sensitive and affirming" when they reject their friends & acquaintances for sex. Is there really an epidemic of women who laugh and insult or mock the guy? I've never seen that, but then women can be plenty cruel. Is that what you mean? Can you explain what that looks like, when a woman cruelly rejects a man's advances?
114
BlackRose @111 – men feel: "wouldn't we all be better off if we all had great sex with each other." Well, but isn't the rejection evidence that the woman thinks the sex won't be great for her? What makes the guy think she's wrong about that? It would be nice if sex with a new partner were just as likely to be good for women as for men - but it's not even close.
115
62/BlackRose: I don't understand these people saying that rape isn't about sex. We know the vast majority of rapes occur on dates with women of childbearing age. We know that people sometimes use violence to get something they want. We know that men sometimes get angry when they're denied sex. We know that people who get angry sometimes lose control and commit horrible acts to get what they want. It seems likely that obtaining sexual gratification is one major motive for committing rape.
That's always seemed likely to me too. Conventional wisdom about rape, of course, it that "it's about power, not sex" but I question that. To me, that's akin to saying that armed robbery or a mugging is "about power, not money." In armed robbery or a mugging, the goal is money and power is a means to that end. Power, nonconsensual dominance over others, is essential to achieve the goal but it's not an end it itself. I don't see why rape is necessarily different. Why couldn't sex be the goal with power, nonconsensual dominance over another person, being used to achieve that goal?
Or, perhaps it's "about" power and sex.
I also questioned "Porn Is the Theory, Rape Is the Practice" back when it was the conventional wisdom of anti-porn feminists. I just never bought the assertion that men get so worked up by porn that they go out and rape. It may be true that "aggressive" porn makes men more aggressive (although even there it doesn't mean that increased aggression will become rape) but not porn per se.
That's always seemed likely to me too. Conventional wisdom about rape, of course, it that "it's about power, not sex" but I question that. To me, that's akin to saying that armed robbery or a mugging is "about power, not money." In armed robbery or a mugging, the goal is money and power is a means to that end. Power, nonconsensual dominance over others, is essential to achieve the goal but it's not an end it itself. I don't see why rape is necessarily different. Why couldn't sex be the goal with power, nonconsensual dominance over another person, being used to achieve that goal?
Or, perhaps it's "about" power and sex.
I also questioned "Porn Is the Theory, Rape Is the Practice" back when it was the conventional wisdom of anti-porn feminists. I just never bought the assertion that men get so worked up by porn that they go out and rape. It may be true that "aggressive" porn makes men more aggressive (although even there it doesn't mean that increased aggression will become rape) but not porn per se.
116
111/BlackRose: Well, not everyone does: some people feel sad or hurt instead, for instance. But I think anger is a pretty common reaction to rejection (for men as well as women).
We are, of course, all individuals with our own unique reactions to rejection but, to follow on from what I wrote in 112, it wouldn't surprise me if there was a general difference between men and women when it comes to this. My gut feeling is that women tend to react more with sadness and depression (going within) to rejection of any kind while men tend to react more with anger (going externally.)
We are, of course, all individuals with our own unique reactions to rejection but, to follow on from what I wrote in 112, it wouldn't surprise me if there was a general difference between men and women when it comes to this. My gut feeling is that women tend to react more with sadness and depression (going within) to rejection of any kind while men tend to react more with anger (going externally.)
117
114/Erica: It would be nice if sex with a new partner were just as likely to be good for women as for men - but it's not even close.
How, exactly, do you mean that? Do you mean in terms of the partners wanting to please each other?
How, exactly, do you mean that? Do you mean in terms of the partners wanting to please each other?
118
@114: I think it would be an extremely odd rejection to reject someone because you think they'd be bad in bed. That's not why people usually reject others. It's usually because they don't feel attracted to the person. I just don't think it's that hard to make sex good for someone else if you listen to them, and ask what they like, and if they have some experience and know what they like.
To put it another way, I think for a lot of men, we need a reason not to have sex with someone. Whereas I think most women need a reason to have sex with someone. I imagine a woman's rejection is usually because she doesn't have any special reason to.
To put it another way, I think for a lot of men, we need a reason not to have sex with someone. Whereas I think most women need a reason to have sex with someone. I imagine a woman's rejection is usually because she doesn't have any special reason to.
119
@117 - I mean that women find it harder to enjoy sex with a new partner. The female orgasm isn't reliable under stressful situations for many (if not most) women. The standard sex positions will lead to orgasm for a man, but are less likely to lead to the woman's orgasm. Women are much less likely to orgasm on a first date with a new partner.
Also - women know that they are more likely to be held down by their partner's body, and will find themselves being nice and putting up with more fucking than they would like. (Or else, the guy is likely to come earlier than they prefer.) They are more likely to find some aspect of the sex with a new partner unpleasant.
Do you think those statements I just made are controversial?
Also - women know that they are more likely to be held down by their partner's body, and will find themselves being nice and putting up with more fucking than they would like. (Or else, the guy is likely to come earlier than they prefer.) They are more likely to find some aspect of the sex with a new partner unpleasant.
Do you think those statements I just made are controversial?
120
@118 - I agree that it's not hard to make sex good ... for a man.
If women expected the pleasure from sex with a new person that men do -- why wouldn't women be more willing to do that? Women aren't hard to talk into going for ice cream. Ice cream: now that's a guaranteed good time.
I can only speak to my own experience. Occasionally, I might relax enough to have fun and get close to coming. And occasionally, I'm assaulted. The rest, well, it's okay. It's usually pretty interesting, and it's a good way to find out if I want to see him again. But as far as physical pleasure, it's way way below getting a massage. Or having my back scratched. Mmm, those are always nice.
If women expected the pleasure from sex with a new person that men do -- why wouldn't women be more willing to do that? Women aren't hard to talk into going for ice cream. Ice cream: now that's a guaranteed good time.
I can only speak to my own experience. Occasionally, I might relax enough to have fun and get close to coming. And occasionally, I'm assaulted. The rest, well, it's okay. It's usually pretty interesting, and it's a good way to find out if I want to see him again. But as far as physical pleasure, it's way way below getting a massage. Or having my back scratched. Mmm, those are always nice.
121
Erica, no I don't think those statements are controversial. But I also find them puzzling. Are that many guys averse to going down on a woman? I've always loved it and, with only a few exceptions, have never failed to get a woman off that way...even the first time together.
Anyway, although I don't disagree with your statements, I also don't think the sex-with-a-new-partner-being-good gap between women and men is as huge as you seem to.
Finally, I guess there's a tradeoff. If women are, as you said, more likely to find some aspect of the sex with a new partner unpleasant, it's also much easier for a woman to find a willing sex partner than it is for a man (straight man.)
Anyway, although I don't disagree with your statements, I also don't think the sex-with-a-new-partner-being-good gap between women and men is as huge as you seem to.
Finally, I guess there's a tradeoff. If women are, as you said, more likely to find some aspect of the sex with a new partner unpleasant, it's also much easier for a woman to find a willing sex partner than it is for a man (straight man.)
122
@120: I meant that it's not that hard to make sex good for a women, especially one who knows what she likes. You are probably right that first-time sex isn't as good for women as it is for men. And I know you've had a bunch of partners who haven't made the effort. But really, it's not that hard to listen and do what someone says will make her feel good.
Why wouldn't women be more willing to have sex with a new person? A lot of reasons. One is that women have evolved to be more selective about new sex partners, which translates into women just not feeling like sex as easily, or not feeling aroused or attracted as easily, or being more suspicious of a new person, or feeling like it would be "gross" or "slutty" to have sex with someone they don't know well. Social conditioning is also a factor there. Another reason is that women are more at risk of being physically hurt, getting pregnant, or getting an STD. Having past experiences of bad first-time sex may be part of it, but I really think it's more of an emotional thing than a conscious calculation of how much pleasure a woman is likely to receive.
Why wouldn't women be more willing to have sex with a new person? A lot of reasons. One is that women have evolved to be more selective about new sex partners, which translates into women just not feeling like sex as easily, or not feeling aroused or attracted as easily, or being more suspicious of a new person, or feeling like it would be "gross" or "slutty" to have sex with someone they don't know well. Social conditioning is also a factor there. Another reason is that women are more at risk of being physically hurt, getting pregnant, or getting an STD. Having past experiences of bad first-time sex may be part of it, but I really think it's more of an emotional thing than a conscious calculation of how much pleasure a woman is likely to receive.
123
Also, this isn't only about sexual rejection: the same applies to asking a girl out or even trying to make friends with one. Women are more selective. Even if it's an ice cream date!
124
@EricaP
Yellng and whatnot are entirely inappropriate I'm not talking about tantrums. I'm also not talking about about there being an epidemic of cruel woman going around rejecting men for funsies.
What I am talking about is a lack of communication between men and women about expectations, and a lack of dialogue about how we're going to negotiate new sets of expectations as the dynamic between the sexes changes more and more rapidly. I just wanted to provide an affirmative response to iluvgay's theory that misogyny can come from rejection.
Speaking to the "sensitive and affirming" bit, I'm not really talking about women in the rejection so much as how men experience rejection. There's very little consolation, from a man's persperctive. From men, he gets the "you're just a loser/chump who can't get laid- buck up and bang a broad!" From women he gets a disembling "you're not my type" or "let's just be friends." Obviously the male response could use a lot of improvement, but I think women would collectively be well served by offering constructive criticism, maybe? Not to strangers in a bar, mind you, but you know, generally. I'm just throwing ideas out right now. It would take a wider dialogue to really make headway. One thing I do feel very strongly about is that current relationship paradigms aren't adequate, and it's damn hard, as a straight male, to find sound counsel on these issues.
Yellng and whatnot are entirely inappropriate I'm not talking about tantrums. I'm also not talking about about there being an epidemic of cruel woman going around rejecting men for funsies.
What I am talking about is a lack of communication between men and women about expectations, and a lack of dialogue about how we're going to negotiate new sets of expectations as the dynamic between the sexes changes more and more rapidly. I just wanted to provide an affirmative response to iluvgay's theory that misogyny can come from rejection.
Speaking to the "sensitive and affirming" bit, I'm not really talking about women in the rejection so much as how men experience rejection. There's very little consolation, from a man's persperctive. From men, he gets the "you're just a loser/chump who can't get laid- buck up and bang a broad!" From women he gets a disembling "you're not my type" or "let's just be friends." Obviously the male response could use a lot of improvement, but I think women would collectively be well served by offering constructive criticism, maybe? Not to strangers in a bar, mind you, but you know, generally. I'm just throwing ideas out right now. It would take a wider dialogue to really make headway. One thing I do feel very strongly about is that current relationship paradigms aren't adequate, and it's damn hard, as a straight male, to find sound counsel on these issues.
125
@121 - not all men want to go down, and not all women come easily that way. It's hard to discuss this, because our experiences are so different and I don't want to dismiss your experience. Maybe you are just very good at getting people to relax and teach you what they need. Did these women give you very specific instructions? Did they lend a hand? How did you know when they came? How long did it usually take (with a new partner)?
It is very rare that I come with a new partner. I believe my experience is more common than yours, but it's hard to find evidence (for my position or yours). Here's the best I can do:
Wiki article on Orgasm: "Even women who orgasm on a regular basis only climax about 50 to 70 percent of the time."
http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/sexuald…
A recent survey (conducted by Laumann and colleagues at the University of Chicago) of American women (ages 18-59) found ..[only] 29% of women say they always have orgasms during sex.
The elusive orgasm, by Vivienne Cass says that thirty percent of women have difficulties with orgasm.
It is very rare that I come with a new partner. I believe my experience is more common than yours, but it's hard to find evidence (for my position or yours). Here's the best I can do:
Wiki article on Orgasm: "Even women who orgasm on a regular basis only climax about 50 to 70 percent of the time."
http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/sexuald…
A recent survey (conducted by Laumann and colleagues at the University of Chicago) of American women (ages 18-59) found ..[only] 29% of women say they always have orgasms during sex.
The elusive orgasm, by Vivienne Cass says that thirty percent of women have difficulties with orgasm.
127
@125: From what I've read, there are about equal groups of women who "never," "rarely," "sometimes," and "always" orgasm from sexual activity (whether oral or something else). Surprisingly, from what I remember, frequency of orgasm does not correlate with how often a woman has sex, or likes sex, or wants to have sex. This was from Elizabeth Lloyd's research on female orgasms. She came to the surprising conclusion that there is no evolutionary advantage to the female orgasm: it doesn't actually increase the chance of pregnancy, for instance.
128
Oh, ErikaP, you've said exactly what I was thinking. Sex with someone new is not guarantee of pleasure, or even pleasant comfort. For me it takes a while to enjoy sex with a new partner. So when I sleep with someone new it's either because 1) I like them enough to invest in building a good sexual relationship; or 2) I've been drinking and succumb to the stupid delusion that one-off sex can feel great. My experience with number 2 is that the best first-time sex can be (for me, at least) is "not unpleasant."
So, guys, do you see why we are unlikely to just hop in the sack with every guy who comes a knockin'? The best I can hope for in that situation is "not unpleasant." The worst is pain, humiliation (like a guy making a comment about not liking the way my ladyparts are trimmed), disappointment, chafing, etc. This is just about the physical enjoyment of the act-- when you layer on all the other possible repercussions (pregnancy, STIs, etc.) you can see that we have very little to gain by just putting out more.
And, believe me, I know of whence I speak. I've fucked plenty of guys (maybe 40+?, I lost count). I've been easy. It just wasn't worth it. It's hard to get me into bed these days and I don't even want a relationship.
So, guys, do you see why we are unlikely to just hop in the sack with every guy who comes a knockin'? The best I can hope for in that situation is "not unpleasant." The worst is pain, humiliation (like a guy making a comment about not liking the way my ladyparts are trimmed), disappointment, chafing, etc. This is just about the physical enjoyment of the act-- when you layer on all the other possible repercussions (pregnancy, STIs, etc.) you can see that we have very little to gain by just putting out more.
And, believe me, I know of whence I speak. I've fucked plenty of guys (maybe 40+?, I lost count). I've been easy. It just wasn't worth it. It's hard to get me into bed these days and I don't even want a relationship.
129
Oh! And speaking of anger...let's say I have decided to have sex with a guy but it's not going well and I don't want to continue. But the guy hasn't come yet. OH MY GOD talk about the anger. I don't even put a stop to bad sex any more because it's easier (and less frightening) to just try to get the guy off as quickly as possible than to stop everything and have to deal with his anger. His aroused, erect, hungry anger.
130
So, again, let's just make it easier for straight guys to get sex. Let's legalize sex work-- make it not just legal but acceptable, even expected. And we make it as safe as possible. And-- this is really out there considering we Americans can't even get people to see that publicly-funded health care is a good idea-- but what if it were subsidized? What if we made it as legitimate a profession as nursing. Then when men want sex, they can go to the "nurse" and get it inexpensively with quality and with no questions asked.
If we had this, then when I talk to a guy he can ease up and not think to himself, "I've got to make this girl like me or I'll never, ever get laid again!" We can just talk as human beings. And if we decide to have sex, well, it's icing on his cake not his daily bread.
If we had this, then when I talk to a guy he can ease up and not think to himself, "I've got to make this girl like me or I'll never, ever get laid again!" We can just talk as human beings. And if we decide to have sex, well, it's icing on his cake not his daily bread.
131
Oh my god, iluvgays -- that was my new plan! Previously I've always put up with intercourse I didn't enjoy, in hopes it would lead sooner or later to orgasm. After a long Slog thread about What I Was Doing Wrong (ie, not communicating what I want), I decided to try a different approach: I would stop taking responsibility for the guy's orgasms. If he had one, great; if not, fine. But you've had men get angry at that point?
Jeez. I am so sorry that happened to you.
Jeez. I am so sorry that happened to you.
132
I'm afraid so. And just to pre-empt all the people who come on and say, "well you probably didn't do it in a very nice way," yes, I did. After trying several things, making some requests, visibly not being "into it," I've said things like, "hey, it's just not working for me tonight. I need to stop." After this I've had these responses: 1) even though I've said I want to stop, guy does a few more thrusts; 2) guy keeps thrusting and asks, "can't I just do a few more thrusts?" so that the "few more thrusts" are a fait accompli; 3) some form of cajoling to get me to let them put their dick inside me again; 4) a demand that I suck them off; 5) being called a "psycho bitch."
So...I don't have good luck with the whole coitus interruptus thing. I can't personally recommend it.
What I want to do these days is make out. Just make out. And get good and worked up. And then leave it at that for the night. Then make out again another night so that the tension builds. And THEN go all the way. But I'm 39. Expectations are that if we're making out I'm going to fuck you.
So...I don't have good luck with the whole coitus interruptus thing. I can't personally recommend it.
What I want to do these days is make out. Just make out. And get good and worked up. And then leave it at that for the night. Then make out again another night so that the tension builds. And THEN go all the way. But I'm 39. Expectations are that if we're making out I'm going to fuck you.
133
I think most women need to feel an emotional connection to their partner in order to enjoy sex. I think feelings and stuff are more important than how a guy eats pussy or whatever, especially with a new partner.
@124 In my experience women like being listened to and agreed with. Rather than trying to impress her with the size of your great big vocabulary, maybe you should try getting her to talk about her feelings. If that doesn't work get a mail order bride from some raggedy ass third world country. Anyway I'm a homo and I haven't been laid in like a year, so don't feel bad if you’re not getting any, even fags have dry spells.
@124 In my experience women like being listened to and agreed with. Rather than trying to impress her with the size of your great big vocabulary, maybe you should try getting her to talk about her feelings. If that doesn't work get a mail order bride from some raggedy ass third world country. Anyway I'm a homo and I haven't been laid in like a year, so don't feel bad if you’re not getting any, even fags have dry spells.
134
Erica, I have to dash off to Half-Price Books' warehouse sale this morning. Will try to address your post @ 125 later today or tomorrow.
135
iluvgays, I'm equally sorry that you've got guys getting angry at the no-good-sex point. And yes, your thoughts do make a lot of sense: if the sex isn't going to be good -- if 'not unpleasant' is the best you can hope for -- then I do indeed agree your behavior is quite logical.
I also agree with your observations about the sex industry, and I would love it if prostitution became a normal profession like nursing, perhaps even a subsidized one (any 'frustration' arguments would go out the window).
But here's another thing I've asked myself. All those one-night-stands with 'not unpleasant' as the best result... I wonder if they aren't caused by most guys not really knowing what to do to get a lady off. Speaking as a man, in my own personal experience, it wasn't the easiest thing to learn (I also fell prey to the thought 'if X worked for my first girl, then it's ALWAYS going to work for ALL girls'; short version 'but you're supposed to like this!'). Talking to the women I slept with, their experience seems to me that a number of guys has the weirdest notions about how to get a woman off, and many-many still even 'think' (in the sense that they may say it's not so, but still behave as if they thought so) that if they get their jollies then all is well and she'll be happy anyway.
In other words, could your "at best not unpleasant" experience be a reflection of the fact that most men don't really know how to deal with a new lady they're bedding for the first time? (I note many of my former lovers told me they did have some very pleasant one-night-stand experiences; they simply said those were not representative when compared with their larger samples). And isn't that something that could be improved--with, say, more communication, more attention to what pleases the other, and more experience with different approaches?
It often feels to me that a lot of the problems with 'lousy sex' is people's curious idea that, since sex is 'natural', it is also 'easy', i.e. you just push a button and you get your partner off. That doesn't work even for men, let alone for women. People need to be taught how to get themselves and others off -- just like they need to be taught how to drive safely, or how to use a computer.
More...
I also agree with your observations about the sex industry, and I would love it if prostitution became a normal profession like nursing, perhaps even a subsidized one (any 'frustration' arguments would go out the window).
But here's another thing I've asked myself. All those one-night-stands with 'not unpleasant' as the best result... I wonder if they aren't caused by most guys not really knowing what to do to get a lady off. Speaking as a man, in my own personal experience, it wasn't the easiest thing to learn (I also fell prey to the thought 'if X worked for my first girl, then it's ALWAYS going to work for ALL girls'; short version 'but you're supposed to like this!'). Talking to the women I slept with, their experience seems to me that a number of guys has the weirdest notions about how to get a woman off, and many-many still even 'think' (in the sense that they may say it's not so, but still behave as if they thought so) that if they get their jollies then all is well and she'll be happy anyway.
In other words, could your "at best not unpleasant" experience be a reflection of the fact that most men don't really know how to deal with a new lady they're bedding for the first time? (I note many of my former lovers told me they did have some very pleasant one-night-stand experiences; they simply said those were not representative when compared with their larger samples). And isn't that something that could be improved--with, say, more communication, more attention to what pleases the other, and more experience with different approaches?
It often feels to me that a lot of the problems with 'lousy sex' is people's curious idea that, since sex is 'natural', it is also 'easy', i.e. you just push a button and you get your partner off. That doesn't work even for men, let alone for women. People need to be taught how to get themselves and others off -- just like they need to be taught how to drive safely, or how to use a computer.
136
ankylosaur, I think you're right about lack of knowledge up to a point but I actually think frustration plays a much larger role. Because let's say you're a guy and you really need sex but haven't been able to get any lately. Then a lady decides to sleep with you (finally!) and yet...geez...we can't just DO it, it's taking FOREVER to get her excited and I'm maybe not doing it right anyway and I better go ahead and stick it in because I may not get the chance again any time soon.
If there weren't that level of frustration-- of almost desperation-- then not so much rides on the first sex with a new woman and the guy can then be more patient and play around and find out what each other likes and maybe, just maybe, not even have penetrative sex for a bit. But still enjoy it all and not be pissed off because she is not his *only* source of sex.
If there weren't that level of frustration-- of almost desperation-- then not so much rides on the first sex with a new woman and the guy can then be more patient and play around and find out what each other likes and maybe, just maybe, not even have penetrative sex for a bit. But still enjoy it all and not be pissed off because she is not his *only* source of sex.
137
ankylosaur @137- If you don't know each other well, it's very hard for men and women to communicate about sex. It takes sensitivity to understand what we mean by "a little harder," or, "take some time to tease me before you start in for real" and most horny guys (as iluvgays says) don't seem to be in the mood to figure it out. Not before they come, and not afterward either. And, yes, as you suggest, there's a lot of -- "but you're supposed to like this."
(I think girls are the same way, expecting guys to respond to a blowjob the same way the last guy did, for instance, but guys' sexual response is easier to elicit even if you don't communicate well.)
(I think girls are the same way, expecting guys to respond to a blowjob the same way the last guy did, for instance, but guys' sexual response is easier to elicit even if you don't communicate well.)
139
@132 - actually, I've met a very nice married guy who likes to make out. We've made out twice (once after drinks in a parking lot, once at the movies)... I think we will move to sex soon, but it has been really nice to get to know each other's responses a little first. And to know that he's not super impatient. Apparently he's getting enough sex at home that he's not desperate to do the deed... Maybe you should try specifying to guys that you are looking for make-out sessions first. (Or, the more traditional approach is just don't go to a private enough setting to allow for sex...)
140
@139: I would be cool with the "just make out and let the tension build" plan if I could trust the girl enough to do it. There's a lot of trust required... you've gotta trust that she's actually interested in you, that this isn't just a brush off, that she won't judge you for it, and so on.
The paradox is that it takes a lot of time to build the trust, but you have to trust the person enough to invest the time.
The paradox is that it takes a lot of time to build the trust, but you have to trust the person enough to invest the time.
141
Good points, ErikaP.
See, BlackRose, you've just proved my point. When straight guys are this sexually frustrated there is so much riding on physical contact with a woman that men have to make a leap of faith that there will be sex in the future. So there's this constant calculus going on in men's heads: "Hm. If I stick with this one will I get to have sex? If I don't get to have sex with this one then I could have been spending this time trying to get some other girl to like me," etc.
If straight guys were getting it regularly from whatever source, I don't think they'd see dating as this zero-sum game. And I don't think there'd be so much free-floating anger directed at women.
See, BlackRose, you've just proved my point. When straight guys are this sexually frustrated there is so much riding on physical contact with a woman that men have to make a leap of faith that there will be sex in the future. So there's this constant calculus going on in men's heads: "Hm. If I stick with this one will I get to have sex? If I don't get to have sex with this one then I could have been spending this time trying to get some other girl to like me," etc.
If straight guys were getting it regularly from whatever source, I don't think they'd see dating as this zero-sum game. And I don't think there'd be so much free-floating anger directed at women.
144
@141: I don't know that it's about sexual frustration as much as it is about the fear of being taken advantage of. At least for me. But I'm weird and always afraid of being taken advantage of.
I don't think sex workers are that helpful, because paid sex "doesn't count," that is, it doesn't symbolize approval and acceptance the way actual sex does.
I think the real solution is to teach young boys healthy, honest ways of dating and being social that increase the chance of having good relationships and sex lives. Some people don't care about the other person's feelings enough; some people are too nice; some people are too standoffish; some people are overly friendly; some people are too flirtatious; some people are not flirtatious enough... it's a tricky balance to get right and it takes most of us decades to actually figure it out. This seems more effective than trying to make girls less critical, selective, or judgmental.
I don't think sex workers are that helpful, because paid sex "doesn't count," that is, it doesn't symbolize approval and acceptance the way actual sex does.
I think the real solution is to teach young boys healthy, honest ways of dating and being social that increase the chance of having good relationships and sex lives. Some people don't care about the other person's feelings enough; some people are too nice; some people are too standoffish; some people are overly friendly; some people are too flirtatious; some people are not flirtatious enough... it's a tricky balance to get right and it takes most of us decades to actually figure it out. This seems more effective than trying to make girls less critical, selective, or judgmental.
146
@144, you're worried that if you kiss a girl, she might be "taking advantage of you," to get a fun kiss, with no promise of intercourse? If you touch her breast, she might be taking advantage of you, to get that fun sensation? If she strokes your cock, that might not lead to orgasm, and that would be a problem - why?
How have you been harmed? Because you spent some time enjoying fun sexual play, like teenagers, with a girl you fancied? Or because you became more emotionally invested, only to find that she had not? I don't see any way around that kind of risk-taking. You have to open yourself up to people, both emotionally and physically, in order to get to the next level of intimacy. Yes, you risk being rejected. But otherwise you guarantee being alone.
How have you been harmed? Because you spent some time enjoying fun sexual play, like teenagers, with a girl you fancied? Or because you became more emotionally invested, only to find that she had not? I don't see any way around that kind of risk-taking. You have to open yourself up to people, both emotionally and physically, in order to get to the next level of intimacy. Yes, you risk being rejected. But otherwise you guarantee being alone.
147
I find it weird whenever Slog brings up rape or female sexuality the comments section fills with assumptions made about rape statistics and female pleasure. The studies are done and easily available.
Want to know about rape and who it happens to and how often? http://www.rainn.org/
Want to know about female sexuality? http://www.drpetra.co.uk/blog/ or http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/
I mean right here is a study on casual sex and how women and men enjoy it both equally when the possibility for satisfaction is equal. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/201…
No need to assume.
Want to know about rape and who it happens to and how often? http://www.rainn.org/
Want to know about female sexuality? http://www.drpetra.co.uk/blog/ or http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/
I mean right here is a study on casual sex and how women and men enjoy it both equally when the possibility for satisfaction is equal. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/201…
No need to assume.
148
@147, thanks for linking to that study. Respondants were asked to imagine that an attractive (imaginary) member of the opposite sex said, “I have been noticing you around campus and I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?” Women said no, almost all the time ("generally not a chance with a smattering of not likely.") Men were much more likely to say yes.
There were no gender differences in perceptions of the proposers’ sexual faithfulness, mental capacities, gift giving, or risk of STD.
Male proposers were perceived (by women) as:
- more dangerous
- less likely to provide them sexual satisfaction
- lower status
- less warm
(Compared with how men perceived female proposers.)
There were no gender differences in perceptions of the proposers’ sexual faithfulness, mental capacities, gift giving, or risk of STD.
Male proposers were perceived (by women) as:
- more dangerous
- less likely to provide them sexual satisfaction
- lower status
- less warm
(Compared with how men perceived female proposers.)
149
So – is it possible, BlackRose & chaseacross, that you are being rejected as "low status" when you ask someone out? Yes, but women do that to any man who asks them out, even imaginary men. (I guess the women are thinking: "If he'll ask me out, of course he's lame, no one desirable ever asks me out...") It is also possible that you are being judged cold, dangerous, or ordinary in bed.
I guess the way to get past a woman's defenses is to try to combat those preconceptions, by showing her how high-status, warm, safe, and sensitive-to-their-needs you are. (But fighting any of those preconceptions is difficult, in practice, if you're trying to fake it.)
I guess the way to get past a woman's defenses is to try to combat those preconceptions, by showing her how high-status, warm, safe, and sensitive-to-their-needs you are. (But fighting any of those preconceptions is difficult, in practice, if you're trying to fake it.)
150
1987. Riot Grrrl, 3rd-Wave Feminism Explosion. I was right there in the heat of it, and I can tell you the word "Sex-Positive" came out of that heat wave. Kathleen Hanna, the sharpies. We talked about sex and the support and not hatred of sex-workers. We talked about rape. Some of us were raped--that's what happened in college. I don't know if that's what happens in college now, but in '87 the climate in the middle of an amazing time in my life was more sexual liberties taken and attacks performed than I was ready to understand. Of course we talked about it. But there was NO ONE in those groups I EVER recall having called for an end to pornography. Those were the days of an emergence of lesbian, female het and even Fat Girl porn--everywhere. Anyone who read 'Zines at that time should know what I'm talking about. It wasn't about barettes and babydoll dresses. It was about making art.
152
BlackRose @141:
It might help if we also taught young girls "healthy, honest ways of dating and being social that increase the chance of having good relationships and sex lives". Just sayin'. Otherwise it's just a pretty, oh-so-progressive gloss on the ever-so-stale notion that it's up to girls to send mixed signals and retain veto rights and boys to figure out WTF she means from minute to minute.
I think the real solution is to teach young boys healthy, honest ways of dating and being social that increase the chance of having good relationships and sex lives. Some people don't care about the other person's feelings enough; some people are too nice; some people are too standoffish; some people are overly friendly; some people are too flirtatious; some people are not flirtatious enough... it's a tricky balance to get right and it takes most of us decades to actually figure it out. This seems more effective than trying to make girls less critical, selective, or judgmental.
It might help if we also taught young girls "healthy, honest ways of dating and being social that increase the chance of having good relationships and sex lives". Just sayin'. Otherwise it's just a pretty, oh-so-progressive gloss on the ever-so-stale notion that it's up to girls to send mixed signals and retain veto rights and boys to figure out WTF she means from minute to minute.
153
HellboundAlleeee @150: You and I obviously went to different schools. There was a shitload of calls from the organized feminist side not to ban porn, but to ban men's porn. The folks who were taking a rigid MacKinnonite view on porn were also enraged that lesbian porn was being stopped by Canada Customs. (CaCu shouldn't have been stopping anybody's porn and it took a long while to get them to stop harassing gays and lesbians.) Basically, it came down to "our porn good, your porn bad". It's a sad fact that most of the most accomplished de facto feminist women I know refuse to call themselves "feminists" because of ugly experiences with the organized brigades at their universities and postsecondary schools.
154
@152, wait, so girls aren't going to "retain veto rights" after we teach them healthy, honest ways of dating? Could you clarify that?
155
@154 Right. Girls no longer get an exclusive, retroactive veto on sex. Boys get a veto too. A guy can say: "Oh, you'll only put again out if I buy you more expensive shit? No thanks, I can do better and you can go work a corner, you whore," and that will no longer be rape.
156
EricaP, don't make an artificial distinction: it's and/and. My comment was aimed at the crappy old model of "males approach, women decide". Frankly, I'd rather have both sides approach and both sides decide. We can't have any movement towards a saner, less sexist, less misogynist sexual/romantic world if we retain that archaic dynamic. I've always been fond of Amanda Marcotte's cutting description of it as "gatekeeping the pussy", as she notes correctly that that old approach keeps the focus on men's sexual pleasure and achievement rather than on people having happy, safe and fulfilling sex lives.
And mtiffany71, fuck off, and now. Not everybody who disagrees with you is a rape apologist or misogynist, but I'm sure it suits your debating style to treat it as such. You also fail at reading comprehension: the comment quite specifically uses the word "also" to denote that women should continue to be "critical, selective, or judgmental" (though I'm not keen on the pejorative implications of "judgmental".
But, hey, you're going to see what you want to see rather than what's there, so go nuts.
And mtiffany71, fuck off, and now. Not everybody who disagrees with you is a rape apologist or misogynist, but I'm sure it suits your debating style to treat it as such. You also fail at reading comprehension: the comment quite specifically uses the word "also" to denote that women should continue to be "critical, selective, or judgmental" (though I'm not keen on the pejorative implications of "judgmental".
But, hey, you're going to see what you want to see rather than what's there, so go nuts.
157
Face it:
As long as our romantic and sexual constructs are based on "men ask / women decide" they will encourage and be an integral part of seeing women as objects rather than people. Women in the traditional model are things to be achieved rather than people to be considered and maintaining that model of keeping women as passive receptors of other's efforts can only maintain a frame which not only encourages but helps to create misogyny.
As long as our romantic and sexual constructs are based on "men ask / women decide" they will encourage and be an integral part of seeing women as objects rather than people. Women in the traditional model are things to be achieved rather than people to be considered and maintaining that model of keeping women as passive receptors of other's efforts can only maintain a frame which not only encourages but helps to create misogyny.
158
And WTF does mtiffany71 mean by a retroactive veto? Are you dredging up the old argument that I heard in the late 80s that "consent" was not only (and properly) revocable before and during the sexual act, but after it's completion? The argument never gained ground, thankfully, but I did see it seriously argued during the sexuality debates of that era.
160
@seeker6079, I believe that mtiffany71 @155 was complaining about women deciding after the sex that they were unhappy, and retroactively labeling the consensual sex as "rape". Mtiffany was exulting in the idea that the guy can reject the woman after having sex with her once, and the woman won't be able to take out her anger by calling their sex rape.
161
seeker6079 @156 - personally, I think it's going to be hard to use cultural change to influence the different libido levels of men & women. As long as women want less sex than men do (on average), it's hard to affect the rules of supply and demand.
Look at it this way: many women and men want to be submissive in bed. But it's hard (for both sexes) to find a good dominant, because that job is harder, and not as many people want to sign up for it. So you can wish that there were enough doms to go around, but unless you force or pay people to be doms, the supply is never going to be enough.
One solution for guys is to be more open to bisexuality. If guys were generally open to sex with other guys, that would help with the imbalance between how much sex men and women want. Also - legalizing prostitution. Those two things together would help men be a lot less desperate for pussy, and a lot less angry if a particular woman turns them down.
Look at it this way: many women and men want to be submissive in bed. But it's hard (for both sexes) to find a good dominant, because that job is harder, and not as many people want to sign up for it. So you can wish that there were enough doms to go around, but unless you force or pay people to be doms, the supply is never going to be enough.
One solution for guys is to be more open to bisexuality. If guys were generally open to sex with other guys, that would help with the imbalance between how much sex men and women want. Also - legalizing prostitution. Those two things together would help men be a lot less desperate for pussy, and a lot less angry if a particular woman turns them down.
162
@146: the risk would be that I decide to take it slow, and the girl rejects me [i]because[/i] of that. Yes, there's always a risk of rejection, but I don't want to do anything to make it higher. Everything is more unclear at the beginning and it's usually safest to just have sex right away, then you can do the fun slow make-out sessions after you've established that security and trust.
@147: that study also showed that women are much more selective than men, and on the average think that men will provide less sexual pleasure. It also showed that women's perception of sexual pleasure is based on how attracted they are to the man (see the cases where there was no information about how much pleasure the man would give them, yet there was still a strong correlation between "random guess about how good the guy is in bed" and "how likely she is to want sex with him"). Basically, it looks like when a woman is attracted to a man for other reasons (celebrity, or good looks, as in the Johnny Depp example), she assumes that he'll be good in bed. So it's not that they make decisions based on how good in bed they think the person will be; it's that they decide based on how attracted they are, and then that affects their guess about sexual pleasure.
This makes sense: I mean, a big part of the pleasure from sex [i]is[/i] how much you're attracted to someone, separate from the person's technical skills.
@152: I agree -- see my comment at 77 -- but there is some evidence that women are just biologically more selective than men, and so making men more attractive might have better effects.
@147: that study also showed that women are much more selective than men, and on the average think that men will provide less sexual pleasure. It also showed that women's perception of sexual pleasure is based on how attracted they are to the man (see the cases where there was no information about how much pleasure the man would give them, yet there was still a strong correlation between "random guess about how good the guy is in bed" and "how likely she is to want sex with him"). Basically, it looks like when a woman is attracted to a man for other reasons (celebrity, or good looks, as in the Johnny Depp example), she assumes that he'll be good in bed. So it's not that they make decisions based on how good in bed they think the person will be; it's that they decide based on how attracted they are, and then that affects their guess about sexual pleasure.
This makes sense: I mean, a big part of the pleasure from sex [i]is[/i] how much you're attracted to someone, separate from the person's technical skills.
@152: I agree -- see my comment at 77 -- but there is some evidence that women are just biologically more selective than men, and so making men more attractive might have better effects.
163
@161: Aren't there a lot of male doms looking for female subs?
Also there's the always confusing dom/top distinction: am I correct in thinking 'dom' means you get to decide what happens, and 'top' means you're in the active role (eg, whipping, spanking, not the one tied up)?
Also there's the always confusing dom/top distinction: am I correct in thinking 'dom' means you get to decide what happens, and 'top' means you're in the active role (eg, whipping, spanking, not the one tied up)?
164
EricaP @161: "One solution for guys is to be more open to bisexuality. If guys were generally open to sex with other guys, that would help with the imbalance between how much sex men and women want."
Unlikely as long as the current identity and perception games go on, i.e. what makes a man a man, according to the metaculture. Think of it as analogous to citizenship, with straight men existing on a revocable citizenship. A woman can live in "another country" (i.e. be with a woman) for ten days or ten years, but when she comes back she's still a "citizen", i.e. seen to be straight again. A male who crosses the border once just to see what it is like has his citizenship revoked. He's no longer accepted or truly believed to be a pure citizen, ever. Oh, folks might let him live in the country that he was born in, but everybody who knows that he's been abroad now sees him as permanently Other.
Unlikely as long as the current identity and perception games go on, i.e. what makes a man a man, according to the metaculture. Think of it as analogous to citizenship, with straight men existing on a revocable citizenship. A woman can live in "another country" (i.e. be with a woman) for ten days or ten years, but when she comes back she's still a "citizen", i.e. seen to be straight again. A male who crosses the border once just to see what it is like has his citizenship revoked. He's no longer accepted or truly believed to be a pure citizen, ever. Oh, folks might let him live in the country that he was born in, but everybody who knows that he's been abroad now sees him as permanently Other.
165
EricaP @160: I hope that you're right. I'm a rather old hand at these gender debates and people using caustic accusations to score cheap points is inevitable but annoying when it happens. I'm not sure I agree with you, though: I still see the post as a nasty appropriation of the misogynist voice to make a misandrist point against men who aren't misogynists.
166
@165. EricaP gets it right. But I'm the one who fails at reading comprehension and sees only what they want to see, right, seeker? Although I'm not sure 'exulting' is the correct word.
167
@163 - there are a lot of lame-ass wanna-be doms who can't dominate their way out of a paper bag. Sure, if I tell them "I like it when you tell me to get you a drink," they can then "order" me to get them a drink. But they are just doing it to get laid, and don't have an ounce of actual authority in them. They can make good tops, yes. ("Hit me there, oh, yeah, hit me there some more. Maybe a little harder, too.") But a guy like that can't give me The Look, the look that makes me want to drop to my knees and beg permission to suck his cock. And he'll get bored of domming after a couple of sessions, because it doesn't come naturally.
@164 - I think there is a lot more acceptance of men who have had some same sex experience now than 20 years ago. I think the culture is moving that way. And I think that's great. But maybe we can also try to improve women's perception that sex is fun (by encouraging women to explore their own sexuality in greater depth).
@164 - I think there is a lot more acceptance of men who have had some same sex experience now than 20 years ago. I think the culture is moving that way. And I think that's great. But maybe we can also try to improve women's perception that sex is fun (by encouraging women to explore their own sexuality in greater depth).
168
@166 - sorry for the snark. I just don't believe there's an epidemic of women crying rape when they had a good time during the sex itself but didn't get enough presents afterward.
I do believe there are a lot of women who would never have agreed to the sex when sober, and didn't enjoy the sex, but were drunk enough to consent to it. They regret their alcohol-induced consent later, and, yes, may cry "rape." I'll grant you that the guy in such a situation isn't a rapist -- but he's an asshole. And there are a lot of men who will take advantage of a woman's altered state to get her consent -- maybe most men.
I do believe there are a lot of women who would never have agreed to the sex when sober, and didn't enjoy the sex, but were drunk enough to consent to it. They regret their alcohol-induced consent later, and, yes, may cry "rape." I'll grant you that the guy in such a situation isn't a rapist -- but he's an asshole. And there are a lot of men who will take advantage of a woman's altered state to get her consent -- maybe most men.
169
@161, 164: The bigger problem is that most men just aren't bi. And prostitution doesn't satisfy the deeper desire, which is to be wanted.
@167: Are you serious? No one can know exactly how you like to be dominated or what you like in bed unless you tell them. You seem to have this attitude that there are 'real, true, natural' dominants, and everyone else is just faking it. There are many different ways to be dominant, and no one is better than another. And no, it doesn't always come naturally: negotiating a dom/sub relationship and figuring out what the other person wants takes work and time and communication.
In the end all the roles and labels aren't important: you want something (to be dominated a certain way) and the other person wants something (sex, to please you, to hit you, to control you, to have you get him drinks when he wants) and the only way you can work that out and compromise is to have honest discussion about it.
@167: Are you serious? No one can know exactly how you like to be dominated or what you like in bed unless you tell them. You seem to have this attitude that there are 'real, true, natural' dominants, and everyone else is just faking it. There are many different ways to be dominant, and no one is better than another. And no, it doesn't always come naturally: negotiating a dom/sub relationship and figuring out what the other person wants takes work and time and communication.
In the end all the roles and labels aren't important: you want something (to be dominated a certain way) and the other person wants something (sex, to please you, to hit you, to control you, to have you get him drinks when he wants) and the only way you can work that out and compromise is to have honest discussion about it.
170
BlackRose @162 Thanks for explaining. I agree that if a guy doesn't push for intercourse when we're in bed together, that would seem weird. So make out in parking lots, movie theaters, dark booths in bars, parks, cars, restaurant bathrooms, etc. Show her you want her, and know how to touch her, but leave her wanting more...
171
@169 - Yes I'm serious. Some people have more charisma and authority than others. I've met and played with a handful of these people. It's just... different.
172
EricaP:
If we start to talk about libido levels then we run smack into the ferocious debate over whether "men want it more than women" or "women want it as much as men but [have too many disincentives; are more choosy (etc.)]. If the female libido is indeed lower than the male (and I don't take a stand one way or the other) the we should expect to see the end off the endless threads where the disparity in stated libido is only due to men being [out of shape; doing too little around the house; spending too much time underfoot; being lousy lays; never coming home; (or whatever is on special at the debate store this week)] and, frankly, I think that people love and are too committed to those arguments to give 'em up.
If we start to talk about libido levels then we run smack into the ferocious debate over whether "men want it more than women" or "women want it as much as men but [have too many disincentives; are more choosy (etc.)]. If the female libido is indeed lower than the male (and I don't take a stand one way or the other) the we should expect to see the end off the endless threads where the disparity in stated libido is only due to men being [out of shape; doing too little around the house; spending too much time underfoot; being lousy lays; never coming home; (or whatever is on special at the debate store this week)] and, frankly, I think that people love and are too committed to those arguments to give 'em up.
173
@172 Libido isn't one thing, even though we use one word for it. For women who are getting much physical pleasure from sex, they may still "want sex" for other reasons (to get a man, to keep a man, to feel attractive, to be normal, etc. etc.) If each woman learned in her teens how her body works, then we could start to have a conversation about what the average woman's "real" libido is like.
In the real world, though, it is really true that women's desire for sex (/tolerance of sex) varies depending on what else she may get out of it, besides any physical pleasure. Hence the debates.
In the real world, though, it is really true that women's desire for sex (/tolerance of sex) varies depending on what else she may get out of it, besides any physical pleasure. Hence the debates.
175
The problem with analyses like "to get a man, to keep a man ... etc. [... In the real world ... that women's desire for sex (/tolerance of sex) varies depending on what else she may get out of it" then we fall smack damn into the four corners of as sex as currency, which is really no different that the traditional misogynist's model of "insert cash receive pussy", and makes every interaction after that a kind of ongoing Lysistrata Gambit with all of the nightmares of anger and resentment that follow in its wake, no?
176
@175 I'm just asking for a greater emphasis on women's physical pleasure. You can read the flip side of that (why women put up with so much bad sex) however you choose to.
177
"You can read the flip side of that (why women put up with so much bad sex) however you choose to."
Hopefully as an instruction manual. ;)
Hopefully as an instruction manual. ;)
178
You know what I don't like about porn? Actually I mostly like porn, but I also think porn has the following harmful side effect, according to my own experience at that of some women friends I've talked to about it: Boys/men these days consume porn in huge quantities since their early teens, because porn is so much more accessible than real women, so guys end up with their sexually formative years spent exclusively (or almost exclusively) on porn. So the problem is that they become totally conditioned to porn as opposed to real sex. Seems that many of them can no longer find a real woman attractive (almost no real women look like porn stars, and even porn stars don't look like porn stars without professional makeup, lighting, editing, photoshop, surgery, etc.), or real sex all that satisfying (there's a lot you can't actually see, no multiple camera angles, no clever moving stuff out of the way etc.--and then there's stuff you CAN see that gets edited out of porn). Kind of ironic, isn't it? But it's happening, folks. They don't want to have sex with us anymore, they just want to get back to their computers or their manga comics.
179
Lourdes, you make a point worthy of consideration.
But, to be fair, I also put myself back in my own teenage/20s mind and then listened to you again. And that boy's first thought in response was, "okay, so girls say no most of the time* and when they do say yes they move immediately to complaining about how we do it" and so developed some sympathy for the young men in question.
* - which seems to be a message of this thread at least and definitely the rule for my took-this-shit-seriously Catholic school
If (if) we accept that you have direct or indirect experience of "they don't want to have sex with us anymore, they just want to get back to their computers" ** it does rather beg the question of whether the problem isn't just the boys it's their partners who expect them to perform like Nureyev the first times they dance. Nothing like judgmental partners without perspective to make somebody feel reeeeeeeeeaal good about themselves and their abilities.
** -- Which does seem to go against all the other data and anecdotes about guys leaping on any warm body they can, no?
I'm sure that you're right about some of the pernicious effects of porn. But my teenaged self tells me that he's equally sure that you're not fucking helping. He asks that you have the backbone to face what he had to in high school: "maybe the problem is you".
But, to be fair, I also put myself back in my own teenage/20s mind and then listened to you again. And that boy's first thought in response was, "okay, so girls say no most of the time* and when they do say yes they move immediately to complaining about how we do it" and so developed some sympathy for the young men in question.
* - which seems to be a message of this thread at least and definitely the rule for my took-this-shit-seriously Catholic school
If (if) we accept that you have direct or indirect experience of "they don't want to have sex with us anymore, they just want to get back to their computers" ** it does rather beg the question of whether the problem isn't just the boys it's their partners who expect them to perform like Nureyev the first times they dance. Nothing like judgmental partners without perspective to make somebody feel reeeeeeeeeaal good about themselves and their abilities.
** -- Which does seem to go against all the other data and anecdotes about guys leaping on any warm body they can, no?
I'm sure that you're right about some of the pernicious effects of porn. But my teenaged self tells me that he's equally sure that you're not fucking helping. He asks that you have the backbone to face what he had to in high school: "maybe the problem is you".
180
EricaP (170, 171): "I agree that if a guy doesn't push for intercourse when we're in bed together, that would seem weird."
"Some people have more charisma and authority than others. I've met and played with a handful of these people. It's just... different."
and you wonder why guys don't take the time to slow down and please women? It's hard to get the balance right. We get criticized for being too slow... for being too fast... please, don't judge someone for not being able to read your mind!
Same goes for your BDSM comments. When I've played with various people, acting the same way, some find me too "authoritative," others not enough so. The only way to figure it out is to talk to the person and figure out exactly what it is they like. I bet a lot of the people who you think didn't have enough authority, or too much authority, were just making a guess as to how you like to be dominated, and trying to act that way to please you. If you could just tell them, they could adjust their level of authority. When you start a relationship or sex or a scene, you have to guess what the other person likes, and it's not fair to judge or penalize someone for guessing wrong.
I'm not trying to criticize you personally. I hope you know I think you're awesome. :) It's just that there is this really harmful BDSM (and sex in general) mythology you sometimes see that some people are "natural dominants/submissives" and so they don't have to communicate and discuss what they like. The whole "naturally dominant" thing is a fun game sometimes, but it's not reality... it's all acting and roleplaying and it's so important to be able to communicate. We're always acting, always putting on a role, BDSM or not, and adjusting roles and behaviors to make a relationship works takes a lot of trial and error. It's frustrating when people expect others to read their minds and magically fit them like a glove without any communication. It just doesn't work that way.
More...
"Some people have more charisma and authority than others. I've met and played with a handful of these people. It's just... different."
and you wonder why guys don't take the time to slow down and please women? It's hard to get the balance right. We get criticized for being too slow... for being too fast... please, don't judge someone for not being able to read your mind!
Same goes for your BDSM comments. When I've played with various people, acting the same way, some find me too "authoritative," others not enough so. The only way to figure it out is to talk to the person and figure out exactly what it is they like. I bet a lot of the people who you think didn't have enough authority, or too much authority, were just making a guess as to how you like to be dominated, and trying to act that way to please you. If you could just tell them, they could adjust their level of authority. When you start a relationship or sex or a scene, you have to guess what the other person likes, and it's not fair to judge or penalize someone for guessing wrong.
I'm not trying to criticize you personally. I hope you know I think you're awesome. :) It's just that there is this really harmful BDSM (and sex in general) mythology you sometimes see that some people are "natural dominants/submissives" and so they don't have to communicate and discuss what they like. The whole "naturally dominant" thing is a fun game sometimes, but it's not reality... it's all acting and roleplaying and it's so important to be able to communicate. We're always acting, always putting on a role, BDSM or not, and adjusting roles and behaviors to make a relationship works takes a lot of trial and error. It's frustrating when people expect others to read their minds and magically fit them like a glove without any communication. It just doesn't work that way.
181
@178: That's... really weird. I looked at a ton of porn as a teenager and I wasn't thinking about the lighting or the shapes of the women or the makeup or the angles. I was just focused on this amazing thing called a pussy, that it was actually real and there were actually people who had one attached to their body, and how badly I wanted a real live girl. Any girl, no matter what she looked like. I can't ever imagine preferring porn, any porn, to an actual girl, any girl.
I really, really doubt this is an actual phenomenon. Possibly a few people end up "not being able to find an actual woman attractive," but I would guess they have other problems anyway. People like to blow up small issues into huge social trends, and then blame the media, and that just fits in too nicely with religious abstinence-only ideas about premarital sex or porn "ruining" your sex life forever.
I really, really doubt this is an actual phenomenon. Possibly a few people end up "not being able to find an actual woman attractive," but I would guess they have other problems anyway. People like to blow up small issues into huge social trends, and then blame the media, and that just fits in too nicely with religious abstinence-only ideas about premarital sex or porn "ruining" your sex life forever.
182
180 I was only following your lead in saying that men get judged for not moving fast once in bed, naked. But people don't start out in bed, naked. No one is going to accuse you of moving too slow if your hand is up her skirt at the bar. Put her hand on your dick so she sees how hard she makes you. Have fun with the teasing! A couple of dates like that, and you won't have to worry about who initiates. either she'll stop taking your calls (because she's not that kind of girl and you're better off rid of someone who really doesn't like sex), or she'll get you somewhere private and rip your clothes off.
As for BDSM, I'm married to a guy with the best heart in the world and he knows what I want. But he does it as a favor to me... and it's not the same. Imagine the difference between a blow job from someone who lives to give blowjobs, and someone who is doing it to be nice. GGG is all very well, but for me the best part about us opening up our marriage is that I've gotten to have some hot scenes with people who just live and breathe dominance. Running a woman's life is what they have fetishized since they were teens. Now, I will say that they are not people I could live with. But, man, having them take charge of me for a couple of hours – you can't teach it. I'm sorry, I know it's not nice to hear this, but I mean, is it really that surprising that some people are better leaders, more charismatic than others? And that it's a different experience, being dominated by someone who has that charisma?
As for BDSM, I'm married to a guy with the best heart in the world and he knows what I want. But he does it as a favor to me... and it's not the same. Imagine the difference between a blow job from someone who lives to give blowjobs, and someone who is doing it to be nice. GGG is all very well, but for me the best part about us opening up our marriage is that I've gotten to have some hot scenes with people who just live and breathe dominance. Running a woman's life is what they have fetishized since they were teens. Now, I will say that they are not people I could live with. But, man, having them take charge of me for a couple of hours – you can't teach it. I'm sorry, I know it's not nice to hear this, but I mean, is it really that surprising that some people are better leaders, more charismatic than others? And that it's a different experience, being dominated by someone who has that charisma?
183
@179 "And that boy's first thought in response was, "okay, so girls say no most of the time* and when they do say yes they move immediately to complaining about how we do it"
Women aren't sufficiently grateful for being plowed by your dick? They have the temerity to complain that it wasn't fun for them? What's up with that?
Women aren't sufficiently grateful for being plowed by your dick? They have the temerity to complain that it wasn't fun for them? What's up with that?
184
You misunderstand, EricaP, and that was probably my communication fault. I was talking specifically about Lourdes' view about how men, in general, perform -- which was to, basically, complain that they suck at sex because they watch porn, with nary a word about sex being a joint activity - through the mind of my high school self. I can't speak for other's fumbling experiences in the early 1980s, but in my Catholic HS experience all of the initiative and effort was left to the guy, as in `you try something and I'll tell you if it works and/or if I'm okay with it or whether I give permission' rather than seeing the encounter as a joyous joint effort. (After all, you're not a Bad Girl if he's doing this shit, right? You are a bad girl if you initiate or admit that you enjoy it. Going to uni and postgrad and away from those bred-in-the-bone religious hangups was a liberation.)
To return to your WTF question: If you've ever been out with friends you've probably had at least one occasion where there's the one person who never has a constructive suggestion but always wants to complain about the choices the others make. Simply put, Lourdes reminded me of that kind of attitude.
To return to your WTF question: If you've ever been out with friends you've probably had at least one occasion where there's the one person who never has a constructive suggestion but always wants to complain about the choices the others make. Simply put, Lourdes reminded me of that kind of attitude.
185
@184 Fair enough. But we return to iluvgays' point about how men are so desperate for pussy that they continue to see these women. If I'm with a friend who is never happy, I stop inviting that person along. But men continue to have sex with women who are not enjoying the sex. So, in the end, neither the man nor the woman is happy. Maybe men were happier when women saw no problem faking orgasm. But I don't want to go back to that -- there's already too much bad sex in the world.
186
I wouldn't disagree that there's too much bad sex in the world. One can say "better communication" is the answer, but it's one of those damned things that sounds trite, no matter how often you say it, yet some people refuse to get it.
As for your other point about staying, it rotates back up to the frequency of desired sex. If a guy's choice comes down to second-rate sex as opposed to celibacy, or the loss of a cherished relationship with that bad-sex person, then I can understand why they stay.
As for your other point about staying, it rotates back up to the frequency of desired sex. If a guy's choice comes down to second-rate sex as opposed to celibacy, or the loss of a cherished relationship with that bad-sex person, then I can understand why they stay.
187
"If porn consumption inspired people—men people (asexual men excluded (which is as it should be (kidding!)))—to commit sex crimes, which a not-surprising number of people who went to college in the 80s and 90s still believe, then the current and historically unprecedented ubiquity of hardcore porn (thanks, Internet!) should have lead to an explosion of sex crimes, right? It didn't happen"
Jesus Christ, Dan. I love you, but you need to cut back on the parenthetical asides and free modifiers. This "sentence" made me vertiginous.
Also: the best kind of porn is vertiginous.
Jesus Christ, Dan. I love you, but you need to cut back on the parenthetical asides and free modifiers. This "sentence" made me vertiginous.
Also: the best kind of porn is vertiginous.
188
@182: Well, a lot of my "first dates" are in the bedroom. So it doesn't really apply. But I get what you're saying and it's making me think. It could be fun to have a few dates outside the bedroom and take it slow. Incredibly scary for me, but still fun.
I get what you're saying about wanting the other person to want activity X for its own sake, not just to please you. I was thinking about people who do "live and breathe" dominance, but aren't expressing it in the way you want. Like, suppose that I really wanted a blow job given with the girl on her knees, wearing a little skirt, looking up at me, with a curious and uncertain expression on her face, and softly humming to herself. Now imagine a girl who loves giving blow jobs and is properly submissive, but because she doesn't know all these details, she doesn't do it quite that way. Wouldn't it make more sense for me to discuss it with her, rather than for me to assume that if she really loved giving blow jobs, she'd read my mind and do it the way I wanted?
Basically, I think that a lot of those guys who didn't dominate you the "right way" did love to dominate, and just didn't know the exact way you liked it, but if they did, they would have done so and loved it. You need permission to dominate someone, you need to know how hard or intense they like it, and you don't want to scare someone off by being too authoritative. One of the hottest things a girl ever said to me was "you can be as rough as you want," because that gave me permission to "unleash the monster."
But, come on, what guy doesn't want to run a woman's life? Isn't that what we all want and fantasize about? I do get that some people might not be compatible with you, but I think there are plenty of people who would be if you worked up to it and told them what you liked, as opposed to ruling someone out because they couldn't immediately read your mind. Especially with BDSM, there are so many different options that there's no way someone could know exactly what you want.
(This is a big thing for me because I'm always simultaneously worried about being too demanding and compromising too much with people. I just wish people would be willing to say what turns them on and attracts them.)
More...
I get what you're saying about wanting the other person to want activity X for its own sake, not just to please you. I was thinking about people who do "live and breathe" dominance, but aren't expressing it in the way you want. Like, suppose that I really wanted a blow job given with the girl on her knees, wearing a little skirt, looking up at me, with a curious and uncertain expression on her face, and softly humming to herself. Now imagine a girl who loves giving blow jobs and is properly submissive, but because she doesn't know all these details, she doesn't do it quite that way. Wouldn't it make more sense for me to discuss it with her, rather than for me to assume that if she really loved giving blow jobs, she'd read my mind and do it the way I wanted?
Basically, I think that a lot of those guys who didn't dominate you the "right way" did love to dominate, and just didn't know the exact way you liked it, but if they did, they would have done so and loved it. You need permission to dominate someone, you need to know how hard or intense they like it, and you don't want to scare someone off by being too authoritative. One of the hottest things a girl ever said to me was "you can be as rough as you want," because that gave me permission to "unleash the monster."
But, come on, what guy doesn't want to run a woman's life? Isn't that what we all want and fantasize about? I do get that some people might not be compatible with you, but I think there are plenty of people who would be if you worked up to it and told them what you liked, as opposed to ruling someone out because they couldn't immediately read your mind. Especially with BDSM, there are so many different options that there's no way someone could know exactly what you want.
(This is a big thing for me because I'm always simultaneously worried about being too demanding and compromising too much with people. I just wish people would be willing to say what turns them on and attracts them.)
189
@188 - did you miss the part where I said that I was talking about my HUSBAND, of 15 years (18 years since he collared me; 23 years since we met and became friends)??? Trust me, he knows what I like. And when he puts in the effort, he gets it right. But it's not what he fantasizes about.
Stop telling me that anyone could dominate me if I just was more communicative. How long have you been doing this? I've been trying to be bound and hurt since I was 13. I've taught my husband how to please me in those ways. But the people I'm talking about don't want me to tell them how I like it. They ask for my limits (where can I be bruised, do I have a tendency to have panic attacks, do I have allergies, when do I have to be home...) Then they do what THEY want to do to me. They don't worry about being too demanding or too gentle. They do what they want. They find people who like that, instead of trying to be all things to whoever they're in bed with. You're telling me that anyone can fake that level of self-confidence/arrogance, and I'm telling you no. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Stop telling me that anyone could dominate me if I just was more communicative. How long have you been doing this? I've been trying to be bound and hurt since I was 13. I've taught my husband how to please me in those ways. But the people I'm talking about don't want me to tell them how I like it. They ask for my limits (where can I be bruised, do I have a tendency to have panic attacks, do I have allergies, when do I have to be home...) Then they do what THEY want to do to me. They don't worry about being too demanding or too gentle. They do what they want. They find people who like that, instead of trying to be all things to whoever they're in bed with. You're telling me that anyone can fake that level of self-confidence/arrogance, and I'm telling you no. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
190
BlackRose, I'll give you this olive branch - when you're dating someone, or screwing someone new, and you both admit to being a little kinky, it's great to communicate a lot about what you each like. This can be done by sharing fantasies, reading stories and talking about them, and by starting very gently and working up slowly, asking her to tell you when she thinks she can only take five more blows (or whatever). Give her straight-forward choices (do you think you can you take one more minute with the nipple-clamps?) Ask her if she likes X more than Y -- just don't let her drift off into her mind by asking confusing questions (Do you like it rough? - that's too vague).
My husband and I certainly did a lot of talking and light play as we figured out how deep we wanted to go. (Though he had me pierce my labia for him after we'd been dating a month, so he didn't really move slowly). With someone who might be a life partner, or just a fun sex partner, by all means, see if you can each accommodate the other's fantasies and be GGG about it all. Much fun. (And, yes, I do think you and your dates will be happier with your sex life if you get to know each other outside the bedroom a little first.)
The extremely confident/arrogant doms I've played with this year - that's just a different animal.
My husband and I certainly did a lot of talking and light play as we figured out how deep we wanted to go. (Though he had me pierce my labia for him after we'd been dating a month, so he didn't really move slowly). With someone who might be a life partner, or just a fun sex partner, by all means, see if you can each accommodate the other's fantasies and be GGG about it all. Much fun. (And, yes, I do think you and your dates will be happier with your sex life if you get to know each other outside the bedroom a little first.)
The extremely confident/arrogant doms I've played with this year - that's just a different animal.
191
@189: I wasn't talking about your husband; I meant the "lame-ass wanna-be doms" you spoke of earlier.
My point was not that anyone could dominate you, but that there are probably some people who could do what you want, and really enjoy it and would love to do it, with the help of some input from you.
But I think I understand. (I could be totally wrong so feel free to correct me.) Are you saying you don't want to tell someone what you like, because your kink is having someone not care about what you want and still bruise and tie you exactly how you like? In other words, you need someone who by chance does what you want without having to ask? Or is it that you don't care what they do, as long as it's what they want, and it involves some amount of bruising/binding?
I mean, if that's what you like, it's what you like, and I'm glad you were able to find people to satisfy you. But it has nothing to do with being, or faking being, self-confident/arrogant/"naturally" dominant. BDSM as I know and practice it is about communication. Much as I love to tie a girl up and bruise her, I want to know what her limits are, what she likes and what she doesn't, and what kinds of things she's into. That kind of scene discussion is and should be normal and it certainly doesn't make someone less of a leader or less charismatic. I care a lot about communication in BDSM, and seeing someone say that it's a turnoff or it makes someone less of a real dominant doesn't seem healthy.
I guess I don't understand fetishizing lack of communication, if that's what you do: it seems like it could cause all sorts of problems.
My point was not that anyone could dominate you, but that there are probably some people who could do what you want, and really enjoy it and would love to do it, with the help of some input from you.
But I think I understand. (I could be totally wrong so feel free to correct me.) Are you saying you don't want to tell someone what you like, because your kink is having someone not care about what you want and still bruise and tie you exactly how you like? In other words, you need someone who by chance does what you want without having to ask? Or is it that you don't care what they do, as long as it's what they want, and it involves some amount of bruising/binding?
I mean, if that's what you like, it's what you like, and I'm glad you were able to find people to satisfy you. But it has nothing to do with being, or faking being, self-confident/arrogant/"naturally" dominant. BDSM as I know and practice it is about communication. Much as I love to tie a girl up and bruise her, I want to know what her limits are, what she likes and what she doesn't, and what kinds of things she's into. That kind of scene discussion is and should be normal and it certainly doesn't make someone less of a leader or less charismatic. I care a lot about communication in BDSM, and seeing someone say that it's a turnoff or it makes someone less of a real dominant doesn't seem healthy.
I guess I don't understand fetishizing lack of communication, if that's what you do: it seems like it could cause all sorts of problems.
192
Or another way of putting it: how can you find these doms who just do what they want within limits and don't ask you what you want, if you can't talk about it with them? How can you make sure what they want is actually what you want, if you don't talk about it? And how could I find someone who wants me to just do what I want within her limits, if we can't talk about it first?
193
@192 - did you read me at 190? - I do approve of talking, between people who fully intend to have a mutually pleasurable, kinky relationship. I never said that you were a lame-ass wanna-be dom, or that my husband is. And I'm sorry for giving you that impression. Some guys are lame. Some guys are nice and GGG (you and my husband).
But some other guys/girls/trans are dominant assholes who take what they want. That's hot to me. To answer you @191: Yes, I don't care what they do, as long as it's what they want. They could have me serve as a table for the evening. And, yes: this fetish can cause all sorts of problems.
Newsflash: people don't choose their fetishes. Being used makes me hot. Being used within my limits is hot. Being used way past my limits would be super hot, but I am able to resist setting that up, generally. I did get assaulted this year, by playing a second time with someone who was really really hot and fantastic the first time we had sex. But either he got off on pushing past my limits or else he got off on the rough anal that was outside my limits - I don't know which. Little of both, maybe. So, yeah, I wouldn't recommend this fetish to people. But it's what I have.
That said, I don't need the reality to have an orgasm. I come from intense clitoral stimulation. And what I'm fantasizing about, while I'm coming - is being used. Beyond my limits. That's hot. (To me.)
But some other guys/girls/trans are dominant assholes who take what they want. That's hot to me. To answer you @191: Yes, I don't care what they do, as long as it's what they want. They could have me serve as a table for the evening. And, yes: this fetish can cause all sorts of problems.
Newsflash: people don't choose their fetishes. Being used makes me hot. Being used within my limits is hot. Being used way past my limits would be super hot, but I am able to resist setting that up, generally. I did get assaulted this year, by playing a second time with someone who was really really hot and fantastic the first time we had sex. But either he got off on pushing past my limits or else he got off on the rough anal that was outside my limits - I don't know which. Little of both, maybe. So, yeah, I wouldn't recommend this fetish to people. But it's what I have.
That said, I don't need the reality to have an orgasm. I come from intense clitoral stimulation. And what I'm fantasizing about, while I'm coming - is being used. Beyond my limits. That's hot. (To me.)
194
@181
I'm afraid that those guys (who prefer porn girls to real girls) do exist. I, too, find it incredibly hard to understand. I watch porn sometimes, but I would never, eeevvveeeerrr choose it over actually having sex with an available person who I'm fond of. I've experienced that guy, though, and I have girlfriends who have also experienced that guy, so I know he's real. Unfortunately.
I'm afraid that those guys (who prefer porn girls to real girls) do exist. I, too, find it incredibly hard to understand. I watch porn sometimes, but I would never, eeevvveeeerrr choose it over actually having sex with an available person who I'm fond of. I've experienced that guy, though, and I have girlfriends who have also experienced that guy, so I know he's real. Unfortunately.
196
Thank you Violet. Yeah, I certainly never meant to imply that all guys (or even most guys) are like that, and I can see why it would be hard to imagine for those who aren't or who haven't encountered it ... but it's definitely a real phenomenon. I'm not making it up, sadly. Possibly more prevalent in certain parts of the world than others.
197
There is definitely a documented pattern of men with resentment against women, who perceive that women as a group, and also particular women, are emasculating them, which they use a justification for battering or raping women. This is a type of mentality displayed by jealous men who are batterers, and also rapists. It is pretty well-understood. They always say that the victim was arrogant, that women in general are arrogant, that women get above themselves and don't respond the way they should have to him, etc. So it's both that they feel rejected, led on, not treated with the respect they deserve as men, etc. So porn could take the place of acting out for these men, if they are using the porn to feel like they are putting women in their place. This would make sense if you consider that using porn is a tool for these men to express the hostility they feel toward women. If porn, or the types of fantasies porn facilitates, helps them to act out this hostility, they are less likely to be out walking around, getting all offended by all those real, "uppity" women out there. This could make sense, but has not quite been proven.
198
@EricaP and BlackRose, I have followed with interest your conversation. I wish to god I knew the two of you for realz. ;)
199
@Lissa - we're continuing the conversation via email - I can't speak for BlackRose, but I'm happy to speak to these issues offline if you want to share some of your interests :-)
EricaPSavage@gmail works for me.
EricaPSavage@gmail works for me.
201
@199: Please feel free to pass on my email address and any of our conversation you want to Lissa :)
202
Get your facts right compared to when there was very little porn around sex crimes have rocketed. In every country in the world particularly western ones like the UK and USA sex crimes rose dramatically between 1960 to 1980 in the UK in 2011 sex crimes are up yet again and are 20 times greater than fifty years ago .If porn reduced sex crimes there should be less sex crimes now than in the fiftys when porn was rare and hard to get hold of.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Well-Regulated Beaverton Militia Accidentally Fires Shot into Neighbor's Bedroom by Goldy
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
Dutch Artist Turns Dead Cat into Remote-Controlled Helicopter by Bethany Jean Clement
-
SL Letter of the Day: Have You Ever Heard of...? by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (202) RSS