He’s not trivalizing ED (the medical condition). He’s writing about the occasional inability to achieve or maintain any state of arousal (I don’t know if there is another more appropriate term for this), which can happen from a variety of causes–psychological, stress, exhaustion, drinking, drugs (prescription and otherwise). Read his other post about it and it may provide more clarity…
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/03/14/humiliation-and-becoming-human-how-erectile-dysfunction-made-me-a-better-man-husband-and-person/

Please explain to me your take on Hugo’s post so I can understand your perspective. This my clear this up for me.

b

Oh, and I feel compelled to provide you with a story that maybe will help you to understand why I feel your response to Hugo is offensive and insulting to women.

I recall hearing about a woman who was diagnosed with breast cancer. She had the genetic screening and was determined as high-risk and advised to have a double mastectomy as well as full hysterectomy. This courageous woman had a wonderful support system of women friends. However, her husband told her that he was going to have “a lot of trouble” still seeing her as a woman and responding to her sexually after the surgery.

My point is this that women who seek reconstructive breast surgery following a mastectomy probably do so, because culturally they know that their breasts hold value and currency as being sexually stimulating to men. The point is that they will want their husband/partner (whatever) to still find them sexually alluring and therefore be able to respond to them sexually. Again, it’s really not about the woman at all, but the man and his issues. Women don’t undergo breast enhancements to enhance sexuality. They do so to enhance their sexual appeal (cultural ideal) to increase their attractiveness to men, or to maintain it. And enhancing sexual attention and opportunities for encounters doesn’t equate with better connections or increased emotional intimacy which is more important for enhanced sexuality. Your comments just don’t fly with me.

I think you’ve misinterpreted Hugo’s post, and I do not feel that he is jesting. And your example of a breast cancer joke is not the same thing. Where on earth do you get that? Women who enhance their breasts do so to enhance their sexual attraction to specific males, who are attracted to big breasts. I see that more as not enhancing their sexuality, but trying to attain some cultural ideal of what makes a woman attractive to certain men. It’s not about enhancing one’s sexuality–maybe only enhancing one’s opportunities to get the attention of males attracted to big breasts…And more opportunities with specific men, doesn’t AT ALL mean that the sex will be enhanced or good at all.

After all with all the immense concentration on women and breast enlargements to enhance their sexuality mastectomies offer women the chance to rethink her sexual strategy and technique, using other parts of her body to bring pleasure to herself and to her partner.

for shame . . .

b

age casino limit morongo
It was all so different before everything changed.

Assuming you’re not a troll (no problem - I’ve been taken for one before) Son (you’re my age), you’ve got a problem.

Feminism is not the enemy of manliness. “Manliness” is its own enemy.

There are feminist attitudes, held to by a minority of feminists (maybe by a few more women in general when drunk, and for as good a reason as any complaint I’ve ever heard about “women”) that might be arguably anti-male, but they are a minority. If your working concept of Manhood is under threat, maybe you need to look into revising your concept first. Maybe the zero-sum model would be the first thing you should discard (ie: women have more freedom, therefore I have less)

I have been where you are. You mistake political grandstanding for heartfelt discourse, and heartfelt discourse for political grandstanding. When the personal is political, it’s hard not to take some people’s political statements personally…

Don’t.

Your comments betray a limited experience of cultures other than that of the United States, and of a rather grotesquely exaggerated sense of male vulnerability. There’s also a readiness to blame other folks for what you feel.

It is easier to level accusations at those with whom you disagree than it is to offer up your own experience in rebuttal. It is riskier, too; I’ll let you figure out how.

Hugo’s blog is a pretty consistently welcoming place. He’s no more self-loathing than any other Christian (I say this as a fellow Christian). There’s no need to come at him personally, as you have done.

When a culture systematically denigrates and degrades multiple facets of masculinity and masculine identity, as many Western Cultures, and The United States in particular, do, then it naturally follows that men living in such a society will experience a lack of vitality.

Feminism and its horrible consequences are indeed the reason why men don’t feel so manly these days.

***
As someone who is personally and professionally interested in challenging traditional notions of masculinity, I’m struck by how even a single episode of ED can force an otherwise unthinking man into a sudden and serious reflection about his body, his identity, and his sexuality. ED gets men’s attention, and it gets it fast!
***

I am appalled and offended by this hateful, self-loathing comment.
This comment obviously lays bare the fact that you hate men, hate yourself, and wish that men as individuals and as a group experience some sort of ‘punishment’, ‘atonement’ or impotence.

You are the most emasculated (apparently hetereosexual) man I have ever encountered in my 45 years on this planet.

You are a pathetic excuse for a man.

I hope the day never comes where you and I are on the same side of a fight, perhaps in battle or war. I would surely die if you were in my squad.