A reader named Tracy sent me a link to this Meghan Pleitcha piece that originally ran on Nerve and was then reprinted at Alternet: What Happened When I Legally Exposed My Breasts in Public. This summer, Pleitcha took advantage of a New York state law that permits “gender equity” when it comes to baring chests in certain public settings; she sunbathed topless in Central Park, and wrote about the reactions she got from men, from women, and from her inner voice. It’s a thoughtful piece, and Tracy wanted to know my thoughts on female public toplessness and how that issue connects to the “myth of male weakness” about which I have written so often.
I’ve got a whole category of posts about modesty, and the ways in which our fears about uncontrollable male sexual desire result in our shifting the responsibility for self-control from men to women. I don’t want to keep rehashing points made over and over again, so let me offer just a few links:
In this post, we looked at the word kosmios (the koine Greek term, translated as modesty in the New Testament) and how it has nothing to do with showing skin, but instead refers to refraining from lavish displays of wealth.
In this post, the “argument from testosterone” is considered and rejected.
And I posted about breasts and the notion that men can’t help but stare here.
Though some might not regard the right to bear one’s breasts in public as the single most pressing issue on the feminist agenda, I do support the expansion of the already-extant New York law mandating gender equity when it comes to the exposure of the human chest. What “must be concealed” is a societal variable which has evolved over time. As we read in the news this week, Sudan canes women for wearing pants (something for which women were arrested in this country little more than a century ago.) In some societies, women’s hair has tremendous erotic value, perhaps as much as breasts themselves; in many cultures, concealing the top of the head is mandatory. And as anyone who has watched National Geographic specials or spent time on the beaches of Europe knows, the idea that female breasts are universally arousing to men is silly — what we find arousing is almost entirely culturally conditioned, and has far less to do with our hard-wiring than the peddlers of pop-evolutionary biology would have us believe. For reasons of fairness, as well as for the reason that the male lack of self-control is a construct rather than an immutable truth, it makes good sense to change our laws to permit women to go shirtless in public.
I note one of the key, if unsurprising, points of the Pleitcha piece: she writes of her frustration at being treated far more respectfully by the men she encountered in New York than by the women. It was the women who stared more openly, and the women who were responsible for most of the whispers and chilly glances. This isn’t because women are somehow nastier to each other than are men. It’s one of the corollaries to the myth of male weakness: if we believe that men lack the capacity for self-control, then we must outsource that self-control to women. And thus if an individual woman appears to be revealing too much to men, it is the collective responsibility of other women to police the “temptress”, shaming her back into the restrictive gender norms. It’s men’s refusal to take responsibility for their own eyes and their own actions that puts the onus on women to monitor one another. There’s a benefit for men, of course: when a woman who has been “slut-shamed” by other women complains of being judged, she’ll often have little trouble finding a sympathetic ear from among her guy friends. The lack of sisterhood, itself a direct result of men’s refusal to exercise self-control, leaves many women — particularly young ones — more vulnerable to men.
The encouraging thing about the Pleitcha piece is how many men she encountered who were respectful (and this in the heart of a city not renowned for its civility). Whatever social changes have been wrought in the past few decades have had an impact, at least in some urban areas, on men’s sense of their own responsibility and their willingness to acknowledge women’s equal right to free expression. No doubt the change in the law (which in New York state, dates back to 1992) played a key role in helping to encourage a shift in the mindset of the guys Pleitcha encountered in the park.
This, then, is the key take-away point: legislation changes minds. Just as forced desegregation played a huge part in reshaping attitudes towards race, just as the fight for marriage equality is having a demonstrable impact on attitudes towards homosexuality so too attitudes towards bodies, sexual desire, and the capacity of men to exercise self-control can be shifted through legislation and progressive judicial decisions. Those who argue that this is a trivial issue compared to others are missing the point: this isn’t just about breasts, it’s about overcoming, once and for all, a fundamental lie about human beings, women’s bodies, and the capacity of men to see the latter revealed without losing their capacity to remain the former.
Few (if any) of us benefit from our gender roles. But we all (to some extent or another) take steps to enforce them. It isn’t reasonable (or even vaguely feminist or pro-feminist) to deny that women are culpable for the own actions. That they don’t benefit from it (and while I’m not sure if that’s true, I don’t know that it’s worthwhile, since it’s irrelevant) isn’t relevant. Men are responsible for what we do. Women are responsible for what they do.
And here, the men (by and large) weren’t even doing what the women (supposedly) were trying to control. If our weakness is a false myth (though like all myths, there’s probably aspects of truth and falseness – nonetheless); then to say “You’re responsible for people believing this about you, even though it isn’t true.” seems unreasonable.
Brian, this myth is about as true as the “black men have less self-control than white men” myth. Anyhoo, you’re right that the burden of transforming away from this myth isn’t just on individual men’s shoulders — which is why legislation following the New York model is so useful.
Male behavior in New York is different than Pleitcha anticipated. Why? When confronted with a legal transformation that held men responsible for their behavior, and permitted full gender equality, men responded well. All the more reason for the legal changes!
Hmmm, not sure how I feel about this. If I didn’t feel I knew you through your writings, Hugo, I’d think (snarkily) “Gee, how big of him to be in favor of female public toplessness!” (;
I did sunbathe topless in Yugoslavia many years ago, and felt comfortable because of the totally different vibe in Europe re: nudity. I think I might feel comfortable doing it here if there was enough of a mass of other women doing it. But, of course, before there is a mass of women doing it, there have to be a few brave individuals like Ms. Pleticha getting things started.
And before there is a mass of women doing it, it needs to be legal. It’s like being the first interracial couple on the sand at the beach; it’s risky but in time, attitudes shift. And legal shifts help.
I realize it can indeed sound completely self-serving, in a rather pervy way, to write in favor of female toplessness; read in the context of my work as a whole, I hope it comes across differently!
It was good to read that the people who acted somewhat inappropriately to the author were other women. Perhaps the men thought they would be more sternly watched and judged, and so they were “on their best behavior,” moreso than the women. Or maybe the gender-construct that would lead us to assume the men would be the ones being inappropriate is way off.
Hugo,
“the idea that female breasts are universally arousing to men is silly”
no, (cultural fashion specific forms and presentation certainly exists) female breasts will always be arousing to heterosexual men, that’s part of their biological function. If not even sexual organs are allowed to have a biological function in your blank slate worldview, I really don’t know. They just don’t always have an effect to the same extent (if you see a lot of them they don’t have the same effect as when you haven’t seen a pair in ages – “midnight express”, anyone?) and they don’t force anyone to grab (or stare uncontrollably). But they are a pleasurable view everytime I see a (nice) pair and if you don’t think heterosexuality is a cultural effect then that’s not a cultural effect.
“The lack of sisterhood, itself a direct result of men’s refusal to exercise self-control, leaves many women — particularly young ones — more vulnerable to men.”
Seriously, it’s stunning to read the twists and turns your mind takes to assign responsibility for female behaviour to men and *not* to women. This one is particularly fascinating.
Hugo,
“I realize it can indeed sound completely self-serving, in a rather pervy way, to write in favor of female toplessness;”
You know that it is actually OK to like the view. There’s *nothing* “pervy” about liking female breasts. And since you always say how you’re happy and trying to have a congruent sexuality and personality, I’m a bit surprised about the extent to which you feel the need to defend a completely asexual post as “non-pervy”. Bit odd.
Where on earth do you get evidence that it is “part of the biological function of breasts to arouse heterosexual men”? That flies in the face of so many mountains of anthropological evidence as to be, well, silly.
As for the “pervy” bit, it certainly isn’t wrong to be aroused by women’s breasts — the fact that this isn’t a universal reaction among heterosexual men doesn’t mean it’s bad. What would be problematic is to employ feminist rhetoric about women’s liberation in order to increase my own (or other men’s) access (visual or otherwise) to women’s bodies. That kind of self-serving misappropriation of feminist language is a perversion of the ideals we’re fighting for.
Hugo,
“Where on earth do you get evidence that it is “part of the biological function of breasts to arouse heterosexual menâ€? That flies in the face of so many mountains of anthropological evidence as to be, well, silly.”
Not silly at all. Quite to the contrary. Since the main biological function of female breasts is the production of milk for babies, and since the form of breasts doesn’t seem to have *any* kind of effect on that main biological function, there are really not that many non-sexual explanations for the evolutionary development of female breasts, even if you don’t want to believe the buttocks-substitute facilitating face-to-face copulation to allow increased pair-bonding.
Quoting from -
Why Do Women Orgasm?
By David P. Barash and Dr. Judith Eve Lipton, National Sexuality Resource Center
Posted on August 22, 2009, Printed on September 10, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/142104
“As for the evolution of breasts, the obvious explanation is that they signal capacity to nourish offspring, so that bustier women would have been preferentially chosen by would-be fathers. But why hasn’t a similar process operated in other mammals? Moreover, there is no correlation between the size of breasts, while not lactating, and the eventual ability to produce milk. What appears as breast tissue is actually made up of fat with glandular structures only developing during pregnancy. Human breasts could therefore be a kind of biological deception.
On the other hand, they might provide accurate information, indicating a woman’s ability to accumulate and store calories, especially in a Paleolithic world before the advent of refrigerators. Or, they might be a means whereby potential mates are enabled to assess age and thus reproductive prospects: a kind of Goldilocks Principle in which relatively well developed breasts are found attractive if they are not too small (indicating someone too young to be reproductive) and not too droopy (indicating age and thus someone who might be menopausal) but “just right.”
There are other possibilities, including an intriguing new idea in evolutionary theory known as the “handicap principle.” According to this notion — which up to now has been suggested as an explanation for elaborate and seemingly over-the-top male traits — females prefer males whose excessive ornamentation demonstrates their superior genetic quality. You’ve got to be a pretty impressive peacock, for example, to be able to thrive despite growing and carrying around such a bizarrely over-built tail. Many women will attest that aside from their male-attracting function (and sometimes even then!) developed breasts are something of a liability. Just so. Perhaps they evolved as “handicaps,” attractive to men for the same reason a colorful peacock’s tail appeals to peahens: an honest, albeit paradoxical, indicator of underlying genetic quality.
As with the other sexual mysteries of women, there are numerous additional biological hypotheses for the existence of prominent nonlactating breasts, including the bizarre suggestion by ethologist Desmond Morris that they serve as “buttocks substitutes,” thereby facilitating face-to-face copulation and thus intense interpersonal bonding.”"
Read a debunking of this here, Sam: http://www.alternet.org/sex/104149/caveman_sex:_how_evolutionary_psych_pushes_sexist_stereotypes/
And it never addresses the extraordinary number of cultures in which women’s breasts are exposed routinely to the entire community over a lifetime.
Or, well, let’s put the question more general – many people would consider it a sexual dysfunction if a man cannot get aroused at the sight of a sexually attractive naked woman. Think Eunuchs in Harems and all that. Yet you seem to believe that sexual arousal is mostly about culturally, not even individually, constructed fetishes.
So I can’t help but wonder – what kind of/part of arousal/sexuality/sexual organs do *you* believe to have natural causes (in sexual/reproductive biology) rather than being a socialized fetish (using the word as neutrally as possible).
How blank is your slate?
Hugo, I’ver read the article you link to. It has NOTHING to do with debunking legitimate research, but with misatrributing cultural artefacts to imagined evolutionary causes. That’s not a debunking of the research summary I quoted, it would be debunking if I said “I have to jump woman x because she’s got an ideal hip-waist ratiol.” Two levels of debate, don’t conflate them.
“And it never addresses the extraordinary number of cultures in which women’s breasts are exposed routinely to the entire community over a lifetime.”
Yeah, so? Doesn’t mean guys weren’t aroused. Again, sure, constant exposure wears of the excitement (de-fetishizes, if you will
), as I said, but that doesn’t mean part of female breasts biological function aren’t sexual. I see breasts in a sauna and don’t get an erection, yet when I see a nice pair on a woman I like, they have quite a different effect. I’m not denying cultural artefacts, I’m saying these artefacts are based on a non-blank slate in which part of the female breasts function is sexual. And that’s about as uncontroversial as it gets for a nature/nurture statement.
So let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, I grant you that yes, breasts are “naturally” arousing to men. (I don’t believe it, but I’ll stipulate to it for the purpose.)
But arousal is one’s own response, not the responsibility of the arouser, at least as we’re talking merely about display as opposed to someone coming up and erotically caressing our genital region. So even if men are aroused by breasts, that says nothing about a connection between sexual excitement and a diminished capacity for self-control; it doesn’t follow that preventing male excitement and subsequent misbehavior is in any way shape or form women’s task.
“no, (cultural fashion specific forms and presentation certainly exists) female breasts will always be arousing to heterosexual men, that’s part of their biological function.”
Silly me. Here I thought the only biological purpose my breasts ever served was providing nourishment for my children. But, hey, you’re an educated man. You obviously know more about what my breasts are for than I do.
“Yeah, so? Doesn’t mean guys weren’t aroused.”
It doesn’t -matter- if a man gets aroused or not. That isn’t the point. A man can get aroused by naked women all they want. I couldn’t really care less, to be perfectly blunt. What matters is that it is their responsibility to -control- themselves and take responsibility for their bodies functions instead of projecting that responsibility on me and other women.
Men have often been aroused by my clothed body. Men often get aroused by other women’s clothed bodies. It happens all the time as I’m sure that you know. What do you suggest I and other women do about that? Never leave the house? Mutilate ourselves so that men don’t find us attractive? What exactly do you want women to do in order to ensure that the poor, poor men don’t get an erection?
“I’m not denying cultural artefacts, I’m saying these artefacts are based on a non-blank slate in which part of the female breasts function is sexual.”
You do understand that women’s bodies belong to women, correct? You do understand that women do not exist to sexually please men? Reading many of your comments, I’m not sure that you do.
If I choose to be sexual with a man (and believe it or not, being sexual is more than just physical contact and visual stimulation), that’s my choice. But I am not biologically or otherwise obligated to provide men with sexual stimulation. Nor is it my fault if a man finds himself sexually stimulated by my presence. I don’t blame men when I find my body responding to theirs. Why exactly do so many men believe they have the right to blame me when they find themselves sexually stimulated by me?
Faith,
“Why exactly do so many men believe they have the right to blame me when they find themselves sexually stimulated by me?”
What are you talking about? Who on earth blamed you (or any woman) for anything, least of all having breasts or being attractive, clad or unclad? I certainly did not. I’m sorry, but you may really have misunderstood the point of my reply to Hugo, which was to point out that the reason heterosexual men are usually aroused by female breasts is not that breasts are a cultural fetish (which, granted, in many respects they are) but that they have a partly sexual function, the exact nature of which is unclear, yet it seems highly unlikely women developed the kind of massive tissue for no real reaons, as fully flat chested women are likely perfectly able to breastfeed, while they are likely to be challenged in the realm of sexual attractivity.
“What do you suggest I and other women do about that?”
Nothing, you enjoy the fact. There is a time and a place for a discussion about what constitutes “provocation” but the sight of breasts, even bare breasts, in itself certainly doesn’t constitute “provocative” regardless of the arousing nature of the sight. Here’s a Hugo approved (linked to) post that explains all that quite well…
“Musings On Biological Imperatives and Cultural Response”
http://saucebox.almeidaisgod.com/?p=85
“You obviously know more about what my breasts are for than I do.”
If you say so.
Hugo,
[sarkasm]yes, and I’m sure lesbians have culturally manipulated into liking breasts as well, so it looks as if it was a natural attraction…[/sarkasm].
“that says nothing about a connection between sexual excitement and a diminished capacity for self-control;”
And I did not stipulate that, or did I? If I did, I did not intend to. Look again at the link above that I found in one of your posts once. It’s one of the best things I’ve read about male sexuality by a feminist author.
What ticked me off was the pseudo-blaming of male sexuality that you practice – that was again underlined by your defensiveness regarding the “pervy” bit. Saying there’s nothing wrong with liking breasts, but that it’s basically a matter of concentration if you do, and, well, in a way, you better don’t, because it’s a bad thing in most current cultural circumstances. It’s part of this “you too can overcome” discourse that is assigning blame to men, male sexuality, even if it’s women who are behaving badly…
So here are two questions:
a) in your opinion, is there a core to sexual desire that is not culturally caused. And if so, how do you think this core of sexual desire manifests in human behaviour.
b) So I did not want to talk about provocation, because I don’t think bare breasts are “provocative”. I’m stunned by what Faith is reading into my comments, but there you go. But apparently mentioning they very likely have a partly sexual function means I’m arguing that I men can’t control themselves in front of a nice pair.
You’re a religious man, if I read you right, although I can’t do much with your religious posts. I’m not religious despite having enjoyed a Catholic eduction. So let’s talk not about “temptation”, which may be passive, but let’s talk about tempting, which cannot be passive, and the assignment of responsibility.
Do women bear responsibility/what part of responsibility for *tempting*, that is being *aware* of what effect they’re having and trying to use it to their benefit? See, the question, of course, is the good old “dangling of the sausage” problem. Of course, the dog is guilty of eating the sausage if she was told not to. But what responsibility does the dangler/the tempter bear? It seems wrong to assume dangling/tempting is without any responsibility, doesn’t it? A will can be broken. That’s why there is a concept like “tempting”.
Women aren’t like sausages, and men aren’t like dogs. But the metaphor still applies as long as we cannot assume COMPLETE control of ourselves. And we can’t. No one can, woman or man.
And that’s, in my opinion, why your blank slate hypothesis is so important to you. It’s the only possibility to avoid the realization that there are possibly innate biolgical limits to self-control, urges that cannot be overcome, cannot be transcended.
That there may be things that cannot be achieved by the most amazing software if the requirements go beyond what the tired old machine can do. Sounds more depressing than it actually is, come to think of it.
Interesting . . . if media descriptions were accurate a whole lot of the “sexting†arrests were based on the bare female breasts of minors. Probably pretty silly when you think about it in a rational manner. If male teenage toplessness were considered indecent all my older relatives would be sex offenders from simple summer photos back in my swimming and sailing days.
One thing to consider is that anyone can take a picture of anyone else in a public place and publish it if that photo is used in an “editorial†manner. (Commercial photography that involves advertising is a different beast) Were someone to be making a book called “A Day In Central Park†it is quite possible that a topless bather could end up published.
Back in the day at Michigan, the “naked mile†was awesome. Fun, innocent, and surprisingly desexualized. The Ann Arbor police and the U clamped down. They eventually had to shut it down because the Girls Gone Wild people started coming to film it and a bunch of grabby gawkers started showing up.
“as fully flat chested women are likely perfectly able to breastfeed, while they are likely to be challenged in the realm of sexual attractivity.”
People value big breasts (particulary in america) because of social conditioning. Most of the ads have women with big breasts, Victoria Secret is a perfect example. So in turn, women with small breasts, or almost none are sexually challenged, but not for biological reasons. Just as we have been conditioned to love the size zero female body. I don’t suppose you’re now going to serve me evidence that a woman’s waist, while has it’s own biological purpose, is REALLY intended to eroticize others (particularly men).
“See, the question, of course, is the good old “dangling of the sausage†problem. Of course, the dog is guilty of eating the sausage if she was told not to. But what responsibility does the dangler/the tempter bear?”
You’re forgetting the fact that the person dangling the sausage is probably doing it to tempt the dog. That is the SOLE purpose of why they are doing that, to tease and test the dog. I dress how I want, irregardless if I tempt someone, and if I do that is merely a side effect that I cannot be responsible for. I am not dressing (or lack of) to tease or tempt men. Believe it or not, not everything a woman does revolves around how it will impact men. That’s rather self-serving thinking.
“the realization that there are possibly innate biolgical limits to self-control, urges that cannot be overcome, cannot be transcended.”
True, there are certain urges that self-control cannot overcome. Say, like a parents ability to put themselves in danger for their child. Or, say… breathing. However, I don’t believe a mans inability to control himself around an attractive woman (who he thinks is ‘tempting’ him) is one of them. That’s pretty pathetic to try and justify it with the “biologically I can’t control myself.”
“as fully flat chested women are likely perfectly able to breastfeed, while they are likely to be challenged in the realm of sexual attractivity.”
I promise you that flat-chested or not, men are not going to stop finding any individual woman attractive. A vagina is all that is necessary in order for a woman to receive sexual attraction from men. Even little girls who are flat-chested aren’t lacking in sexual attention from full grown men.
“Nothing, you enjoy the fact.”
Excuse me? You want me to enjoy being sexually objectified and harassed? You’re assuming that women always enjoy men finding us sexually attractive. You assume a helluva lot of things.
“[sarkasm]yes, and I’m sure lesbians have culturally manipulated into liking breasts as well, so it looks as if it was a natural attraction…[/sarkasm].”
I’m attracted to women as well. I do find women’s breasts attractive. I also find the rest of them attractive as well. I love women. I love everything about women. Obviously I am not biologically designed to be attracted to women, so, by all means, explain to me why I find women just as sexually attractive as men if sexual attraction is all about biology.
“Do women bear responsibility/what part of responsibility for *tempting*, that is being *aware* of what effect they’re having and trying to use it to their benefit?”
If they are doing it intentionally, yes. But women have no responsibility for men interpreting their intentions or desires incorrectly. If a take my top off and walk around naked just because I hate wearing shirts (and I do. I’m ultimately a nudist at heart), it is not my responsibility if some man gets aroused by my naked flesh, any more than its my responsibility if he gets aroused because I’m wearing a skirt just because I happen to sometimes like wearing skirts.
“But the metaphor still applies as long as we cannot assume COMPLETE control of ourselves.”
Unless they have some sort of genuine mental disability, people can -always- control their actions. Always.
Tracy,
“I don’t suppose you’re now going to serve me evidence that a woman’s waist, while has it’s own biological purpose, is REALLY intended to eroticize others (particularly men).”
It’s apparently the other way around. It’s attractive *because* it serves a biological purpose.
“That is the SOLE purpose of why they are doing that, to tease and test the dog. I dress how I want, irregardless if I tempt someone, and if I do that is merely a side effect that I cannot be responsible for.”
Yes and no. It’s a matter of degree, in my opinion. Motivation is important, which is why I used the active “tempt” as opposed to the passive “temptation”. You may be a temptation without being aware, but you cannot tempt without being aware. So if you really dress *irrespective* of an assumed male reaction, you’re not actively tempting – while you may still be a temptation. The same, of course, is true for any guy with a tight pair of jeans – easily possible to do a gender flip. The tempation scenario is much more difficult than the “tempting” scenario, because there is no intent, as you rightly mention. So I’d first like to keep discussing this one. IF and when a woman is trying to tempt men, is she responsible/partly/to which extent responsible for putting the interaction on a specific path?
“However, I don’t believe a mans inability to control himself around an attractive woman (who he thinks is ‘tempting’ him) is one of them. That’s pretty pathetic to try and justify it with the “biologically I can’t control myself.—
You’re right to note that there’s always a perception element involved that is additionally complicating matters. But, sorry, if anything I have said that even bare breasts aren’t “provocative” in the sense that a man cannot control himself when he sees a pair.
But that doesn’t mean they don’t have an impact – and it’s entirely unfair to say that that’s the fault of the man because he’s not telling himself sufficiently that “I don’t like breasts”. Controlling oneself is entirely different from not being affected.
And that’s where the problem begins with respect to the temptation as opposed to the tempting. Because being aware of the possibly unwanted impact one is having on other people isn’t easy either, of course. And the real problem is coming up with a behavioral solution that doesn’t limit the temptation’s range of expression while also not unduly limiting other people’s range of reaction to him/her.
The most important thing is, in my opinion, to understand that this is a two-way street. We are all constantly impacting each other, with our mere presence. A couple of days ago, Hugo wrote how men cannot expect to be assumed harmless. Their mere presence has an impact on the women trying to cross the street. Yet in the case at hand, female impact on men is denied. While men are supposed to smile when they are treated unfairly because of assumed sexual dynamics that women have to deal with, there is no such concern when it comes to the possible impact women have on men, simply because the *kind* of impact is different and has not been classed among legitimate concerns by some people.
I’ve gotten compliements from other men for being able to hold eye contact even in “difficult” situations. And again, I don’t think naked breasts qualify as “provocative”. BUT I think it is absolutely important to think about our interdependence and the impact we’re having on each other.
Faith,
“You’re assuming that women always enjoy men finding us sexually attractive. You assume a helluva lot of things.”
no, I’m not assuming women *ALWAYS* enjoy men finding them sexually attractive. But I do assume that they enjoy it. Of course, I’m speaking from the male perspective of a guy who had to wait 30 years for the first woman to tell him he was hot. Discounting my personal issues, that would make it about 4 years into a sexually active life. I doubt a lot of women have that kind of problem. So, yeah, part of my argument is certainly influenced by the assumed greener grass on the other side. But I just think that will be similar for most women. Maybe you’re the exception to the rule.
“Obviously I am not biologically designed to be attracted to women”
why not? Did you made a decision to be attracted to women? I think most homosexuals/bisexuals would find it rather absurd to argue that their sexuality isn’t biological but rather a cultural artefact. What do you tell the people who think they can send gay people to hetero-camp to help them “choose” a different life style? But maybe we’re just having a different understanding of “biological”.
“If they are doing it intentionally, yes.”
Good to see we agree on something
Hugo, I have a couple of questions I hope you would answer. You wrote: “It’s one of the corollaries to the myth of male weakness: if we believe that men lack the capacity for self-control, then we must outsource that self-control to women.”. By “we” do you mean men, women, society or something else?
Could you expand (or point me in direction of one) on how the corollary follows from the myth of male weakness?
“But I do assume that they enjoy it.”
As I said, you assume a helluva lot.
“Maybe you’re the exception to the rule.”
And maybe you really need to pay more attention to women when we speak if you are at all surprised that there are many women who do not find having men constantly leer at them, grope them, catcall them, force them to keep themselves covered, and possibly even sexual assault them. All things that women have to deal with as a result of men constantly sexually objectifying us.
Conjoining objectification & harassment really screws up the discussion. Here (maybe even more than anywhere else) we’re on opposite sides of a fairly large chasm, and it behooves us to look and why we each see each others’ green grass, and not the brown grass. Few, if any, people want to be harassed. Not men, not women.
There are, however, stacks and stacks of men are desperate to be objectified (this might merit some discussion of a third way, but I’ll digress for now). There are scads of men posting pictures of their penises over the internet (feel free to review the history of Wikipedia’s [[penis]] article, for instance, to watch men hope someone will want to look at a picture of their dick); Hugo talks about his own feelings this way here; I’d give the hearing in my good ear (what little there is) to be looked at way sometimes; I (more or less) spent the ages of 10 – 12 coming to terms with realising this’ll never happen (and it’s fair to say the reason I didn’t hang myself over it was that I figured it’d be unfair to my parents).
It’s very fair for women to complain about having men constantly leer at them, grope them, catcall them, force them to keep themselves covered, and possibly even sexual assault them. But this isn’t the part that Sam covets, and there’s probably no point in discussion unless these’re some separated; otherwise it’s just talking past each other.
Brian,
“otherwise it’s just talking past each other.”
Thanks. Not sure it’s just that, it seems a bit like looking for reasons to scream and shout instead of actually talking.
“Not sure it’s just that, it seems a bit like looking for reasons to scream and shout instead of actually talking.”
I can’t seem to recall anyone screaming and shouting about anything. You consistently refuse to see the average female point of view. I consistently try to explain it to you. You refuse to listen for whatever reason.
Faith, now you are assuming that you have presented an “average female point of view”. I don’t think what Sam has had to say is necessarily inapplicable there (as inapplicable as it may be to you).
I think it’s safe to say that women don’t want to be ogled. Look, folks, there isn’t a shred of inconsistency in saying: I like my body, I like feeling attractive, and I like it when people appreciate me. But even presuming a desire to be gazed at appreciatively, there is a world of difference between an appreciative glance and a penetrating gaze, and I’d say the average “woman in the street” senses the difference in a split second. And it is not unreasonable to ask human men to refrain from the penetrating gaze, ogling, catcalls, or other misbehavior. Men are not obligated to give the appreciative glance either, of course. We don’t owe anyone our desire. But we sure as hell owe them our good manners, and good manners from men towards women are never contingent upon concealment.
Oh, and Tamen, the corollary is simple. The myth says that men lack the capacity for self-control, or at least have a diminished capacity compared to women. Therefore, women are the gatekeepers, in charge of setting boundaries for men who lack the will or the ability to set them. The weaker the men, the more women are forced to regulate themselves and each other.
Hugo
Even if we think the average woman on the streets differentiates these easily, it doesn’t follow that the average man differentiates so easily. Catcalls/assaults whatever are easier to distinguish (I think; though obviously one can’t know how one is perceived.) But for an average Joe, who’s never been on the receiving end of any of this (you can argue that it occurs and he’s just not aware; doesn’t matter), it’s a very different picture. Dialogue between the starving and the force-fed ain’t easy; even establishing a common frame is hard; nevermind agreeing on whether something looks tasty.
It should be easy enough to see terms aren’t used the same way. It comes up often enough that men can’t readily distinguish between objectifying and finding aesthetically appealling. (I know I can’t). Lack of a frame of reference.
I think if we listen to women, for starters, we can figure it out. Most American men can tell the difference quickly between a threatening stare from another man that seems an invitation to rumble — and a glance over and a nod (or raised chin) that says a friendly “Whassup.” This isn’t rocket science.
Another corollary to the myth of male weakness, coming on Monday (deo volente): women are too mysterious for simple-minded dudes to figger out.
Hugo,
“Dialogue between the starving and the force-fed ain’t easy”
exactly, and if more feminists were actually serious about applying their own epistemological standards not just to *other* people, they would be forced to accept that there it’s really kind of absurd to privilege one point of view over the other, which is what constantly happens in these discussions.
“This isn’t rocket science.”
Exactly, it’s not. This is a largely academic discussion, yet given the subject, it’s hard for everyone to not switch levels of debate (ie, personal reference, general reference). But again, of course listening to women is important, just as listening to other men is important. But women also have that obligation, and – certainly in a discussion with feminists – every attempt to remind them of such a duty as people (like I did above with a reference to mututal impact) is ignored at best.
“women are too mysterious for simple-minded dudes to figger out.”
Depends on what kind of simple-mindedness you’re talking about
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4404682.stm
just sayin’
Hugo
I don’t think I’ve said any of that. It’s much easier to understand something you’ve a common frame of reference for than something you haven’t. And having someone look at me lustfully; having someone approach me for a non-platonic relationship isn’t only something I’ve never experienced, it’s something I can’t figure out how to imagine. Which, yes, fucks up my ability to empathise. That men can distinguish between the receiving end of actions they have experienced, but are bad at distinguishing between the receiving end of actions they haven’t experienced isn’t surprising, it’s to be expected. It’s generically hard to figure out things we’ve never experienced. Especially when one of the defining characteristics of our framework is the lack of that experience.
Brian, I’m a white dude who’s never been on the receiving end of racism. I can’t truly understand what it’s like to be black in this country. But that doesn’t prevent me from sympathizing with those who are victims of racism, and from carefully scrutinizing my own behavior and acculturation in order to overcome learned bigotry. And ya know, a lot of us manage not to be racists despite not having experienced the pain of racism.
The fact that the male body isn’t fetishized in the same way as the female body is may affect some men’s capacity to understand fully how women feel, but all they really need to do is sympathize and change their behavior. Women in central park don’t need us to understand the narrative of their lives, just to be cognizant of them as fellow beings and not objects. Respect doesn’t require empathy.
Hugo
All of us have been pre-judged and discriminated in some way or another For that matter, all of us have been pre-judged and discriminated against on the basis of our race, whether we’ve identified it as such successfully at the time or not. Although our experiences are different, we’ll all (or almost all, anyhow) have comparable ones, and it’s not hard to empathise. And yet we still fail, sometimes spectacularly, and at the end of the day every last one of us is racist. Including me, including you, and often (in many cases maybe always) we’re unaware of it because we’re bad at empathy (or lazy at it.)
And being rarely if ever the victim of racial discrimination simply doesn’t compare as a standing point to being the victim of sexual objectification. White people aren’t particularly keen to be discriminated against; men (at least, large numbers of men) are particularly keen to be sexually objectified (whether they’d actually enjoy it or not.) Men (large numbers of ‘em anyhow) are envious of being looked at sexually, which isn’t (remotely) represented by the male body isn’t fetishized in the same way as the female body is. Understanding someone’s displeasure with something you covet isn’t a straightforward or easy task. It isn’t a failure to see someone as a fellow being (indeed, objects exhibit strange behaviour as a matter of course and we don’t question it.), but precisely asking “How would I feel in that position?” that leads to the failure to understand, because it’s a difference of backgrounds, not a difference of roles, that leads to this.
There are a lot of unpleasant things about attracting sexual attention from men, and it should be easy enough to explain many of them. Others less so (well, it exists on a continuum, nonetheless). But failure to take a realistic perspective on mens’ likely experiences and so forth will lead to unrealistic expectations, and failure to communicate. You’re valuing rhetoric over realism; a man who fails to grasp why a topless women wouldn’t like being ogled isn’t thinking of her as an object, he’s imagining what he’d feel like if people wanted to look at him shirtless. Whether he’s right or wrong about how he’d feel.
Sorry, I screwed up closing italics on a quote.
SamSeaborn, do you honestly imagine that a woman being cautious of all men she sees on street corners when walking at home at night is equivalent to a man holding women responsible for making him horny? That maybe “some people” haven’t classed this as being so terribly important because it isn’t? Because the fellow in question is, in all likelihood, in absolutely no danger from this woman, because his objectification can hurt her even if no physical violence takes place?
That a woman who is raped or harassed or discriminated against is, in fact, all too frequently held responsible for the “impact” she had on the perpetrator simply by existing while female?
If you want the feminist crowd to admit that this is a two-way street (which the vast majority of us do, by the way, thanks for paying attention), make sure your side of the street isn’t heading straight onto Rape Apology Blvd.
Hugo: I was able to read and understand the corollary the first time. Answering the question on how the corollary follows the male weakness myth with the word “therefore” didn’t really help me understand that much.
I’ll try to ask my questions in another way:
You also said: ” It’s men’s refusal to take responsibility for their own eyes and their own actions that puts the onus on women to monitor one another”. By men’s refusal… I assume you mean refusal by referring to the male weakness myth. I can see how this might make a woman “police” herself in order to not make herself a target, but I have trouble seeing how it gains her to “police” other women (unknown to her). One could (albeit quite cynically) argue that not “policing” other women would make herself safer as the other women would act as a lightning rod for the unwanted male attention and actions.
In order for there being any point of “policing” themselves and other women the women must on some level believe in the male weakness myth. It seems to me like more women than men believe in this myth these days. This is not only my anecdotal perception, but is also evidenced by the (unsurprisingly to both you and me) way the article author were more respectfully treated by men than by women.
You seem to acknowledge that more and more men dismiss the male weakness myth (“Whatever social changes have been wrought in the past few decades have had an impact, at least in some urban areas, on men’s sense of their own responsibility and their willingness to acknowledge women’s equal right to free expression.”) while at the same time the female on female “policing” has not decreased accordingly. Or is it just lagging behind and we can expect less inter-female “policing” soon?
Faith said: “I promise you that flat-chested or not, men are not going to stop finding any individual woman attractive. A vagina is all that is necessary in order for a woman to receive sexual attraction from men.”
In my experience, a vagina does not guarantee one attracted men. (And I think flat-chestedness is far from the worst romantic handicap a woman can have.)
I (and many women I know) find men’s chests, legs (ooh thighs!), arms, necks (especially the back), and even the right pair of feet, very, very sexual in a nonsepecific and scietifically unproven way.
I find even badly looked after examples of these body parts arousing on the right man – so should it then follow that men should keep these areas covered in order to avoid provoking uncontrollable reactions from woman kind which would disrupt day to day life? No! we control ourselves, it’s usually (in my experience) second nature, because our responses are our responsibility…
I don’t read Nerve.com, but I looked it up and found this on the Business Week website:
[i]
Nerve.com Hires New CEO, Cites New Plans To Downplay Nudity
Posted by: Jon Fine on April 22 [2009]
Nerve.com, the long-running erotica site that originally billed itself as a purveyor of “literate smut”, has a new CEO and a new notion to tame some of its wilder impulses and position itself as a broader lifestyle play.
Nerve “is going to be a smart [online] magazine that covers sex, dating, relationships, entertainment and all things of interest for a growing readership” of single adults, says new CEO Sean Mills…
[/i]
What this seems to show is that Nerve.com is an advertising-supported site that tries to attract readers with sexually-charged writing. And what pumps up the sexual level in every context? Female flesh! It’s a ploy well known to advertisers everywhere. And if they’re reducing the actual nudity, then I’m sure they’re on the alert for ways to write about it, and this piece fits perfectly.
If I could ask Meghan Pleitcha a question, it would be whether she’d ever have contemplated doing her topless stunt if she hadn’t been commissioned to do it and then write about it for Nerve.com, or with the intention of writing about it and getting paid for it. In other words, was this liberation or the chance to make a few bucks?
Anyway, regardless of how the article was created, let’s accept that the topic is worth talking about. But as a mere male with some pornography consumption in my past (as which of us hasn’t?) this is what I have to call “poisoned ground”. I can’t talk about this topic and trust myself, and I don’t think any other man can be trusted either. All I can say is if women want to go topless, they shouldn’t go to jail for it, but this is one thing I think we should leave strictly as women’s business. As for women disapproving more openly than men do, that might be true under some circumstances, but let roaming gangs of young men get involved and I think a woman would cover up pretty promptly. Just by the way, there are Internet sites displaying pictures surreptitiously taken on topless beaches. I doubt if many people would be shocked to hear that.
I just saw a posting on a woman’s blog about how she took part in a project at her college, designed to help improve women’s body image. It involved photography, optionally nude, though without faces being shown. She said that in retrospect it wasn’t satisfying, and one of the comments on the blog was the Audre Lord quote: “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” The blogger liked that, and so do I. Putting women’s bodies on display is an aspect of patriarchy, and putting more bodies on display, whatever the intention, isn’t an antidote to patriarchy. Now, if we could find some way to show women’s and men’s images with some sort of equivalence, or some sort of balance which would represent each as having the same dignity or the same value, or even the same erotic power, then maybe we’d be making progress. But more female bodies on view, or written about as being on view? That doesn’t seem like progress: we’ve been doing it for centuries.
John, you write as if women invariably go topless in order to display; as if the primary goal is to appeal or interest a viewer. Sometimes, my friend, it’s about getting a better tan. It’s incredibly patronizing to assume that a woman who wants to sunbathe in the park is “putting her body on display” — it centers the males watching her, not her own agency.
And you’re right about the threat men pose to women — not just women who show skin, but all women. It’s our job to end that threat, through a cultural shift and. when necessary, the coercive power of more effective policing; a zero-tolerance policy for harassment can diminish, if not entirely end, the danger. Above all, we are capable of reframing our sexuality so that we are not automatically aroused by the mere sight of naked skin. It’s really much less difficult than the pop evo-bio peddlers would have us believe.
Oh dear. I guess somebody had better tell the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival that they’d better tell all the attendees to cover up. After all, walking around nude supports the patriarchy.
Above all, we are capable of reframing our sexuality so that we are not automatically aroused by the mere sight of naked skin.
Probably. Why would we want to?
Not that I’d try to stop you if YOU wanted to. I’m just wondering why I would.
I try to keep the word “patronizing” out of my vocabulary, as all too often it seems to be used to raise quibbles about the way a person says something, while avoiding coming to grips with what they actually said.
If they actually said it, that is! When I used the word “display” in my posting, it was when I said there are voyeur-oriented websites that “display” pictures taken on beaches, and twice more where I was talking about what’s “displayed” in a photo exhibit. Never at all when I was talking about what women themselves might do, to get a tan or for any other reason! Now I’m puzzled about whether you’ve misread what I said, or if you’re responding to something from someone else.
As for what I did say about women going topless, I said I wished it could be left as “women’s business”. There are going to be men who’ll exploit it (those voyeur websites are definitely there), and there are people of both genders who are sure to disapprove. But what an individual woman does is her decision, and as I really did say, I see this as an area where male credibility amounts to zero.
Regarding the Womyn’s Music Festival, there’s a fine example of “the exception that proves the rule”! Once women know that there won’t be nasty men peeping, some of them may positively revel in going around naked or partly naked. In a world where men are often aggressive toward women, this whole issue of exposure of the female body has become entirely toxic. But what women do when it’s women’s business–that’s up to women.
Hugo,
“Above all, we are capable of reframing our sexuality so that we are not automatically aroused by the mere sight of naked skin”
De-sensitization will probably reduce the effect. But, as Robert said, why? This is part of my sexuality. I enjoy the view. I don’t want to not enjoy the view. It’s not my responsibility to not want to enjoy the view. It’s my responsibility to ensure I don’t act without the realm of common decency, even when I’m aroused.
“It’s really much less difficult than the pop evo-bio peddlers would have us believe.”
You know, using disrespectful language doesn’t entirely cover up the lack of proof for your hypothesis. I believe you that you think that’s the case. I do. But that also doesn’t make it true. Just as my saying the opposite wouldn’t make my statement true.
Sam, you know proving a negative is nearly impossible. Read McGaughey, please.
And no one’s talking about never being aroused. But arousal is partly involuntary, partly voluntary; we can redirect our arousal when it seems likely to trouble us — or, perhaps more vitally, when our arousal becomes an obstacle to dealing with another human being without ogling, being tongue-tied, and so forth. We have every right to be aroused, of course. But we never have the right to make our arousal another person’s problem to solve.
John, I actually agree with your second post. I just dislike the two poles that women so often are caught between – you can refuse to be a sex toy and then you’re an uptight, frigid bitch, or you can be sexual and be a whore.
“Above all, we are capable of reframing our sexuality so that we are not automatically aroused by the mere sight of naked skin.
Probably. Why would we want to?”
I have previously read about the topless in New York article before and the thing that went through my mind was that if men are desensitised to breasts, there is increasingly less and less a women can keep “sacred and special” for the right person. As an Australian woman with strong feminists views I have to admit I don’t support this one. I think in Western culture, this desensitisation is already half done. Men have gotten so used to seeing portrayal’s of ‘attractive’ women’s body’s on the media that women are having to show more and more of their bodies in order to be considered attractive and not a ‘prude’. I strongly support the ability to go topless in certain situations, such as the beach for example, but is it really that important to have that right in the middle of a city, albeit one that is very cold. (Admittedly, I don’t know much about New York weather, but I have heard it is very cold).
I am strongly outraged at the opression of women in totalitarian societies (such as the Sudanese woman example) and I in no way whatsoever wish for a return to the social beliefs and laws of 100 years ago. However, I think there is one thing positive that was present in our conservative past that is not today. The past “closeting” of women and men meant that when there was sexual interaction, the body of the opposite sex was considered magical and beautiful. In some ways this is preserved for men in regard to their penises.
Teenage girls and young women who have managed to grow up relatively porn-free have little understanding of what the average penis looks like. So when they do have to come have their first sexual experience, they don’t consider their partner ‘too big’ or ‘too small’ as they have nothing too compare it too, they appreciate it and their partner for who they are, without being overshadowed by comparison.
In my opinion, this has largely been lost to women. A teenage boy would have to be a morman to not grow up without seeing naked images of the female body. Particularly in regards to breasts, which are plastered pretty much everywhere you look. Thus they are likely to enter their first sexual experience with a knowledge of what breasts “should” look like (big, round and perky) and what vaginas “should” look like (largely hair-free)thus they compare their partners body to the ideal and thus their partner’s body is not magical and beautiful in it’s own right. But anyway, I am straying from my point.
My point is, as James pointed out, do we really want to become desensitised to each other’s body? I think that may be one of the reasons sex is so trivialised in todays society and one of the many things contributing towards modern cynisism. We have largely lost the childhood wonder that used to be maintained as we gain more and more understanding and less suprise by our world. Isn’t wondering about the mysterious, half the pleasure in life as well as sex?
“I love women. I love everything about women.” – Amen to you Faith
I simply thought it was all about skin. Ankle, breast, calf, thigh, nape, lip, foot, lower back, hollow at the back of the knee, armpit, shoulder – et al. Not so sure any of these would be of general to fetish appeal to us masses if covered in slimy fish-scales, or noxious and fetid, oozing abscesses, (OTT?) – not-with-standing the extra-ordinary fetishes of our more “imaginative†(?) brethren.
Personal responsibility for our own urges and drives, is a must. But whilst Cro-Magnon still lurks amongst us, (female as well as male version), perhaps there we have a duty to exercise a little responsibility to each other in this regard? So for now public nudity – even as simple as a bare-chested woman may still require an “appropriate†location – which of course may suck, purely from a lack of personal decision?
In any case as I am “Male and therefore the hunter”, – I’ll be off to the pub for a drink and a chin-wag with my mates, whilst my feminine side takes some quieter reflection in the background, silently finger-wagging me. I feel a hang-over coming…
Cheers, Gareth
“In any case as I am “Male and therefore the hunterâ€, – I’ll be off to the pub for a drink and a chin-wag with my mates, whilst my feminine side takes some quieter reflection in the background, silently finger-wagging me. I feel a hang-over coming…”
That’s great. Except for the fact that I have learned to not associate with any man who would say “I am Male and therefore hunter” and learned to avoid men who try to argue that women should exercise responsibility for the fact that a good number of men act like neanderthals (Hey, I thought feminists were the ones who thought men are inherently uncontrollable beasts?). Really, if that’s your viewpoint, I can’t imagine that I have any real reason to speak to you. So, please, do not address me in the future unless you enjoy being ignored.
Laura, in societies where women go around topless all the time, they somehow manage to find the opposite sex alluring.
I also really don’t get your logic on the value of ignorance. Do you also believe that women should be kept in the dark about any kind of sexual education at all, including the notion that women have orgasms? That way, if their lover turns out to be awful in bed, they won’t have anything negative harshing on their love, because they won’t know any better.
“The past “closeting†of women and men meant that when there was sexual interaction, the body of the opposite sex was considered magical and beautiful. In some ways this is preserved for men in regard to their penises.”
Funny. I’ve seen lots of naked bodies. I still very much consider the body of both genders to be magical and beautiful. It is precisely because of my adoration for humans that I have no objections to seeing them unclothed in public venues for non-commercial purposes.
“In my opinion, this has largely been lost to women. A teenage boy would have to be a morman to not grow up without seeing naked images of the female body. Particularly in regards to breasts, which are plastered pretty much everywhere you look.”
The problem is not that teenage boys have seen too many breasts. The problem is that they have been shown breasts in images that are intended to degrade and objectify women. I sincerely believe that one of the biggest problems in these discussions is that people do not seem to be able to grasp the difference between sexual attraction and sexual objectification. Not to mention that so many people seem to be operating under the illusion that the body is always sexual to some degree or another. Which is a total crock. The body only becomes sexual when it is intentionally and willfully sexualized.
Admittedly, I don’t know much about New York weather, but I have heard it is very cold
I grew up in the suburbs of New York City. It’s very cold in the winter, and hot and muggy in the summer. Generally people aren’t interested in going to the beach, let alone being topless at the beach, in the middle of a New York City winter. But summer’s an entirely different story.
Teenage girls and young women who have managed to grow up relatively porn-free have little understanding of what the average penis looks like. So when they do have to come have their first sexual experience, they don’t consider their partner ‘too big’ or ‘too small’ as they have nothing too compare it too
Actually, since the only photographs of penises I saw before having sex were rather clinical ones that weren’t taken in a fashion that allowed me the opportunity to judge their size, I came to my first sexual experiences with some knowledge of what the average penis looked like, but little understanding of how big I could expect it to look. However, like most women, I still wound up sleeping with more than one man on the way to getting married, so I still have a distinct memory of who was big and who was less so. There’s a limit to how much ignorance you can get from not looking at porn. (Conversely, there’s a severe limit to how much realistic knowledge you can get from looking at porn, but that’s another story.)
wow Faith, I am summarily despatched?
“Really, if that’s your viewpoint, I can’t imagine that I have any real reason to speak to you.”
And were it not – what then your imagination?
My sincerest apologies to you for what was intended to be a lampoonist comment on my role as a male biological machine in the closing paragraph. It is a common enough societal perception, but perhaps I lack a finer understanding of satire. In any case I should hope my external appearance remains just that, a cover – (as in book, not Cold War).
“(Hey, I thought feminists were the ones who thought men are inherently uncontrollable beasts?).â€
No, I did not express a personal thought that men are inherently uncontrollable beasts. I actually inferred that degeneration is hardly an exclusively male trait – (all meanings of trait applied). I wrote, “Cro-Magnon still lurks amongst us, (female as well as male version)…â€
We could tear this apart I am sure – (but why?). And possibly argue those incarcerated male criminals whose life-purpose is rendered to another’s object of sexual gratification? So how should I identify the Male Inherently Uncontrollable Beast in a female prison scenario?
“…men who try to argue that women should exercise responsibility for the fact that a good number of men act like neanderthals…â€
That I opined any woman be considered responsible for mine or any other male or female’s base actions – (is an odd interpretation of my statement, “Personal responsibility for our own urges and drives, is a must.â€
That I further query whether personal responsibility be extended to include dodgy folk who pass through my world, “perhaps there we have a duty to exercise a little responsibility to each other in this regard?â€, (my words) – should not detract from the basic tenet as stated above. I should understand you better had I used words such as guilt and blame.
I am oft ignored Faith, so no worries – your choice. You may still wish to ignore me, but then how, should I exercise my responsibility to learn to interact with a better world which should include us both.
I am still in agreement by the way. “I love women. I love everything about women.â€
Peace please Faith.
Way back yonder, I mentioned looking up info about Nerve.com and concluding that just maybe, it was a place to get your fetishes gently tickled for the benefit of advertisers, rather than a place for serious discussion of social issues. Just this morning I found this in our host’s attic, a piece of writing from 2004 (the topic at the time was America’s sweetheart, Britney Spears):
> …Nerve, which seems to be a “hipper than thou” dating site for
> sexually aware urban 20-somethings…
Not that this makes everything that’s said there become trivial. In fact, maybe it’s the frivolous stuff that shows what really motivates people. But do I think the author’s stunt in Central Park was a made-for-journalism event, with little connection to ordinary people’s lives? Yes, I do think that.
In fact, sorry to be obnoxious, but it’s really interesting to compare everything in the 2004 article to the most recent posting. See here:
http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/2004/11/every_once_in_a.html
John, as I’ve written many times, my posts from 2004 and early 2005 reflected my struggle to let go of my deep immersion in conservative evangelicalism. I am in a different place in 2009 than I was then.
Teenage girls and young women who have managed to grow up relatively porn-free have little understanding of what the average penis looks like. So when they do have to come have their first sexual experience, they don’t consider their partner ‘too big’ or ‘too small’ as they have nothing too compare it too, they appreciate it and their partner for who they are, without being overshadowed by comparison.
Yes, because girls are curiosity-free space aliens who would never rifle through anatomy and art history textbooks in search of enlightenment, and in any case are incapable of forming distinct sexual preferences without the helpful assistance of pornography. And girls never masturbate, so they would have no clue in the world about what might be too large for comfort or too small for pleasure. Come on. You can make your points without making girls and women out to be wide-eyed monsters of ignorant naivete.
Not to mention that in your very next paragraph you point out, correctly, that boys and men don’t know what the average female body looks like, because the represented parts they’re exposed to are so heavily modified by cosmetics, surgery, and photoshop. Knowing what “the average penis” looks like is actually an extremely helpful thing for heterosexual girls to know, and knowing what the average breast or vulva looks like would be even more helpful for hetero boys to know, considering the active misinformation pornography and culture gives them.
I didn’t reread the whole post because I’m about to leave work:), but I don’t think it’s inconsistent. In the previous post, he’s not arguing that woman should cover up, he’s saying that starlets/singers displaying their bodies isn’t empowering. In this post, he’s saying that the rest of us should be legally allowed to take off our tops when it’s hot, if we want to. Or maybe I’m way off, but that was my take.
Hugo,
“But arousal is partly involuntary, partly voluntary;”
agreed.
“We have every right to be aroused, of course. But we never have the right to make our arousal another person’s problem to solve.”
I think we could work that one into a categorical imperative. BUT we’d still disagree about what actually counts as a problem and what not.
Pingback: Spring Skin at Jezebel at Hugo Schwyzer