I’m heading back to New York City after a couple of days in Providence. The weather, so humid yesterday, has turned wonderfully brisk and autumnal. I think of my native state, sweltering and drought-ridden and smoke-filled, and feel — almost — guilty that I’m not there with the millions of other suffering Californians. Home on Tuesday.
Brown University’s first annual “Consent Day” was a great success, not least because of the immensely popular t-shirts (a photo here) designed by Catherine McCarthy, the student who led the organizing team for the event and who first contacted me about coming to speak. The front of the shirt is visible in the photo, the reverse includes the reminder “Consent is active, enthusiastic, and freely given.”
I gave a workshop entitled “Sex, Consent, Enthusiasm, and Stoplights: Rethinking the Language of Yes and No”. The basic thesis is familiar from this post, but I also touched on the “all men are dogs” (myth of male weakness) ethos which undergirds so much of the way we socialize modern males (and socialize women to think about them). I also brought in what my women’s studies students know as the “upside-down triangle”, which I wrote about in this post.
There was some good give and take, and some very thoughtful questions from a mixed audience of Brown students.
In the second part of the workshop, we held a male-only discussion group. It is, of course, important to do anti-rape work with both men and women. When doing survivors workshops, it’s obviously beneficial to have women-only spaces. (And yes, men can also be survivors of sexual assault, though usually at the hands of other men rather than women — which may make all-male space more problematic, but that’s another topic for ‘nother post.) But in dealing with issues around sexual consent, the topic on yesterday’s table, single-sex space can also offer an opportunity for a higher degree of safety. And I was eager to meet with at least a few of the young men who had been through the workshop to hear their thoughts and feelings.
As our hour together Thursday evening bore out, many young men (certainly all of those who, gay and straight alike, participated in our closed discussion) are frustrated by the absence of a discourse of healthy male sexuality. This was a self-selecting group; these were guys who had volunteered to participate in Consent Day activities and who identified themselves as sympathetic to feminist goals. Several were already involved in peer counseling or in campus progressive politics. They were energized and excited by the discussion about enthusiasm and consent; there were no rape apologists to be found. But the real hunger that many of them articulated very well (not surprising for Brown University students) was a hunger for some kind of validation of their sexuality as good, healthy, okay.
“I know all the things not to do”, one guy said; “I work really hard at being a good ally. But I sometimes feel that in order to be a good ally, I have to pretend that I’m asexual; my fear is that women won’t trust me as a friend if I show any sign of sexual desire.” This lad hastened to add that he wasn’t sexually interested in most of his female friends; what he’d like to be able to do is talk about his sexual feelings (as some of those friends talk with him about theirs) without losing their trust. Several of the other men in the room nodded in agreement. We talked at length about the familiar but still-powerful compartmentalization phenomenon, one in which “good guys”, those who strive to do justice with their lives and with their bodies, live a separate, secretive sexual life (usually involving pornography) that seems, at least to the guys themselves, to be something profoundly shameful.
Timothy Beneke’s Men on Rape is now out of print, but one of the many memorable lines within that invaluable text is this: “I’m not aware of any common English phrases that allow one to express sexual desire in a way that acknowledges both lust and humanity.” Beneke captured a truth about our idiom, but he also captured a truth about the way in which we see male sexuality in our culture. For a host of excellent reasons, rooted in countless painful anecdotes and our own collective witness, many of us — perhaps most of us — have a difficult time believing that heterosexual desire doesn’t invariably compromise a man’s capacity for empathy. We men can’t want sex, our culture tells us, and while still seeing the people we want to have sex with as they really are. “A hard dick has no conscience”, we say with resignation or cynical bravado. But as is so often the case, our language in this instance doesn’t so much reflect an immutable reality as it creates and maintains a distorted understanding of our nature and our potential.
The “Brown men” I met with Thursday night ran the gamut of sexual experience (we didn’t have a lot of time for the sharing of stories, but those who did “identify” did so as straight and sexually active). But to a man, they were stirred up by the topic, and most were willing to admit to immense frustration and pain with this nearly omnipresent sense that their sexuality was dangerous, potentially predatory, and, as one fellow said, only to be celebrated when tightly controlled. It reminded me of a remark I once heard from a student to the effect that “the only good penis is a soft one.” For those of us who work around issues of sexual assault, where the overwhelming majority of those assaulted are women and the overwhelming majority of those committing the transgressions are men, it’s difficult not to become angry at male sexuality as it manifests itself in our culture if not all men themselves. And for men who long to be feminist allies, finding a way to affirm their own wanting (without an assumption that they are entitled to have those wants satisfied by women) is vital.
It’s important, too, that we don’t set up a dynamic where men’s own ambivalence and shame become women’s problem to solve. I prefer to raise this issue of how male allies see their own sexuality in male-only settings. This doesn’t mean that women can’t handle hearing the truth, but it does mean that men need to begin to do the difficult work of learning to be vulnerable with other men. Men’s culturally-conditioned inability to form close and candid bonds with other men (the sort of friendships where honest conversation about sexuality can happen) drives men to become emotionally dependent on women for validation, and that dependency ends up imposing a huge burden on women. (I dealt with this in this post.) Men do need to to this difficult work with other men first, by seeking out allies where they can and doing the frequently difficult but invariably rewarding work of building male community. This doesn’t necessarily entail excluding women — it’s obviously absurd to promote the feminist cause by re-creating space into which women cannot enter. But it does mean consciously shifting the responsibility for dealing with male pain and shame away from wives and girlfriends and on to one’s community of brothers.
Men and women alike, almost all of us have “bought into” the various myths about male weakness or female frailty, at least for a time. A great many women would very much like to trust men — or at least one or two. A great many men, like the ones I listened to on Thursday night, would like to be trusted. But more than that, they want to find a way to do what Timothy Beneke points out our culture and our language will not let them do easily, and that is reconcile their lust with their empathy. They know well that the Tucker Maxs of the world praise and indulge male sexuality at a tremendous cost to women, a cost that these guys are not willing to allow others to pay on their behalf. They know too that religious conservatives (and a few minority voices in the feminist community) find nothing at all to celebrate about male sexuality. They want a middle ground between those who counsel endless self-denial and those who urge calculated selfish disregard for women’s humanity. But they don’t have many places to go to hear and talk about what that middle ground looks like.
We know what we don’t want men to be like. We know — at least many of us know — that many aspects of male sexuality are toxic and destructive. But if we’re going to build a world beyond rape, we need to find a vocabulary for desire that doesn’t rob the objects of desire of their dignity. Lust and empathy can co-exist; I’ve known it to be so in the most intimate aspects of my life and I’ve known plenty of other women and men for whom it was also so. But lots of men don’t know that this can be real in their lives, and they — and, often, the women closest to them — suffer for it.
My older son is 17, and this has been much on my mind with him the past few years–his dad, God bless him, tends to think that “the talk” really only needs to consist of “you should wait til you’re married, but if you don’t, use a condom.” I’ve been trying to discuss actual scenarios with my son now and then–when you’ve both been drinking..? When you’re not sure what do to..? Mixed signals? What ARE signals, anyway..? etc. etc. Sex is so very, very complicated and beyond either getting a dry-as-dust mechanics exposure or watching pop culture and getting the mad, contradictory, unrealistic plethora of factoids…boys really aren’t taught how to healthily embrace their own sexuality by our society while simultaneously not damaging or infringing on anyone else’s, I think. (I actually blogged about this not too long ago; I’d share the link but I don’t wanna spam your blog. :) )
Hugo,
finally a post i can get almost 100% behind. And as you know, many of my comments deal with that exact problem.
“But the real hunger that many of them articulated very well (not surprising for Brown University students) was a hunger for some kind of validation of their sexuality as good, healthy, okay.”
“(and a few minority voices in the feminist community)”
ok, maybe it’s not the majority. But *a few*??? C’mon. At best male sexuality is absent in feminist discourse (as eg Naomi Wolf wrote back in the early 90s), usually, it’s both absent and implicitly present as a violent threat. That’s exactly what causes these feelings of alienation of one’s own sexuality, the suggestion that male sexuality is somehow not “ok”, say, eg, that you cannot watch people having sex on camera (porn) without inherently committing violence (at least in a structural way/personal is political). The need to compartmentalize is to a significant degree a consequence of feminist policing of male sexuality that is largely ignorant of the male point of view.
This is a wonderful post in this respect that you once linked to …
http://saucebox.almeidaisgod.com/?p=85
Thank you for this.
Responding to:
“Timothy Beneke’s Men on Rape is now out of print…”
I just checked, and there are quite a few copies available at Amazon, cheap! So anyone who wants it can easily get it. (Uh, the book, I meant the book.)
‘One of the many memorable lines within that invaluable text is this: “I’m not aware of any common English phrases that allow one to express sexual desire in a way that acknowledges both lust and humanity.”‘
If it was a conversation with friends, I could imagine just saying “I’m a horny liberal.” What I’d mean by that would be that I like sex, I hope to have plenty of it, but I want it in a way that respects the person or people I’m doing it with. Really what I’d be trying to say would be exactly what Beneke was talking about–enjoying sex, but without degrading anyone, and I don’t think that’s an impossible contradiction. I understand that all too often, sexual desire pushes men into pushing women, if not violently then at least into sexual activity that isn’t fully desired. And I think that’s entirely wrong, and entirely unnecessary.
Actually I’ve never done anything sexually with a woman that I feel any shame about. I used to have a little joke with myself that I’d never had sex with any woman that I hadn’t known for at least a year, but then I met a lady and had sex with her in less than two weeks (!!) and we ended up getting married, so my very-slowly-roaming days seem to be over. I’ve seen the statistic for the number of sexual partners a person typically has over a lifetime and what can I say, I’m way below my quota (and so is my wife). Well, too bad.
It’s encouraging to hear that there are young guys in college now who want to be fair and decent toward women. Let’s hope it’s contagious.
I think actually a fair and decent approach towards the interesting sex is close to default behavior for most people. It is fear of rejection by same-sex peers that drives a great deal of negative behavior in both men and women. We tend to punish those who make a separate peace in the war of the sexes.
The only way to win the game is not to play, but some people are awfully fond of being players, despite their protestations.
mythago,
“The only way to win the game is not to play, but some people are awfully fond of being players, despite their protestations.”
care to elaborate?
I hope that some of the men you spoke with (and others elsewhere) will see the significance of getting together with other men- in “men only space”- as these men did you build support and perhaps also to work for positive change - particularly with and towards other men.
Tim - told me some years after his book was published - how he was interviewed - etc. - but the book never sold a lot. I myself wrote a lengthy anti-rape writing - related to us Men organizing to work against rape in 1987. When I re-read what I wrote 22+ years ago it is a little frightening to see how little has changed, and how what has changed often has not made things better. Today there are more men doing more work- but it’s still minute - related to the problems that persist and grow.
I’d be happy to communicate with anyone at anytime on such issues, though obviously I’m “older” and not as “with it” - related to all that goes on today. I’m happy to see my 22 year old son being a young adult with progressive perspectives.
“I’m not aware of any common English phrases that allow one to express sexual desire in a way that acknowledges both lust and humanity.”
OK, I get that he’s probably talking about how lust is typically portrayed in public discourse. But umm… I’ve always found that person-to-person, “I’m attracted to you” works nicely. Or “You’re really cool/smart/funny/you make beautiful typefaces/you write elegant search algorithms, and that makes me want to jump on you”. That sort of thing has served me pretty well. It’s how I tend to approach people, and most anyone I can remember who’s successfully approached me has done it that way. (And that approach is not so unusual that I ever found it surprising.)
Also, actions over time speak louder than any single statement, so if my boyfriend who does the laundry and makes me laugh bluntly says something totally filthy, I certainly don’t feel dehumanized.
And I do realize that I’ve been very lucky in having sexual encounters almost entirely with civilized human beings.
Otherwise I really liked this post, but I couldn’t quite reconcile that quote with my own experiences. In my strangely happy social circles (which I know isn’t everyone’s) lust + humanity together is the normal thing. It’s totally possible, I swear.
Hi,
I’m one of the students who attended your talk — Catherine told me to read your blog, so I looked you up. I’m impressed (but not surprised; it was a good talk!). A small group of women, including me, left the building reflecting on the fact that “You can trust me” or “I’m a nice guy” or variants on these (a date once actually assured me that he wasn’t going to “rape [me] or anything”) rank high among the frightening things women can hear from men. “Why so defensive?” we wonder, and maybe we suddenly remember an appointment. Men need to realize that their sexuality IS threatening to women, regardless of how nice an individual man may be, because of the burden of history — a history that is intensely personal for many women. If this upsets men, then fine. They need to share the burden of patriarchy before they realize the need to change it. And if men are feeling anxiety over the possibility of being an “accidental” rapist — something I have heard more than once — then maybe someone will come to the realization that culture needs to change, rather than “fixing” the problem of rape by restricting the freedom of individuals. It may be an unpopular viewpoint, but if men need to feel uncomfortable with their sexuality in order to begin changing a rape culture, then so be it. Women have felt damn uncomfortable with male sexuality for time without end.
Speaking as a hetero man, I resemble those remarks.
“We know — at least many of us know — that many aspects of male sexuality are toxic and destructive.”
I’m surprised no one has jumped on that sentence yet. While I understand the meaning behind that sentence, I think it might be better to state something along the lines of “traditional male sexuality” or “patriarchal male sexuality” rather than simply “male sexuality”.
Randomizer, I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Also, Hugo, I’m not sure linking to Tucker Max’s site is prudent, since I’m quite sure you don’t want to give him more hits.
So long as we (heterosexual men) direct our attractions at women, it really is for them to judge us; not for us ourselves to decide what’s good or what’s bad, what’s acceptable or unacceptable. To affirm our own wanting, or each others’, is valueless (and probably dangerous.)
It should be (I hope) obvious that we’re not entitled to feel good or righteous about our desires.
Gail,
your approach may make you feel better, for “historic reasons”. But I can promise you that it is the best way of alienating men from feminism, regardless of whether they may agree with it in theory or not. It’s basically saying - your feelings as an individual that is living right now are not just not as important as the feelings of any individual woman, but also not as important as what some people believe were the feelings of an historic group of people. This is exactly the kind of point of view that the men in the group critized, and rightly so.
Brian,
“It should be (I hope) obvious that we’re not entitled to feel good or righteous about our desires.”
just wow. We clearly need to decide WHAT kind of sexuality is ok to feel good about, which is why we’re having this discussion. But to say flat out that no one has the right to feel good about such essential part of their personality. I mean, structurally, along the same vein, you *could* say that gay bashing is ok, because homosexuals aren’t entitled to be ok with their sexuality. Is that what you’re saying? You must be kidding.
And one thing in general -
what the guys above seem to describe is exactly what seems to lead to a lot of cased of the nice guy ™ phenomenon, which, in turn, leads to guys being beaten for alleged emotional dishonesty because they hid their sexuality even when they wanted to express it. In other words if you actually try to live (much of) the feminist discourse, you’re sitting between a rock and a hard place (to avoid “you’re screwed”, because very likely, you’re not).
And this is exactly, what makes much of feminism look like some kind of test for men. Disagree and ignore it and live happily, and, usually be respected by even feminist women for your stance (though they will disagree, of course), engage with it, and your not only not embraced, you’re usually not trusted and you give up the right to define for yourself what’s good and what’s bad about yourself and your desires. This is exactly where feminism is inherently, if only psychologically, aggressive.
Anyone wonder why that’s not an appealing scenario? Anyone wonder why people who want to submit to that are far and in between? I don’t. And those who at least want to engage in an honest dialogue are then alienated by comments like Gail’s “your problems don’t count”.
It is a bit of a challenge for men, at least this one, to find the right balance. A certain amount of confidence and frankness about desire can be a real turn-on for some women.
At the same time, I sometimes too tightly police my lustiness to avoid behaving inappropriately or being seen as a creep. Funny thing is this can result in kind of creepy mixed messages where a woman can sort-of tell that you are attracted but also that you are concealing something. That is, by the way, a really good way not to have sex much.
It took a long time for me to realize that women expect that (at least some) men will want them sexually - that this is reciprocal sometimes and that that it is ok to communicate it.
Commmunication skills can be the real issue — I am not very skilled at flirting — a playful way of saying “I want you” or “do you want me?” in a non-threatening way that respects the woman’s agency.
I am in a committed relationship now, so I can be quite open and natural about my desires. But when I was single and especially single and inexperienced I found dealing with my hmmm … natural urges, more awkward.
Randomizer,
all that is true, but I think the issue here is that there is a lack of a positive discourse about male sexuality in feminism. And that that lack is driving those men crazy who want to be an ally to feminism, usually because of some general moral concerns, and those men away from feminism who don’t want to be driven crazy and don’t care that much about the moral issues raised by feminism.
I”m more with Gail than Sam on this. I don’t feel entitled to be trusted nor particularly unjustly burdened by having to earn trust — it is a reality in a culture in which men do not universally and uniformly police their own behavior and where they are taught that consent means “not no” instead of “hell yeah!” Sadly, that is a lesson that took some unlearning in my younger years.
Sam
That’s probably the clumsiest strawman I’ve ever seen, and I hang out on the internets.
If one could make an argument that homosexuality is somehow morally problematic, you might be able to claim that follows. So far as I can tell, no one is (successfully) able to make this argument, so it doesn’t follow.
There are, however, certainly practices that are morally problematic; we’re not entitled to feel good in these cases. I don’t see the need to brainstorm, but it certainly can be done.
Sam:
You make a good point (though the development of a positive discourse of male sexuality would not obviously be the job of female feminists).
Feminism’s observation of negative ways men often or are taught to express their sexuality does leave quite a bit untouched though. There are many heterosexual, sex-positive feminist women who celebrate of what it means for a man to be good, giving, and game between the sheets.
It might also be interesting to allow that the discussion takes place sometimes in paricular contexts — around, say, the intesection of feminism and polyamory where an ethic of communication, differentiation and mutual respect for agency are discussed.
Brian,
“There are, however, certainly practices that are morally problematic; we’re not entitled to feel good in these cases.”
That statement is completely different from what you said above. This one is true, the sweeping one above was wrong. The homosexuality example isn’t a strawman, it’s a recognition of the fact that there is a cultural element to what people are allowed to feel good about. That was different not too long ago. Your revised statement above seems to take that into accoung - “certain practices”. Exactly - but what practices turn out to be viewed in that way is a matter of implicit social negotiation (discourse power). Homosexuality is no longer considered problematic in most states in the West, male heterosexuality, on the other hand, is - and that is what the guys rightly complain about - tainted by a discourse of growing importance, moreover, one that they intellectually agree with. I mean, come on, you even say that you don’t have a right to feel good about your own sexuality. And I’ve spent time in therapy to get rid of my feminist instilled sexual shame about liking women. It’s not a good place to be, and definitely not a righteous place, whoever may say so.
Randomizer,
“though the development of a positive discourse of male sexuality would not obviously be the job of female feminists”
I’d disagree. Precisely for the reasons Gail cites - it seems to be a “revenge” policy, not even affirmative action for women, as heterosexual ones among them will also suffer from sexually unconfident and clumsy men as well as from those who just stop listening because they can’t stand being constantly attacked for liking breasts. So basically, making men feel bad about themselves is the worst possible strategy available. Want to help both women and men? Make men *MORE* sexually confident, give them the confidence to *OFFER PLEASURE* instead of having the feeling to need to take all they can because otherwise they’re at the mercy of any woman who may decide to have sex with them at some point.
This is precisely the point: EQUALITY requires equal partners. But if male sexuality is considered plentiful, unvaluable and tainted as implicitly morally inferior, while female sexuality is considered scarce, valuable, and morally superiour, then there cannot be a discourse of equals in the bedroom… and without a discourse of equals, there will never be equality.
I think that Hugo’s workshop is an indication that this discourse is one of the most important things feminism is lacking. And it’s not something men can do, because their opinion doesn’t count for the development of feminist discourse. This is a female feminist responsibility, and, in my opinion, one that would also make good policy and increase the overall acceptance of feminism, among both women and men.
Randomizer,
“that the discussion takes place sometimes in paricular contexts”
yeah, maybe that exists in a few corners. But go on feministing.com and count the articles in which heterosexual, sex-positive feminists celebrate heterosexuality. You won’t find many. Naomi Wolf’s indightment still stands.
Sam
My two statements are identical, though covering slightly different areas. You’ve constructed an alternate point to the one I advanced (hence, strawman) and that’s different from my follow-up; my original is not (though it’s less explicit in a particular area)
Whether or not my own desires are ones that I should feel good about, or do feel good about doesn’t matter to the principle. Whether people in general are right about what are moral or immoral practices is also immaterial. There are right answers, whether we know them or not.
Brian,
sorry, in my understanding of logic, those statements are different.
“There are right answers, whether we know them or not.”
Yeah, there are no non-contextual applications of the categorical imperative, and that means that while we know there are right answers, we cannot actually know them, fair enough. But that is only a rewording of what I said above about discourse power politcics.
“So long as we (heterosexual men) direct our attractions at women, it really is for them to judge us; not for us ourselves to decide what’s good or what’s bad, what’s acceptable or unacceptable. To affirm our own wanting, or each others’, is valueless (and probably dangerous.)”
Sam still hasn’t gotten that memo. Maybe the two of you should sit down and have a little chat. Although I’m guessing it would do little good.
“But go on feministing.com and count the articles in which heterosexual, sex-positive feminists celebrate heterosexuality. You won’t find many.”
You suffer from a serious case of selective reading, Sam. There are feminist spaces and articles which discuss the positive aspects of heterosexuality. Feministing.com does tend to focus on the more negative aspects, because guess what, that is where the most focus is needed. We really don’t need to have that many discussions about how awesome sex is. What we need to have are discussions about how terrible the -negative- aspects of hetero. relationships currently are and how to go about working to correct those problems. You’re not going to see a great number of women - feminist or otherwise - jumping up and down screaming about how awesome it is to have sex with men until the very real threat and reality of male sexual predation is reduced or eliminated.
So these guys were unable to figure out how to express heterosexual male desire that is not threatening, yet the idea that all heterosexual male desire is threatening is only actually promulgated by “religious conservatives (and a few minority voices in the feminist community).” Hmm. It’s not too surprising that the kind of guys who would want to spend time at an anti-rape conference whining about how they can’t get laid aren’t really grasping what the *majority* voices in the feminist community have been saying. I understand (from personal experience) the tendency to fit feminism into the well-worn “us vs them” frame and then try to prove what a good ally you are through self-loathing, but that kind of inverted sexism is just as antithetical to the feminist cause as regular sexism — and it needs to be rejected, not humored by declaring that finding good ways of expressing heterosexual male desire is some important feminist project (even if only men are assigned to work on said project).
I don’t want men to feel bad about themselves. That’s not my goal. I do want men to realize that if they get outraged over being perceived as potential rapists, they should a)get mad at rapists, not women and b) consider what about their behavior put someone on alert, even if their intent was harmless. Male sexuality is tainted by a culture of violence. This isn’t the fault of individual men, but it is principally their problem. Also, Faith: yes.
Gail,
Whether you want me to feel bad about myself or not is of little account to me, because I’ll continue to remain quite pleased with myself, regardless of any wishes you might have on the matter. My sexuality is not tainted with violence, and I’ll start working on problems important to you when you show a comparable level of interest in problems important to me.
“… but it is principally their problem.”
Sorry, but you aren’t dealing that hand to me. I’m no more responsible for the actions of people with X chromosomes than I am for the people with Y chromosomes. For that reason I’d rather have a root canal than participate in one these workshops that treat me as nothing other than a disposable pawn in someone else’s game, and that expect me to sing from some songbook of feelings that someone else approves of.
“…consider what about their behavior put someone on alert.”
As I’ve said elsewhere, if someone treats me like a potential rapist, my conclusion is that the offending behavior was having anything at all to do with them, and I’ll be sure that said behavior is stopped immediately. I’ll cheerfully more on to greener pastures.
This is a female feminist responsibility, and, in my opinion, one that would also make good policy and increase the overall acceptance of feminism, among both women and men.
I’m not sure exactly what female feminist responsibility we’re being asked to take up. To make men in general more sexually confident? I don’t see how I can do that, since in the very nature of things, the number of men I can personally sexually affirm is bound to be pretty limited. To express what we find positive, as well as what we find negative, about male sexuality? Well, I pretty much see that happening, anyway, without trying. For instance, threads gawking at hot men have appeared on multiple feminist blogs, large and small, and get much participation from female readers, when they appear. To tell you specifically what seduces us, or what we like in bed? I’m certainly not going to do that as long as I blog in my own name, where any prospective employer can Google me, and my job title isn’t Susie Bright’s. But there are plenty of pseudonymous women, with varied preferences, active in the sex blogosphere; some of them self-identify as feminist (and others don’t).
From my perspective, honestly? I’ve seen some feminist spaces that I could only describe as sex negative, but they look to me like pretty much a small minority. I personally get more sex negativity from porn spam than I do from feminism (and I mean, here, specifically, the way porn spam tends to describe even acts that might in themselves be fun as if they were some special ordeal or feat for women to undergo, rather than something ordinary women might actually enjoy). So, feminism as some great squelcher of positive expressions of sexuality is just so alien to my experience that I can’t imagine what tendency I’m supposed to be correcting.
Not to throw aside the notion of a hot fling as a way of getting your ya-yas out, but sex is, IMHO, better in a relationship where I am known, trusted, (tested even). This creates a safe space to play and joyfully express my true sexual nature. In a culture where predatory male sexuality was not the central sexual discourse more better fun might be easier to find — but in the here and now, there are between strangers (and even between established lovers) barriers to bring down and this is a shared burden recognizing that they were established in the first place valid (and regrettable — and here is where feminism comes in — changeable) reasons.
Faith,
“Sam still hasn’t gotten that memo.”
well, he has, and he has decided that it’s bollocks, simply because it starts with fundamentally flawed philosophical axioms - this *could* work *only* if women could express their point of view in a way that is accessible to men, and *then* their point of view would have to be weighed against the male point of view (as we’re in this world together, and we’re mutually impacting each other). In which case it would be a generally accepted social point of view, not *the female* point of view. So, yeah, the female point of view was not heard for a long time and it’s important it is being heard now, and feminism is a big part of that - but at the same time within this feminist discourse, there is a similar exclusionary practice with respect to male voices. And it’s that practice that is being criticized here, and rightly so.
“You suffer from a serious case of selective reading, Sam. There are feminist spaces and articles which discuss the positive aspects of heterosexuality.”
That is possible, even though I don’t think so. But, really, if you could list some sources, I’d be happy to check them out and change my point of view.
“We really don’t need to have that many discussions about how awesome sex is. What we need to have are discussions about how terrible the -negative- aspects of hetero.”
When you say *WE* whom are you referring to? Because, I think, that *WE* doesn’t actually include men, even though - and that’s the main part of my argument - you cannot really have a discussion with them by having a discussion about them. And that’s one of the fundamental flaws in much of feminist philosophy.
“You’re not going to see a great number of women - feminist or otherwise - jumping up and down screaming about how awesome it is to have sex with men until the very real threat and reality of male sexual predation is reduced or eliminated.”
Actually, I do. To be honest, most women I know are much less sensitive to these issues than I am. Bizarrely, I’m probably the most feminist person in my circle of friends ;) So my concern is, in a way, the concern of the guys Hugo quotes - I’m generally sympathetic to feminist ideas, and I even think there’s a lot of good in it for men, but I don’t think that there is sufficient room for *the good* and *the wanted* male sexuality in this discourse. So, agreeing with much of feminist goals may lead to self-flagellation and an inability to be positively assertive with one’s own sexuality - as Hugo once put it, constantly checking female temperatures, and thus *NOT* accepting women as equals, but simply putting them on a different pedestal - and that is in essence the road to nice-guyism, which is, again, then criticized for emotional dishonesty. If you don’t see the problem for sex-relations in that set-up, I really can’t help you.
Stentor,
“(and a few minority voices in the feminist community)”
really? Where’s the majority then? Because that’s pretty much all I hear. Apart from that, what you’re writing amounts essentially to ignoring the discourse - which is fine, but then instead of turning and US VS THEM into an US WITH THEM you’re just getting the currently dominant US AND THEM. In my understanding, we should attempt to get to US WITH THEM, and my criticism is that the (majority) feminist discourse with respect to male sexuality, and the feminist unwillingness to take male voices in this respect even seriously, is a serious obstacle on that way.
Gail,
I’m glad to hear it’s not your intent to make men feel bad about themselves.
“This isn’t the fault of individual men, but it is principally their problem.”
Yes and no. This *is* their problem when they are interacting with women - I don’t have any problem, in fact I expect women to be more alert than men, due to any number of reasons. Making a woman feel safe in an interaction is the first step in whatever follows. That’s a practical concern. But that is different from a discourse concentrating on the negative and basically ignoring the positive - and, moreover, the positive most women, including feminists, do know, want, and treasure. It’s just that they often seem to concentrate on the negative in their experiences in feminist discourse - and *that* is the problem we’re talking about here, in my understanding.
Lynn,
I suppose that I may give negative accounts of male sexuality a greater weight in my perception than you, simply because they tend to affect me more - abstractly, but still.
“So, feminism as some great squelcher of positive expressions of sexuality is just so alien to my experience that I can’t imagine what tendency I’m supposed to be correcting.”
Hmm, for all the sex-postive third wave and do-me-feminism, my impression is still the opposite. It’s not *individual* feminists, but the feminist discourse - I mean, you can have the best, most amazing, mind blowing sex with a feminist, and she’ll log on to a blog afterwards and talk about how male sexuality is vile in nature. Maybe she doesn’t get cognitive dissonance, but I do. The best thing was a self-declared feminist who later blamed a guy for not being assertive enough when he actually left her alone when she said he should. So, well, basically, this is how the political becomes personal for guys. And, if I’m correct, that’s pretty much where feminism wanted guys to go. We’re there now, but you actually need to talk WITH US now, not just ABOUT US.
“well, he has, and he has decided that it’s bollocks, simply because it starts with fundamentally flawed philosophical axioms - this *could* work *only* if women could express their point of view in a way that is accessible to men, and *then* their point of view would have to be weighed against the male point of view (as we’re in this world together, and we’re mutually impacting each other).”
You have the most unbelievable ability to overthink matters and work yourself totally around in a circle of possibly any other human being I’ve ever encountered.
“If you don’t see the problem for sex-relations in that set-up, I really can’t help you.”
I will do my best to keep on living my life, even without your “help”. I’m so so hurt that I just don’t know how I’ll manage.
Faith,
“You have the most unbelievable ability to overthink matters and work yourself totally around in a circle of possibly any other human being I’ve ever encountered.”
I’m stilly right, though.
“I will do my best to keep on living my life, even without your “help”. I’m so so hurt that I just don’t know how I’ll manage.”
Glad you’re not too deeply affected ;)
“I’m stilly right, though”
Sure, Sam. All hail Sam and his ultimate truth.
He has spoken.
@Sam
I think the parity isn’t that we should decide together, but that (as the presumable targets of straight women’s attraction) we have a corresponding ability to judge that. This works out differently in practice because we want different things (not ultimately I suspect, but which wants/needs are generally being met is different).
@Faith
Feministing.com does tend to focus on the more negative aspects, because guess what, that is where the most focus is needed. We really don’t need to have that many discussions about how awesome sex is. What we need to have are discussions about how terrible the -negative- aspects of hetero.
Here, however, we end up with those men who do come and listen (whether we’re self-centred assholes or whatever) come away thinking that the only way to be moral is to repress any non-platonic interest we have in women (and yeah, I realise this may be a function of the “straight man’s toolbox for dealing with feelings has one tool” issue, nonetheless); it shouldn’t be surprising that a lot of them’ll reject that. I think “This is what you should be doing” would be way more valuable than “This is what you shouldn’t be doing” in terms of getting men on board (whether that should be the case or not).
Women (of course) don’t owe it to men to explain what we should be doing or whatnot. But so long as (most) (apparently) want non-platonic relationships with men, that is the cost that needs to be met.
Brian,
“I think the parity isn’t that we should decide together, but that (as the presumable targets of straight women’s attraction) we have a corresponding ability to judge that.”
I don’t understand what you’re referring to with “that”.
“Women (of course) don’t owe it to men to explain what we should be doing or whatnot.”
Sorry, you argue that only women have the right to police male sexuality, and - assuming that - you don’t even think they don’t have the obligation to explain their reasoning. Seriously?
So many men are willing to call themselves feminists — at least to women’s faces — until they realize that to be a male feminist, you have to give something up. You have to give up the assumption that you have the right to be seen as a “safe” person, just because *you* know you are nice. You have to give up the assumption that you *are* a “safe” person. That is going to be uncomfortable, but it’s necessary. I’m all for positive ways of constructing male sexuality — that’s something to aim for — but you don’t get to go straight there from point A.
To those who are complaining about “excluding male voices”: you’re not being excluded, but you’re not front-and-center any more, unlike in the rest of the world. Feminism is about establishing women as societal equals. It’s not wrong for the movement to be focused on women’s voices and women’s needs. We’ll listen to what you have to say, but you’ll have to raise your hand and wait your turn.
Gail,
“We’ll listen to what you have to say, but you’ll have to raise your hand and wait your turn.”
and that’s “equal” how?
“unlike in the rest of the world.”
Yeah, that’s where you can find me then. I’ll listen to what you have to say, but you have to raise your hand and wait your turn.
Seriously? That’s how you want to create equality?
Sorry, I don’t you can win a lot of allies by telling them how much they have to lose by joining…
I mean, you can have the best, most amazing, mind blowing sex with a feminist, and she’ll log on to a blog afterwards and talk about how male sexuality is vile in nature.
OK, I’m checking my last ten blog posts on sexuality (some of them multi-topic linky posts), to see whether I can find anything that resembles what you’re talking about. I don’t think I’m an exceptionally sex positive female feminist blogger, and I didn’t plan this, so this test shouldn’t be skewed against your claim. Going backwards in time …
1) Media worries about women having drunken sex are overblown. There’s a reference in there to men’s drinking being just as statistically tied to rape as women’s (and so, if you’re going to focus on drinking at all, do it for both sexes), which I guess you could count as presenting men’s sexuality in a negative light, but the main point of the post is that I think a particular survey that presents drunken sex as epidemic is probably more about selling a product that doing accurate research.
2) There’s no conflict between being a feminist and finding masculine men sexy in TV shows and movies.
3) In defense of safewords. Again, you could see a negative here in that it’s partly about not taking a woman’s no as anything other than no unless you’ve agreed on a safeword first. But it’s pretty specific about what I’m negative about and what I’m positive about, not a general attack on male sexuality.
4) Poking fun at Bernie Madoff’s ex-lover for negative sexual revelations about him.
5) Don’t rush to make “Asian fetish” accusations about other people’s mutually happy romantic relationships. Save that for people who actually treat you in disrespectful ways.
6) Nice Guys and Murderers: About the guy who killed the women in the gym, apparently out of long festering resentment at not getting enough dates. This is probably exactly the kind of post that you, Sam, are talking about, but I really don’t see it as demonizing male sexuality. The main point of the post is that, contrary to the standard “Nice Guy” complaint that women just want men who will mistreat them, women were actually wisely rejecting the guy who was so screwed up that he would wind up killing women.
7) British Quakers affirm same-sex marriage.
8) A defense (addressed to a conservative Catholic blogger) of a W.H. Auden quote about not feeling guilty about mutually pleasurable sex.
9) Biblical slash fiction about Jonathan and David.
10) On monogamy, not overdoing worry about “emotional affairs,” memories of some college relationships (not particularly negative about the guys), and an objection to a specific variety of porn (interracial porn that treats white women sleeping with black men as if it were an inherently degrading thing to do).
It looks to me as if I blog often enough about specific negatives, but I don’t see how that set of blog posts reads as “male sexuality is vile in nature.” And I don’t think I’m a particular outlier here among feminist bloggers (except maybe in the amount of time I spend interacting with more conservative religious bloggers).
shorter sam: a world that doesn’t revolve around me isn’t worth living (or visiting) in.
Well, that’s one point of view to take. But if feminists are going to concern themselves with mens’ relationship to women, then it would seem pretty absurd to tell men to go sit quietly in the back and speak only when they’re spoken to, and expect that to work out just peachy.
Look, I get why feminists would feel a bit uneasy about spending time talking about how men can express their romantic/sexual desires in an appropriate way. The problems are that (1) no one else is picking up that job particularly well, and (2) if someone else does, one would think you’d want a say in it, too, so why not take a stance on the matter?
To expand on that last point a little bit: there are some people telling men how to express their sexual/romantic desires, actually. They’re just the people that you don’t want to be doing it. And they get the field to themselves, by and large.
Great post, Hugo.
In my early twenties I felt like the men you interviewed. My desire felt so toxic that I agonized about kissing or even holding hands with women who were obviously enthusiastic, in a few cases who had literally invited me into their beds. I couldn’t reconcile any sexual expression at all with the good, feminist guy that I wanted to be. Obviously I was at an extreme, but it sounds like there are a lot of young men in a similar place today.
Ultimately it was a choice between becoming bitter and disillusioned with feminism, or learning to lose my sense of shame, to relax and take a few more risks. I chose the latter. One part was realizing that being rejected didn’t make me a creep for even raising the subject.
While it’s not an issue in my life these days, I do wish I had known then that my sexuality wasn’t as toxic and dangerous as I thought, and that it’s not a horribly difficult task to express desire in an appropriate and empathetic way. It would have been better for me and certainly better for the women I was interested in, too.
This whole thread has become silly, and it traces back to Hugo’s unquestioned statement:
“I’m not aware of any common English phrases that allow one to express sexual desire in a way that acknowledges both lust and humanity.”
No doubt statements like this were encouraged in the workshop, because they buttress the gratifying myth that men are ignorant,inarticulate and dangerous brutes that lack the emotional deftness and subtlety of women.
Well some non-feminist examples of sexual expression come to mind:
Sinatra: “I’ve got you under my Skin”
Pavorotti: “Nessum Dorma”
Crawford: “Music of the Night”
Marvin Gaye: “Sexual Healing”
… Not to mention Shakespeare, Andrew Marvelle, Whitman, Proust
This notion that men are somehow stunted, tongue-tied, and in desperate need of feminists to explain and validate their inner sexual feelings is ludicrous. The right answer to the hesitant young men in the workshop isn’t to look to feminists for validation - it is sending them into the desert in search of water. If they have inner doubts and uncertainties, the right course of action is to study how other men have dealt with their desires. In the end the proper measure of how humane their feelings are aren’t feminist theorists, but rather their ability to find mutual love and intimacy with women they care about.
In the end, I find myself agreeing with Hugo’s fundamental point. Men’s inner doubts and hesitations aren’t women’s problem to solve. Men have sorted these things out in the past, and they’ll continue to do so.
Marvin Gaye: “Sexual Healing”
Personally, I favor “Let’s Get It On.”
If they have inner doubts and uncertainties, the right course of action is to study how other men have dealt with their desires.
And that is exactly the problem - the majority of the role models men have are more like Tucker Max than they are Shakespeare or Sinatra.
Andrew Marvell, really? He of “hurry up and have sex with me before you get ugly” fame? Not that he isn’t a wonderful poet, but he also comes off as kind of a jackass. Would not have been my choice.
re: “i just lurk here” — bingo.
If waiting your turn feels restricting to you, that’s because you’re not used to being told you don’t get priority by virtue of having a schlong (and it’s so natural to men that they don’t even realize how they are privileged most of the time).
Coming in late (again!) on this very interesting discussion. What I’ve wondered for awhile now is if it isn’t time to consider that there may be a need and place for a male-oriented movement that has the means to make, as Robert put it, a “separate peace”, both in the struggle between the genders as well as with our own sexualities. Your group, Hugo, seems to suggest a need for that, a way to examine these issues away from hegemonic Tucker Max-style reduction of our sexualities to their lowest common denominator; but also away from the baggage that feminism seems to have brought as well from its history of dealing with and facing the sordid and tragic aspects of how some of us perform our sexuality. That isn’t to suggest that issues of sexual violence, predation, and the fear that women feel aren’t critical issues. Clearly, they are. But we may be at an impasse, in something of a double-bind, between the hegemonic concept and the shame about our sexualities that gets ladled on us from multiple sources (one of which includes, among many others, the battle scars feminism has earned in dealing with these issues before we got there). To use a metaphor, we may have a separate detour to take up and over our own steep hill on these particular issues, away and apart from feminism in the main and its imperatives. We’ll have some tools and some training that we can bring with us from the feminist bag that will be useful, as well as others that won’t be and that we’ll have to recognize as such and leave down at the base. We’ll meet up on the far side of the hill once we’ve gotten over it.
By the bye, Hugo, I realize that you were dealing with an especially-interested and self-selected group and in a setting in which it was promoted, but good on you for getting a men’s only group working and working that openly. I’ve been working, rather hard in fact, to promote a men’s sexuality group, though in a very different venue and context, and getting interested, active, and involved participation can be quite a challenge. One thing I’ve noticed is that our sexualities are very externally-focused it seems as we currently understand and construct them: we have a habit of consistently and almost instinctively looking to women as our primary, if not exclusive, interlocutors and “problem-solvers”, in essence, on this score. I think that may be something of a threshold challenge for most of us.
That’s exactly what causes these feelings of alienation of one’s own sexuality, the suggestion that male sexuality is somehow not “ok”, say, eg, that you cannot watch people having sex on camera (porn) without inherently committing violence (at least in a structural way/personal is political). The need to compartmentalize is to a significant degree a consequence of feminist policing of male sexuality that is largely ignorant of the male point of view.
It absolutely astonishes me how desperate some men are to cling to the notion that objectifying women is essential to expressing ‘their’ sexuality.
I mean, I know they get goodies by othering women, but they can’t really be dumb enough to believe that men and women are intrinsically emotionally different, or that pornography in its current form is harmless to women. Can they?
Is it genuinely that difficult to be sexual with another human being? I mean a PERSON, a whole person who you see as a person first? Do you really need to buy into a system that treats women as objects in order to be sexually satisfied?
More to the point: Every time I see a discussion where men are upset that “male sexuality” is being “denigrated”, it absolutely baffles me. None of the males I’ve been sexual with have this trouble.
Perhaps someone could spell out, specifically, what “male sexuality” is, and why creating a whole industry that hurts women is necessary for “male sexuality” to be properly served.
So, agreeing with much of feminist goals may lead to self-flagellation and an inability to be positively assertive with one’s own sexuality - as Hugo once put it, constantly checking female temperatures, and thus *NOT* accepting women as equals, but simply putting them on a different pedestal
You create the most extraordinary circles with your logic I’ve ever seen.
It’s really very simple. Women are people. The corollary to that is that we’re individuals. That means there’s no such thing as “female” sexuality, except in the most direct physiological sense.
That also means: if there’s a woman you’d like to have sex with, you have to know what she, the individual, likes and wants and needs. That means you have to communicate with her and, yes, pay attention. It means you can’t throw down some flowers upon first meeting and automatically expect her to drop her knickers. It also means she might not be interested in you and might not tell you why.
I don’t know if this is what you mean when you complain about having to constantly check a woman’s temperature, but that’s how it sounds. That particular attitude is best served by MORE feminism (the notion that women are people) than less.
there are some people telling men how to express their sexual/romantic desires, actually. They’re just the people that you don’t want to be doing it. And they get the field to themselves, by and large.
This point can’t be overemphasized. Find it’s intersection with
And that is exactly the problem - the majority of the role models men have are more like Tucker Max than they are Shakespeare or Sinatra.
As someone who does science for a living, I’m constantly reminded in a professional context that it’s stupid to try and reinvent what’s already invented, it’s much harder (and you do a lot worse) than just checking and repeating what someone else did. As it stands, it’s pretty clear that My desire felt so toxic that I agonized about kissing or even holding hands with women who were obviously enthusiastic, in a few cases who had literally invited me into their beds. I couldn’t reconcile any sexual expression at all with the good, feminist guy that I wanted to be is a very common sentiment; Boris claims he’s an outlier although I’d suggest all the evidence is to the contrary. I certainly still reflexively apologise to my common-law fiance for finding her attractive looking; and have generally reacted historically by avoiding women I’ve been attracted to as much as possible, for fear of them finding out and being offended. I’m sure if we polled the men around, we’d find it a common (though not necessarily universal) experience that they have taken such a negative view of their non-platonic interest in women (however it manifested).
In this situation, whether it’s the right thing to do or not, a lot of men will follow anyone who says they have a way out. It’s certainly the case that a model of what to do, rather than a list of what not to do, would win over a lot more converts. Hugo says (and here I strictly agree with the point) that it isn’t womens’ responsibility to provide this model; but if we want a model that they’re likely to be happy with, then it’s almost certainly the cost of women wanting heterosexual relationships (communication is essential to any relationship, and this is a part of the communication needed for this relationship). Men aren’t going to guess what women want as well as women know.
Cara,
the whole notion of objectification is faulty. Noone really knows what it’s supposed to mean. Tons of feminist discussion about what objectification actually is. Usually, as I understand it, it means being aroused by someone without actually caring about that person as a human being. IE, seeing someone on the street, being aroused by their body and not being interested in their entire personal story but just enjoying the moment. Tons of women do this every day, so no wonder there are tons of discussions about this even on feminist boards. I actually read one thread about this once on feministe.us. So “objectification” is not unique to male sexuality, objectification is an inevitable consequence of having a sexual mind and open eyes, for both women and men.
Now as for porn, same thing. Some people say it’s demeaning to women, others say it’s not, some say something in-between. I personally don’t think there’s anything wrong with regular pornography, and I thus don’t think there’s anything inherently violent in its consumption. Others, like you, disagree.
But I don’t think you’re asking the right question, in my opinion. I thin in order to address this question, one would have to ask why the depiction of two people having sex should be considered problematic in the abstract. If it is not problematic in the abstract, then you should really ask what kind of specifics of the *current* situation are problematic and how those can be addressed - but in that case it is no longer about this whole objectification thing, it’s about institutional issues, some of which are certainly quite important.
The whole thing about porn is that it’s a fantasy, not “real sex” with a “real person”. But really what’s - in an objectification framework - the difference between thinking about female breasts and watching at them. Would I be objectifying *you* if I masturbated thinking about you (assuming you’re a woman). Would you be objectifying me if you did the same with me? Thinking about a person in a sexual way is the *ultimate* objectification, as there is not even an actual visual representation of the person, the person is ENTIRELY an object of our own imagination.
I think that example really makes the problems of the entire objectification issue with respect to pornography quite clear. There are different levels of sexuality, and one by definition includes objecitification of some sort, because it doesn’t involve another person. Same for women and men, btw.
“More to the point: Every time I see a discussion where men are upset that “male sexuality” is being “denigrated”, it absolutely baffles me. None of the males I’ve been sexual with have this trouble.”
Don’t know. You don’t know. I don’t talk about this with women, except feminist female friends I’m not sexual with. And that is part of the problem. When we *do* talk about these things with non-feminist women, this discussion is making us look weak and unattractive, and when we talk about this with feminist women, it’s what Gail said, it’s “what about ze menz”. So I would not be too sure your partners aren’t thinking like this, even though they don’t tell you about it. This is exactly the kind of double-bind Boris mentioned above.
@Cara
Is it genuinely that difficult to be sexual with another human being? Depends on what you mean by difficult, but this can take months or years to arrange. I’d guess that since I first became interested in sex, I’ve been in a relation between a third and half of the time (This may be slightly cheating, maybe I should discount the ~six years between when I first became interested in sex and when I first had a non-platonic relationship of any kind. Maybe between half and two-thirds is more appropriate. Anyways.) It certainly is the case that (many of use, anyhow) can’t realistically find partners on timescales comparable to those on which sexual desire takes place (I’d guess months-years versus hours~days?)
At zeroeth order, I’d guess the usual heterosexual male sexuality is along the lines of “Women are appealling in a sexual manner to the five senses; and interacting with them in sensory way in a sexual fashion/context is pleasurable.” Although say, looking at a naked women is pretty low on how much interaction it provides, it’s often the most available.
Would I be objectifying *you* if I masturbated thinking about you (assuming you’re a woman). Would you be objectifying me if you did the same with me?
My own answer is no, I tend to reserve the word “objectifying” for actually actively treating me in a way that ignores my wishes. Seeing me on the street and admiring my body and enjoying the moment wouldn’t be objectifying, nor would privately masturbating while thinking about me later; doing something about it that I as a person would be likely to find scary or offensive (such as catcalls on the street) would be. Openly admiring my body in a context where you could expect me to be receptive to that (e.g. I’m your lover) wouldn’t be objectifying, but admiring it in a context where a reasonable woman might find it offensive (I’m at work and you’re focusing on my body in place of, and to the detriment of, rewarding my professional attributes) would be.
Cara,
best thing about male sexuality from a feminist perspective I have read. Quotes above, but really no reason not to repeat myself (and Hugo, found this in one of his posts).
Musings On Biological Imperatives and Cultural Response
http://saucebox.almeidaisgod.com/?p=85
Lynn,
but, sorry, there is a word for the behaviour you describe - two actually, and maybe even more - inappropriate, offensive, etc. But *objectifying* logically includes all of the activities you deem reasonable or even desired from the female point of view. So, really, that word/concept doesn’t really cut it with respect to describing the behaviour you’re, sorry, objecting to…
“actively treating me in a way that ignores my wishes”
How would it be possible to do that to a porn actor/actress? I mean, they know they will be watched, and that’s all that *can* be actively done to them as they’re depictions of people. You really have to assume that *all*/*most* porn actors are kept in the industry by force, knowing they have signed a model release form. And that is really a bit far fetched even for those who believe in the structural as opposed to actual violence.
But *objectifying* logically includes all of the activities you deem reasonable or even desired from the female point of view.
If that’s the case, then it should be dumped as a word altogether, because a word that means both “looking at a hot person on the street and privately thinking hot thoughts” and all the obnoxious things for which, as far as I can tell, feminists originally coined the term, is really pretty useless, eh? I’d be happy to dump the word, since people using it seem to mean mutually contradictory things by it, but not so happy to define its main meaning as finding people hot that you don’t know that well yet, because if it’s defined as mainly meaning that, then lots of feminist complaints about “objectifying” are retroactively redefined to mean something the women complaining can’t possibly have meant.
I don’t tend to find arguments about how objectifying porn is or isn’t useful; I’m more interested in what concrete situations people face who are actually in the industry. Or, for people who feel their relationships are damaged by their partners’ use of porn, in getting more specific than the word “objectifying” about just what the damage is.
Lynn,
I think we’re in complete agreement on all of the things we talked about here.
More to the point: Every time I see a discussion where men are upset that “male sexuality” is being “denigrated”, it absolutely baffles me. None of the males I’ve been sexual with have this trouble.
Unless you broached the matter with them, you have no idea whether the men you have been sexual with (a curious phrasing) are upset with their sexuality being denigrated. Men often do not discuss issues related to their sexuality and it is very unlikely they would discuss it with those who hold such negative views of it. It is also possible that if you demonstrated your above response towards male sexuality with the men you were sexual with those men may have felt unsafe sharing their concerns with you. One should not assume there is no problem simply because no men have discussed the problem with you personally.
you have been sexual with (a curious phrasing)
I was trying to avoid the words “have sex with” because that could imply a limitation to men I’ve actually had sexual intercourse with. Which is naturally a smaller set of men.
unlikely they would discuss it with those who hold such negative views of it
OK, so, once again, I’m hearing an unsupported claim about negative views of male sexuality, only this time it’s an unsupported claim that I, personally, have a negative view of male sexuality. I happen to know that I, personally, quite like having sex with men, so pardon me if I dismiss that explanation for why the men who’ve had sex with me (in the broadest sense, both including PIV intercourse and other things, since you took exception to my other attempt at inclusive phrasing) aren’t complaining about what a sex-hating feminist I am.
And, yes, I have talked about feminism and sex with some of the men I’ve slept with. I’ve even had discussions with them about aspects of feminism that they, or I, had problems with. None of them boiled down to a complaint that either I, or feminists in general, were shaming them for liking sex.
I mean, really. My husband tells me about porn he’s seen. I tell him the latest stuff I’ve read at Susie Bright’s blog. He tells me what sexual messages from his
(Catholic, not feminist) upbringing he thought sucked. The notion that he’s been hiding his real feelings from me for more than two decades because I’m such an Andrea Dworkin clone has a very “the lurkers all agree with me in email” feel to me.
I’ll trust my husband and ex-lovers to speak for themselves before I’ll trust some guy I faintly know on the Internet to speak for them.
Cara,
we’re really talking past each other.
“I don’t know if this is what you mean when you complain about having to constantly check a woman’s temperature, but that’s how it sounds. That particular attitude is best served by MORE feminism (the notion that women are people) than less.”
I’m not complaing about having to take women’s temperatures. Women complain - http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2006/06/its_election_da.html - about not being taken seriously by men who constantly take their temperatures.
“It means you can’t throw down some flowers upon first meeting and automatically expect her to drop her knickers.”
Now really. As strange as it may sound to you, more often than not it’s *me* who’s saying no these days. I’m not complaining about not being able to attract women, and, quite frankly, I wonder what a guy would get to hear if he actually alleged that women are only complaining about gender issues because they can’t get laid/get a rich guy/pick your stereotype. Now really.
OK, so, once again, I’m hearing an unsupported claim about negative views of male sexuality, only this time it’s an unsupported claim that I, personally, have a negative view of male sexuality.
If you and Cara are the same person, perhaps it would be better to use one name to avoid confusion. The negative sentiment begins in the initial post: “We know — at least many of us know — that many aspects of male sexuality are toxic and destructive.” There are no aspects of male sexuality mentioned in the post or in the comments that are not presented as toxic or destructive, and no prominent feminist writings portraying male sexuality in positive manner come to mind. According to Hugo’s post, feminist-leaning men are even mentioning this problem while in feminist spaces, therefore it is reasonable to assume that the lack of any positive statement implies the belief that feminist have nothing positive to say about male sexuality. Nevertheless, in a discussion about how men do not interpret their actions towards women as negative, would it not be reasonable to argue that feminists are just as likely not to interpret their own actions towards men as negative?
Hi - I stopped by your table at Consent Day, and I just wanted to say hi. :)
Oh, Sam. I wish I had a dollar for every time I’d heard a guy allege that feminists are only complaining about gender issues because they can’t get laid/are jealous/are ugly dykes/pick your stereotype. I’d have more money than Rush Limbaugh, who himself refers to feminism as an affirmative-action program for women who aren’t pretty enough to fuck men into becoming their willing servants.