Columns May 2, 2012 at 4:00 am

Busted

Comments

109
@106 -- Psycholinguist's point is that if gender was entirely socially constructed rather than based in anything biological, everyone would just identify with the gender they're socialized into, which doesn't happen in reality. In this sense, the existence of trans people seems to bolster the argument that gender is at least partly innate, as did John Money's horrifying experiments with David Reimer.
110
It seems to me that BSTD's kink isn't really relevant to his problem.

He's mostly heterosexual, but wants to occassionally go off and interact sexually with a man. He doesn't think his female partners would be OK with this, and so keeps it secret.

It seems like the situation would be essentially the same if he wanted to get/give blowjobs or have anal sex with men instead of being kicked in the balls.

If a man who was bisexual, but closer to heterosexual to homosexual, wanted to be cured of their attraction to men, wouldn't this be considered unethical by most psychiatrists?
111
@110

Nice try.

You could argue that the kink isn't relevent in the context of why the LW is writing in and why he's worried about his relationship.

However, the gender of the person injuring the LW's genitals isn't relevent to the psychiatrist's reccomendation that he modify his behaviour. The fact that he could seriously and permanently hurt himself is the issue.

In short, the situation may be entirely the same to the LW, if it were anal, but it would not be the same to the psychiatrist.
112
Please....this is a self-hating homosexual (yes, there are tons of them out there!), who wants to hide his "good looking male" lust under some self-imposed punishment that he (luckily!) gets to have administered by the objects of his lust.
OBVIOUS!
113
7 is a homeschool kid, I promise you. Over use of big/SAT words, exaggerated sense of self-importance, total sureness in the fact that they're totally right and you're wrong. Not that ALL homeschooled kids are like this (I've met some lovely ones) but this kind of attitude generally comes from a homeschooled kid. At the very least, a high schooler from a bible school. Also, the use of LOL is kind of youthful, no? Probably bragging to all his/her friends about how s/he 'witnessed' to a bunch of fags today.
114
@111 - No no no! That's just you projecting, and other kink-panicking comments as well. The issue is not the potential harm of the kink. It's the "double life", the sneaking behind his girlfriend's back, the gender-anxiety, that's the issue.

Like recreational drugs, harm mitigation is much more successful through socializing its use than suppression. Other commenters have mentioned talk therapy, but really Dan's advice is the key - come out to yourself about the kink, find a girlfriend (and preferrably a kink community) that will accept you and help you fulfill your desire safely.
115
@114

Actually, if you read what I wrote, I wasn't advocating or condemning the psychiatrist's position. Simply pointing out the incorrectness of someone else's assesment of that position.

It's not "kink-panic" to point out that that specific behaviour has risks associated with it (and if you read what Dan wrote, you'll see he also expressed concern about these practices and urged the LW to hold back on specific sub-behaviours and stick to the safer versions).

And by the way, if you actually read what the psychiatrist said, you'd see he prescribed medication to the man who hit his testicles with a hammer, he makes no mention of what treatment (if any) was given to the man who sought out experiences with other men to feel dominated.
116
Find somebody into open relationships. If poly (emotional non-monogamy) doesn`t work for you, try a sexually non-monogamous but emotionally monogamous relationship.

Fetlife can be a good way to meet kinky people. Just try not to treat it like a hook-up site. Talk about your fetish on your profile, but also talk about yourself as a human bieng - what are your passions, your hobbies, your interests?
117
I listened to your conferance where you strayed from your topic and attacked the Holy Scriptures.The very Christ that has given us our moral standards cares about you Mr. Savage.
I cannot pretend to understand all of your pain , but He understands and is waiting for you to come to a place of repentance and faith.

The sexual morals that God has given us are eternal and timeless.I can only say that there can be no true happiness for anyone that violates these standards.God wants you to be happy and be fulfilled but outside of His will there can be no peace. The best thing about the Gospel is that when Christ takes upon Himself our sins He forgets them and they will never be mentioned to us again.I hope you find that peace Mr Savage.God could use a man like you.
You will be in my prayers.

Hopefully yours in Christ someday, Dan
119
@109, Just because something is a social construction doesn't mean that our bodies are irrelevant. Or that we as individuals (or parents of individuals) have much control over the social aspects.

Music is a social construction, but human bodies have differing responses to music. If parents of a deaf child tried to make that child a piano virtuoso, they would be setting themselves up for failure.

Likewise, cutting off David Reimer's penis didn't magically get rid of his other physical attributes, which affected how he fit (or didn't fit) into our society's gender roles.
120
Dan-I just read that your going to debate the motherfuckers of NOM. I want a ticket. I want to be there when all the bigots heads explode. I want them to see Satan coming out of Brian Brown's skull. I want to bring cleanup wipes to those who will be in need. Please, please, please!

121
Gender is designed by by God for a purpose.As an active Latter Day Saint I believe that God has a plan for men and women and that is to be married for all time and eternity.Sexual relations are to be enjoyed but only within the confines of a legal marriage between one male and one female.Sexual relations outside the marriage covenant cannot bring happiness in this life and will bring sorrow in the life to come.
Children are to be welcomed and raised to respect God and trust in Christ as Savior.

Marriage is not easy.There will be seasons of pain and dissapointment mixed with great sacrifice but these are small prices to pay and with a lot of humor and common sense couples can succeed.
Each of us is a beloved son or daughter of God with eternal worth and possibilities.Regardless of our past or how many sins we have on our balance sheet Christ and His sacrifice are able to forgive and make us new.Those past sins will never be mentioned to us again, they are gone!

There is an old Methodist hymn that I love written by Charles Wesley. One of the stanzas expresses this idea of forgivness better than I can:

''He (Christ)breaks the power of cancelled sin, He sets the prisnor free!His blood can make the foulest clean, His blood availed for me!''

If you're reading this I hope you will take the Savior up on His offer.Nothing that you've done shocks Him,He only wants you to come home.He's waiting to put an understanding arm around you and give the love you have serched for and best of all it's free.

122
@115, I admit I didn't parse your post in close detail, I was responding to the spirit in which you responded to @110. I've looked at the column again in detail and believe I've read correctly the first time round: the "cures" mentioned were to do with shame, and readings of permanent damage are kink-panic projections.

Federoff treated the hammer guy with an SSRI to "help a person overcome an unwanted sexual interest or compulsion". No mention of the request for surgical castration as a result of damage, or shame/fear. (If it was a result of damage already suffered, SSRI was too late. If it wasn't, why castrate? In any case, permanent damage is only one possible reading, not the only.)

The Bergner reference is about shame - foot fetish hardly involving any physical damage.

I should disclose that my reading is coloured by experience of topping in ball-busting. It really depends on what the sub can take. Putting hammer to balls may sound more dramatic than is actually experienced by the sub.

All this reminds me of the thread a few weeks ago on D/s relationships in public: the same kink-panic, leaping to conclusions about kinksters. It seems that many commenters here really think that kinksters are impulsive cretins with no consideration of consequences or sense of moderation and control ...!

I maintain that the permanent-damage reading - which Dan raised towards the end, in context of a socializing kink behaviour, not drug treatment - is a kink-panicking projection. (BTW I don't imply this kink has no risk; I wrote about "harm mitigation", I wrote about "fulfilling the desire safely". No sane kinksters operate under the pretense of no risk! All that stuff about needing to draw boundaries on certain kinks are basically straw man arguments.)
123
@121: "There will be seasons of pain and dissapointment mixed with great sacrifice but these are small prices to pay and with a lot of humor and common sense couples can succeed." etc etc.

And you think gay married people don't experience that? Or straight married people with open marriages? Are virtues like sacrifice, humour and mutual support and understanding (and joy, and, God forbid, love) only granted acknowledgement for certain couples and not others?
125
@106: Not "invented" but "observed." There are some "masculine" and “feminine” behaviors that are innate, and not socially constructed. That means we humans OBSERVE these behaviors rather than consciously or unconsciously TEACH these behaviors to one or the other gender. We may then choose to include these behaviors in our categorizations of gender, but that shouldn't mean that we are socially constructing gender, rather it means we are choosing to order our thinking about gender in a way that best corresponds to our observations. One behavior, for example is the observation that boy toddlers seem to take more physical risks than female toddlers.
Exceptions do show up, but when a behavior can't be explained by social conditioning, and can't be explained by chance, and the only good explanation seems to be the fact that a child is born of a particular gender, we ought to accept that categorization rather than play intellectual games in order to preserve bizarre notions left over from the "tabula rasa" days of psychology. The choice to include an observed correlation as a general description of that gender does not mean the correlation is socially constructed, unless you are willing to argue that ALL categorizations involving life are socially constructed, since exceptions can always be found.
If that's what some want to argue, I would respond by saying that although some social constructions are invalid and mutable, others are VALID and immutable, or mutable only at the cost of great suffering and possible suicide. If that’s true, then what really matters is distinguishing between valid and invalid social constructions. But that’s just the same as distinguishing between prejudice and beliefs based in reality.
Here’s my conclusion: There’s typical male behavior and typical female behavior that is innate. There’s typical male and female behavior that is taught. Then there are behaviors that are caused by a combination of innate tendencies, environment, and social conditioning. The essential moral thesis ought to be that there is nothing wrong with any individual behaving in a way that is not typical of their gender. But we ought not get so out of touch with reality that we believe that all gender-related behavior or all gender categorization is “socially constructed.”
126
@125 "unless you are willing to argue that ALL categorizations are socially constructed"

Yep. Atoms, bees, and comets don't buzz around categorizing things. Only people in society do.

How do you know that "boy toddlers seem to take more physical risks than female toddlers"? Only because some creatures you've already defined as "boy toddlers" take these risks. How do you know they're boys? Because they wear blue outfits? Because they take risks? Because they have male names? Because you've seen their genitals? Because you've checked their hormone levels or their chromosomes? Because you've asked them if they identify as a boy? Not all those categories lead to the same answers for every individual, even if there is, as John said @52, a lot of overlap.
127
@125/126 in other words, maybe the statement is more true if phrased: "people with more testosterone take more physical risks," where most of those people also have a bio-penis, and like the color blue, and have a male name, but not all.
128
@127

"Because you've seen their genitals?"

Yup. That's the one. They have penises. Toddlers with penises tend to be more physically aggressive and rambunctious than toddlers with vaginas, who tend to be chattier than their male counterparts from an early age. Anyone who's worked in child care can attest to those things.

The concept of time is a construction. There is no giant clock in outer space counting down the minutes and hours. Those are systems of measurement created by humans to make better sense of the world. But humans do age, the seasons do cycle, and things move forward and change. Time isn't some completely arbitrary human invention, and neither is gender. I've had people in gender studies tell me that sex is what a baby is born with, and gender is what society assigns the baby. I don't think it's as simple as that.

129
That is a sad situation that can eventually cause permanent damage. I would rather take a medication than risk damaging that part of my body though repeat kicks or blows to it even at the risk of losing my libido. The very idea of what he wants from another guy being kicked in the nuts or the other one who ties his balls with a rope and then hits them with a hammer just makes me cringe.
Most guys love their cock and balls and would not
knowingly do anything to damage them.
130
@128 What conclusions do you draw from the fact that most toddlers with penises like to take more physical risks?

That we shouldn't cut off their penises and carve them vaginas? I'm with you on that.

What about the toddlers with penises who like to wear tutus? I've met a few of those (my son was one for a while). Can we let them wear their tutus in peace, and wait to see what they want from their lives, or do we have to encourage them to be more rough-and-tumble, because it will be easier for them as teenagers if they learned in toddler-hood to be more "boy"-like?
131
For me, the point of noticing that gender is a social construction is not to say that macho guys shouldn't be macho, or that flouncy girls shouldn't be flouncy. Be what you want to be, y'all!

My point is that when you start hearing that lots of guys want to be pegged, or wear frilly underwear and heels, or stay home with their children, or drink cosmopolitinis, that should also be okay, and not as a huge surprise.
132
@129: yes, YOU would find it sad, YOU would cringe, but not those guys that do enjoy it.

YOU don't get to call this kink sad, just because YOU are not into it.

People, stop hating on this kink.
133
@131 -- I married a guy who likes being pegged, drinks fruity cocktails, and owns more shoes than I do, so I'm totally cool with that. I'm also able to realize that he's not a representation of the typical guy (I'm not attracted to typical or "macho" guys in the least).

I think everyone should be themselves and embrace the macho or girly stuff they like without stigma. I do find it odd that viewing sexual orientation as innate is considered progressive while viewing gender as at least partly innate is considered totally antiquated, but to each their own.
134
I also believe that evolution has free will and wants this person to render themselves incapable of procreation and is constantly whispering "IIIIIT FEEEEELS SOOOOO GOOOOD!" while he's beating on them with a bat or whatever it is he does to "feel sexual gratification", " I NEEED A DUDE WHO IS A SAN FRANCISCO 49ers fan with berets in his hair to drive over them with a HYUNDAI !! SOOO GOOOOD !" are we certain that these kinks are not just natures way of self destructing some individuals because try are mentally diseased or something ? Seriously this is the most self destructive and insane thing to do. What if rather than this he would pull out his hair, are we saying when it's sexual insanity it's ok, or necessary or whatever but if it were non sexuapelt would be clearly understood that he be ape shit mad ?
135
I like how one can't behave violently with a tutu, the white girl college crowd and EricaP are funny.
136
Whaaaa? No girls have penises and boys have vaginas right ?
137
@122

"readings of permanent damage are kink-panic projections"

Okay I don't think this sentence makes sense.
You don't think that testicles can become permanently damaged if you hit them with a hammer? Are you serious?

The part about castration... what??

Anyway, long story short, I disagree with you. I don't thik it's "kink panic" at all to say that the way he's engaging in his kink (stomping is a particularly agressive kind of trauma) is dangerous.

Especially because, you know what? Just because I personally think it could do permanent damage, doesn't mean I'm judging him, and it also doesn't mean that I think he should be forced to stop. Same deal if the person's kink was hitting themselves in the head with a hammer.

Pretending that permanent damage isn't a relevent or even likely risk worth mentioning is not the same as being accepting.
139
A thought... is BSTD interested in BDSM at all? I know plenty of dommes who'd be happy to arrange for their slave to get his balls busted by a guy, and really enjoy watching it too.

Doing it this way has the added bonus of, at least psychologically, taking the responsibility for choosing to do it out of his hands. There are some kinks that just don't work as well when you're asking for it as when someone else is "making" you do it.
140
A thought... is BSTD interested in BDSM at all? I know plenty of dommes who'd be happy to arrange for their slave to get his balls busted by a guy, and really enjoy watching it too.

Doing it this way has the added bonus of, at least psychologically, taking the responsibility for choosing to do it out of his hands. There are some kinks that just don't work as well when you're asking for it as when someone else is "making" you do it.
141
@133: The problem with gender being viewed as innate is that it is then used to enforce gender on people according to their genitals. ("This is how boys act.") This is the opposite of orientation being innate, which allows a given individual to be oriented to whoever he is oriented to, regardless of his physical form.

Again:
-- Innate gender: enforces roles and expectations; restricts individual freedom
-- Innate orientation: does not enforce roles and expectations; greater individual freedom
142
@141

"it is then used to enforce gender on people according to their genitals"

It may sometimes happen that way, but many transgender people believe their true gender is innate. Just because gender is innate (and I'm not arguing that it 100% is, but I believe it partly is in most cases) does not mean that it corrosponds to the person's genitalia.

I don't think it's inherently damaging to think that gender is primarily innate. I think enforcing cis-gender or insisting that people rigidly conform to all qualities a society associates with that gender is often damaging.
143
@141

In other words, I'd change

"The problem with gender being viewed as innate is that it is then used to enforce gender on people according to their genitals."

to

"There is problem with gender being viewed as innate when it is then used to enforce gender on people according to their genitals."
144
I'd never thought much about ball busting until I read this guy's letter, but it's actually sounding kind of hot.

It taps into the same moJo that makes MMA and Fight Club (and Jackass and the NFL) so exciting.

Am I turned on by the thought of Brad Pitt or Johnny Knoxville actually causing injury to my testicles? Not really. But finding myself vulnerable and humiliated in the presence of an "alpha male?" That starts to tap into some primal fears.

Some of our primate and mammal cousins decide who gets to mate by staging physical contests between the males. You may have just gotten the shit kicked out of you by that other guy, but if he's slightly worse off, your dick will need to be stiff pronto, because it's now sexytime.

No surprise that hereto sex and homo violence are intertwined for at least some of us. I think that's why have busty ring girls between boxing matches, The Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, and Hooters waitresses.

Keeping an eye on the prizes, so to speak, reminds the boys to give it their all and risk injury, life and limb to win the contest and reap the rewards (and by rewards I mean access to the vaginas of hot women). Testosterone levels of *fans* go up after their team wins. Battling for dominance of the individual or tribe is a (vestigial?) part of at least some folks' sex drives, no doubt (just ask any college starting quarterback if he is having a problem getting laid).

"Alpha" status is now conveyed also to dweeby rock stars and corporate snakes and in some minds, even to regular ol goodlooking guys. So, having a goodlooking guy kick you where it hurts could understandably rev up all those ancient and otherwise dormant fight, flight, or fuck systems.

And the more I think about Brad's $400 sneaker making some forceful contact with my junk, the more I might be into that, as long as Angelina's okay with it.

I hope the guy who wrote in is smart enough to avoid lasting injury and brave enough to get his fantasies fulfilled ethically by the hottest (safe sane and careful) guy he can find.
145
I'd never thought much about ball busting until I read this guy's letter, but it's actually sounding kind of hot.

It taps into the same moJo that makes MMA and Fight Club (and Jackass and the NFL) so exciting.

Am I turned on by the thought of Brad Pitt or Johnny Knoxville actually causing injury to my testicles? Not really. But finding myself vulnerable and humiliated in the presence of an "alpha male?" That starts to tap into some primal fears.

Some of our primate and mammal cousins decide who gets to mate by staging physical contests between the males. You may have just gotten the shit kicked out of you by that other guy, but if he's slightly worse off, your dick will need to be stiff pronto, because it's now sexytime.

No surprise that hereto sex and homo violence are intertwined for at least some of us. I think that's why have busty ring girls between boxing matches, The Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, and Hooters waitresses.

Keeping an eye on the prizes, so to speak, reminds the boys to give it their all and risk injury, life and limb to win the contest and reap the rewards (and by rewards I mean access to the vaginas of hot women). Testosterone levels of *fans* go up after their team wins. Battling for dominance of the individual or tribe is a (vestigial?) part of at least some folks' sex drives, no doubt (just ask any college starting quarterback if he is having a problem getting laid).

"Alpha" status is now conveyed also to dweeby rock stars and corporate snakes and in some minds, even to regular ol goodlooking guys. So, having a goodlooking guy kick you where it hurts could understandably rev up all those ancient and otherwise dormant fight, flight, or fuck systems.

And the more I think about Brad's $400 sneaker making some forceful contact with my junk, the more I might be into that, as long as Angelina's okay with it.

I hope the guy who wrote in is smart enough to avoid lasting injury and brave enough to get his fantasies fulfilled ethically by the hottest (safe sane and careful) guy he can find.
146
@142/3: Okay, I see what you are saying, and grammar lesson meekly accepted.

On the other hand, gender being enforced on people according to their physical form is the basic working assumption of, frankly, most of society. To make the point I was trying to make, I think I would change the wording to "all too often it is then used ..." rather than "when it is then used..." The nature of the problem is not only that it is damaging when it happens in this way, but that it happens this way constantly. (Even for strongly cis-gendered individuals. You don't have to be transgender to be harmed by rigid enforcement of The Male Code/The Female Code.)

Also, the idea of the transgender person saying "I'm a girl, I always have been a girl, and there's no way for me to be anything but a girl" is not at all the same thing as "You have a penis so you had better stop wearing pink and start wearing baseball caps." Gender being innate and immutable within the individual is orthogonal to the idea of gender being innate due to physical form. When I am talking about the problem of the enforcement aspect, the other aspect is not part of the problem.
147
I think it's strange that Dan thinks taking an SSRI to rid oneself of a kink that one WANTS to be rid of is somehow worse than the risk of losing a testicle or even dying (ruptured testicles can kill). I think it's quite likely that over the years, if this guy is meeting random strangers off Craigslist to kick him in the nuts, he's going to run into some sicko who wants to beat the shit out of a "freak."

Dan's pro-kink stance is great, in general, but he's taken it too far in this case. The guy doesn't want this kink, it's just a weird random brain-link without meaning (according to Dan's explanation), and it's dangerous.

The risks of low dose SSRI's are minimal, and the effects wear off in a few weeks if it doesn't work or if there are undesirable side effects. He should try it.

148
Thanks, avast & mydriasis for a productive back-and-forth. I'd add only that the "social construction" argument doesn't say that we get to ignore our bodies; it just points out that people have a lot of cultural baggage in their minds when they look at an actual person's body.

Me, I just want people to be more aware of the baggage, and more generous to other people's understandings of what their "innate bodies" want.

So, in a sense, the contradiction Amanda pointed out @133 goes away -- our bodies have innate propensities as far as sexual expression & gender expression. The progressive approach in all situations is to let people figure out what their bodies want (including their minds), and not enforce rigid, artificial categories. (Note that people may want things which are damaging to other people, so this isn't saying everyone necessarily gets what they want.)
150
@126, I think we both agree with 142/3, 146 and others that we don't want to enforce gender roles on anyone, and we also don't want to discourage genders from taking on "traditional" behaviors and roles if that's their free choice.

However, I disagree with your idea (& @5, @20, and others, especially @52 and John Money) that our conceptions of gender, gender roles or gender-correlated behaviors are completely social constructs.

To be fair, I'd like to verify what you mean by a “social construct.” Do you really mean a complete fabrication created solely out of the collective imagination of human beings, with no correspondence to reality? Because at this point you seem to be arguing that gender is a social construct because every human-made categorization is a social construct, and therefore categorization by gender is meaningless. Further, any behavioral correlations with what we call “males” or “females” are false correlations since, in your mind, gender is merely a social construct. Is that what you are arguing?

From the practical and ethical side I have to ask: is it good to make categorizations like female/male, atoms/molecules, and even “’social constructs’/’descriptions of pre-existing conditions’”? I.e., does it generally help our species figure out how the universe works, shape tools, develop useful theories, discuss less than useful ones that (tongue firmly in cheek)? Does it bring us closer to truthful statements about the universe and ourselves?

Or is it bad to rely on “social constructions” to help us understand how our universe works? Does the creation of “social constructions” simply lead to prejudice and false assumptions?

If you believe social constructions are good, then what’s your point? So our species is good at making them. You call them "social constructions" and others call them "conclusions of fact," "theories" and "hypotheses." Whatever it’s called, let's continue to make them, since its been working so well for us.

Yes, sometimes we have to revise what we think we know, because new facts come up. But that just proves that these “constructs” are not really “social,” since these facts are discovered rather than created by society. And if that’s true, then I would suggest that the term “social construction” is itself misleading.

If, however, you believe that it’s bad to rely on “social constructions”, I ask you to show me how we should handle all of the separate data that come at us every day without making those general categorizations. If there's an exception to every categorization and you therefore want to deconstruct everything, how do you even manage to read these words and write a sensible response?

For example, how do you know that when I write the word "deconstruct" that it means the same thing it meant the last time you used that word? Sure, it's in the same category of "words that have the same letters in the same order as 'deconstruct'" but you have to make all of those nasty assumptions about my state of mind when I wrote the word. You make those assumptions based on what you know of other human beings, which again are a bunch of generalizations based on observations you’ve made. But you haven't really checked my mind, have you? You haven’t checked the mind of every other human being who has used the word “deconstruct.” So you’re forced to use social constructions just to engage in this conversation. Is that somehow wrong?

Which brings me back to the idea that what you call "social construction" is actually the only way that people can work and live together. Further, it gets us closer to understanding our world than your alternative, which is to take each fact as a separate instance and never make any generalizations about anything, since that would be something only humans do. (By the way, if generalizing does get us closer to a conceptually correct understanding of our world than your alternative, then by definition, it means that it’s more “true” than your alternative.)

One can theorize and come up with all sorts of ideas that sound clever and are self-consistent but that don’t describe the way things actually work. So I offer a more concrete example besides gender to back up what I’m saying. Think about the periodic table and the laws of chemistry. They’ve helped us make new materials, new medicines, and accurate predictions about the birth and death of stars light-years away, etc. etc. etc. Is the periodic table a social construct, or is it a fairly accurate description of pre-existing conditions?

So, it’s true that humans are intelligent enough to discover and describe those pre-existing conditions, whereas “atoms, bees and comets,” are not intelligent enough. However, I hope you’ll admit that those atoms, bees and comets and the rest of the observable universe still obey the laws of chemistry we discovered. So what is the value of calling those laws a “social construction” just because they happen to have been discovered by humans?

I think the answer is to avoid the extreme position of stating that all generalizations made by humans are social constructions. Each generalization needs to be judged on its own merits. The laws of chemistry, for example are not a social construction. The concept of race is a social construction, as I’m sure you’ll agree without my having to argue it. However, the case for gender being a social construction is not as clear as you state. As I’ve shown, such a case cannot be made simply by stating that all generalizations are social constructions and therefore false. You'll need to do it the hard way, with specific countervailing facts and theories that do a better job of explaining what most of the rest of us think of as "gender."
151
Correction, Paragraph 1: Should be ". . . and we also don't want to discourage anyone from taking on 'traditional' behaviors and roles if that's their free choice."
152
@150 "the extreme position of stating that all generalizations made by humans are social constructions."

I do believe that extreme position, but I also don't think we can ever escape social constructions. I wouldn't want to do without language, and it's a social construction too.

The point is what you said in your first sentence:
>> [not] to enforce gender roles on anyone, [or] discourage [people] from taking on "traditional" behaviors and roles if that's their free choice.>>


153
John Horstman @52 is absolutely incorrect to say that gender is completely a social construct. If it were, then society could demand that people behave according to the gender that society assigns them, irrespective of brain chemistry (since chemistry and brains, for that matter, are just social constructs also, right?). This was the assumption that John Money made, with disastrous consequences, and is indeed the mistake that the religious fundamentalists make, too, in trying to "cure" homosexuals through prayer/social pressure.

Developmental biology has come a long way in understanding how hormones and genes react to create the genitals, germ cells, and secondary sexual characteristics; but it has a ways to go to learn how hormones, cells, and genes interact to determine how the brain forms sexual desires, self-identity, and behavior. Human behavior can clearly be modified through social interactions, but lots of desires and sexual identity are pretty clearly innate, and therefore NOT socially constructed.

For example, Dan's homosexuality is clearly NOT socially constructed; he's described many times how he tried to be a straight boy, according to social norms, but reality intervened.

The words "male" and "female" are social constructs, but they describe characteristics of most species that existed for hundreds of millions of years before there was human society.

Noadi @71 has a really useful definition, to say that "gender expression," rather than gender itself, is socially influenced.
154
I zoned out about half way through. Oh well, there's always next week.
156
@155 The pink/blue thing used to be the opposite. Pink used to be considered a boys color, and blue was considered a girls color. I forget why they switched it. I don't the feminine associations of pink have anything to do with attraction. It's about people falling for marketing. Michelangelo painted God wearing pink, nobody complains that God looks feminine.
157
When my older daughter was a shade under 2, she and the little boy the same age used to fight viciously over the one pink chair at their daycare. Those fights occasionally ended with my sweet, feminine, gender-conforming princess biting the boy hard enough to bruise! Thankfully, the day care provider bought a second pink chair!
158
@155: I know several men who have strong preferences as to the color one is allowed to dress their sons in: can't afford to have that toddler or preschool be seen as unmanly.

And I have a friend whose son, now a big, strapping, football-playing 16-year-old who'd rather die than be associated with anything that smacks of girlyness, used to love dressing up in my daughter's pink, sparkly, princess-y dresses every time he came over--to the great consternation of this father. We had to talk dad down every single time.
159
Most people do not know enough about history to know that American society did not make children gender conform until 100 years ago. Children were considered genderless in the past. That couple that became famous on the news for refusing the disclose the gender of their child was actually doing the more traditional thing. This is a real photo of FDR as a child. http://knowhomo.tumblr.com/post/14814782… It was very common for boys to dress as girls back then.

What the hell happened to make our society so psychotic about gender conformity from babyhood? That's what I want to know.
160
I make home-sewn baby gifts. Not having children myself, I asked mothers how they feel about colors for babies in blankies, booties, clothes, diapers, quilts, toys, etc. The answer from everyone I know was a resounding "we don't care." (Meaning that they're thrilled with home-made gifts but are agreeable as to colors.) I make gifts in brights, darks, lights, pastels, anything I find pleasing. The only universals I've found is that babies like soft, sparkly and the cartoony faces that I hate.

I think the point that's emerging from the discussion on gender roles is that kids start looking at the world around them much earlier than parents usually believe. Just as parents are shocked (in a good way) by how smart their babies are when it comes to learning the language (where did he learn that word or that grammar construction?), they're similarly surprised that babies have picked up on the essential gender expressions that adults think are masked.

So there's a tendency for a cis-gendered girl baby to identify with adult women or slightly older girls. She sees that most women move in a lighter, more fluttery way than men and that they're more likely to wear lighter or brighter colors than the men who have a slight tendency to be heavier and to wear neutrals. When she's old enough to speak her preferences (also earlier than many parents expect), she wants a pink tutu. The parents object since her own mother and father both wear faded jeans, but the girl has figured it out by looking around. The child's ability to generalize is intact.
161
@159:
It's telling that even as you introduce the idea of genderless childhood, you say "It was very common for boys to dress as girls back then." In fact, "boys" weren't dressed like "girls" when all young children wore loose-fitting smocks; they all dressed like "infants." Historical infancy was a much longer-lasting developmental period than it is today.
162
@161 "Genderless" is an exaggeration. They look genderless by today's standards, because today everything is so blatantly male/female. But in the old days they still treated boys and girls slightly differently.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mbell1975/5… In this painting, for example, the child with a dress and no necklace is James II of England. His lack of jewelry identifies him as male. So does his red colored dress. It can be difficult to tell what things symbolize gender, since it varies from culture to culture. For example, this boy is wearing a blue dress. File:David_L%C3%BCders_Knabenportrait.jpg">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:David_… But, he also has a gun and a dog, traditionally both masculine things. I am not aware of any Western culture that ever socialized boys and girls in the exact same manner, and I'm not aware of any European culture that made boys look exactly like girls. Although there are some paintings were it is very difficult to tell them apart.
163
@162: I don't know if you meant to use this painting as an example, but in the one you linked to, James is wearing breeches, not a dress. Further, his sister is also wearing red, which would seem to connote royal status more than gender. Additionally, males, both old and young wore jewelry at this time, and are pictured with it as a sign of wealth and status.

I agree that boys and girls have always been treated differently. I was quoting you ("Children were considered genderless in the past.)
164
@163: Never mind--I think I was looking at the wrong person.
165
I blame the only 3/4 hour of sleep last night for turning me into an idiot today.
166
This kink would seem to be a ticket to Youtube stardom.
167
Really hitting bottom Dan. First the bully Christian bating hate speech and now this pathetic column. You must get 1,000 letters per day and this is what you throw at us?

A Christian stole Dan's bulshit detectors and the guy is a fake or he is a self hating closet homo who can't admit his sexual attraction to men. Either way Dan dropped the ball.

Prozac to kill your sex drive so you lose your fetish? Why not use it to chase away the gay while your at it! If you gay men are like my wife- no sex ever- then you will not go to hell for your abominations. SSRI's could be the key to the Kingdom of Heaven fellows. Give me a break.
168
my sac puckered up just reading this one, OUCH.
169
@163 "Further, his sister is also wearing red, which would seem to connote royal status more than gender."

Wow. That sister is actually a brother, who, yes, is wearing red to connote his gender AND is still young enough to be wearing a gown rather than breeches, as did all boys at the time.

If you're going to spout off about historical cultural gender markers, know your period first.
170
Your life has a purpose and busting balls is not it. You need to focus on how you can be a positive member of society. You see, when you bust your balls, society ends up catching you in our safety net and paying your medical bills and closing the gap for your missed worked while you are recovering. I think that you can focus on being a more productive member of society. There is work to do - people are starving, children are homeless, women are being brutalized and sold as sex slaves while you get off on busting your balls.
171
@170

Wow.
That is some junior-high level understanding of ethics.
Here's the cliff's notes: all of those things are happening while you're sitting on the internet.

But you're right, none of us should ever get off again as long as bad things happen.
You go first. Let us know how it is.
173
Hunter,

Your opinions: still beneath me.
174
Jeezus, Hunter, what do you do? Lurk around hoping that mydriasis will post something so you can shoot a barbed arrow at her?
You're as obsessed with putting her down as Seattle Blues is with denouncing homosexuality.
175
@169:
Yes, ami, mea culpa. I actually used posts 164 and 165 to apologize for my stupidity.
177
There aren't just a few women who would be happy to watch their SO get his knuts relocated... there are many, many, many, MANY women who would be happy to watch. They won't even care if it's a turn-on... they'll just be happy to watch. Most of those women are middle-aged and therefore experienced with, clued-in and hip to every form of male jack-assery that has been invented, and will therefore be completely unsympathetic afterwards, but that won't be a problem, right? In fact, you'll probably be fulfilling one of their sexual turn-ons.
178
I'm glad I've heard that there is help for controlling unwanted sexual actions.
179
@7 I personally enjoy Dan's "hate filled and protagonist" rants.

Hee hee! Dumb people trying to sound smart never stops being funny.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.