Clarisse Thorn, an occasional commenter here, is a marvelous Chicago-based “sex-positive” feminist with an eponymous blog. She’s written a great deal on BDSM, feminism and consent; recently, she’s turned her attention to male sexuality, particularly the ways in which we pathologize male sexuality. She has an interesting piece up at Alternet today: Why Do We Demonize Men Who Are Honest About Their Sexual Needs?
Many of us women go through our daily lives fending off unwanted male attention; most of us have worried about being attacked by men. If I stroll down a city street or take public transit alone, I can count on being approached by men I don’t want to talk to. If I walk home after dark, I can’t help fearing assault — so much so that if a man or group of men come near me on the street, I feel my heart lodge firmly in my throat until they pass.
So it’s completely understandable that we’re all on high alert for predatory expressions of male sexuality.
The pressure put on men to be initiators, yet avoid seeming creepy or aggressive leads to an unpleasant double bind. After all, the same gross cultural pressures that make women into objects force men into instigators; how many women do you know who proposed to their husbands?
So how can a man express his sexual needs without being tarred as a creep?
I shy away from using the phrase “sexual needs”, as it’s loaded with expectation and entitlement. “Sexual desires” is more felicitious, and less presumptuous. (I ought to blog about that distinction when I have more time. Perhaps next week?)
But vocabulary aside, Clarisse Thorn asks — and answers — some good questions. Check out the whole post, and comment there or here.
Thanks for the link, Hugo!
AlterNet comments are reliably awful, so I personally am actually much more likely to see a comment if it appears here. Not to prevent anyone from commenting there, of course.
The point about “sexual needs” is interesting. You and I have previously discussed that we have different opinions about how much of sexuality is built-in, innate, an “orientation”, and how much of sexuality is fluid. You tend to think that sexuality is a lot more fluid and changeable than I do. That’s probably why I used the phrase “sexual needs” without thinking about it.
At the same time, I appreciate what you’re saying. I think the phrase “sexual needs” is especially powerful when a person uses it to permission themselves to engage in consensual and harmless sex (I get into this a little bit in my post on BDSM as a sexual orientation). I agree that it could become a vehicle for entitlement, though, particularly in a context in which there are already lots of social expectations that people “should” engage in certain kinds of sex, like normative heterosexual relationships.
“Sexual needs” sound like a dreary chore, is my main objection to the term.
Thanks also for the link Hugo. I’m not sure what to do with it, but Clarisse Thorn makes a number of interesting points.
“I shy away from using the phrase “sexual needsâ€, as it’s loaded with expectation and entitlement.”
I don’t see what is so bad about expectation, as long as one doesn’t imagine that anything has oo come of it. And I certainly don’t see how stating or even having a need entails any kind of entitlement.
Hunger is a need for food. It certainly is not an entitlement to food – bringing a harvest in and standing guard over it so it doesn’t get stolen is an entitlement to food. Everything else is either trade or begging.
She makes some really good points that call into question a lot of the discourse around “rape culture” and pornography.
Stating that something is a “need” is a claim on those who have been socialized to believe that their value and worth is tied to meeting those needs (heterosexual women, for starters.)
We acculturate women to believe that male desire (at least, the desires of a male with whom they are in some sort of relationship, like a boss or a brother or a father or a fiancé) is female obligation.
What I think Thorn is missing is that the ‘creep’ (and I do believe her original suitor, as her instincts told her, was a creep) describe their desires not in terms of what they want, but what they are owed or deserve. They project their desires onto others. A guy who wants to do X (BDSM, intercourse, whatever) and says “I enjoy X” or “I’d really like to do X with you” is expressing his desires. The guy who says “You really want X, baby” is pulling the other person into his fantasy; she’s a prop, not a participant, and she’s not receiving an invitation to play so much as a casting call in that long-running play “All About Me”.
I’m also a little disappointed in the vagueness of “we”. The article doesn’t separate tired cultural tropes about men (e.g. ‘they’re always horny’) from male gender policing (it’s other men, not female SOs, who you brag to about ‘scoring’). Who “we” is very much circumstantial.
Excellent, mythago, thank you.
Yes, I’ll side with mythago too. But I have to politely disagree with Jim. Yes, there’s how it is and how it ought to be. But then there are those pesky statements that mean one thing according to Webster’s and quite another according to popular understanding.
When somebody goes to a soup kitchen and says I need food, odds are good that he’ll encounter more than a few people that studied Maslow and view the lower 2 tiers of his Needs Heirarchy as basic human rights. I need food then becomes I’m entitled to food.
I’ve never heard a man say “I need sex” and mean it without any connotations whatsoever. “I need sex”, or more appropriately, “I need you” is not the same as “the sky is blue”. “So go jerk off” is not the answer the guy is looking for. He expects to get some with that line.
I do wish men would be a little more direct with me, though. No cussing, nothing that reminds me of Hannibal Lecter’s cellmates, no lies about “needs”, just an invitation for coffee or something. I lost a little hottie who asked me for change at the bus stop once because the age gap was messing with the way I read his signals. About the point in the conversation where I expected him to call me ma’am or something, he put his nose next to my armpit and told me I smelled like baby powder. Imagine my surprise! I think my stunned warrior princess face scared him because he ran. And I missed my chance because he wasn’t obvious enough, and then he was a little too obvious. Bummer
I would have liked to cheer him up.
I always preferred to initiate any kind of romantic or sexual contact and then let the man respond if he wanted to. The whole idea of women sitting there waiting to be approached is completely alien to me.
I don’t think there is any need to feel sorry for men who find it oh so hard to express their sexual needs when it’s women who often find it completely impossible to voice their needs even in long-term stable relationships, let alone in a bar or in the street. I really think it’s time for women to stop worrying about what men want, desire or need and whether they are comfortable enough to express their desires and needs. We should start thinking about ourselves already. Of course, these attempts at infantilizing men make women feel empowered to a degree. But they are counter-productive and useless. After worrying their heads off about how complicated it is for men to do this and that, many women then start complaining about men being unable to be emotional, honest and commit.
I’m a bit surprised to see the title of this post, because as I see it the idea that male desire is pathologized is a basically anti-feminist trope. In a patriarchal culture, no line is admitted between “male desire” and “male entitlement to have that desire fulfilled” (as long as that desire falls within certain bounds, e.g. it’s not desire for sex with another man). Feminism and other woman-originating discourses point out that male entitlement is pathological. But defenders of the patriarchy can’t separate desire from entitlement, so they accuse critics of entitlement of pathologizing desire. Clarisse Thorn tries to make this alleged pathologization of male desire a feminist concern by not blaming feminism for it (as most proponents of the idea would), but it still strikes me as accepting an anti-feminist framing.
I don’t see anything in Clarisse’s article that gives any evidence that male desire is pathologized in our culture. That some men feel their desire is pathologized is no evidence, since that can easily be explained as originating in a failure (or refusal) to separate desire from entitlement. And I think she’s being too generous to the two men she claims were unfairly labeled creeps — in both cases, “creep” was a criticism of their entitlement, not their desire. In both cases, a man took a woman’s discussion of her struggles with sexual desire/identity as an invitation to tell her about his own sexuality. That shows a clear expression of entitlement to make the situation about him and what he wants. Sure, the second guy never explicitly propositioned the woman, and since I wasn’t there I’ll take his word for it that his intentions were innocent. But he has a responsibility to know how the culture will lead his remarks to be construed given the context just as much as he has a responsibility to know how the culture defines the individual words he uses.
“I always preferred to initiate any kind of romantic or sexual contact and then let the man respond if he wanted to. The whole idea of women sitting there waiting to be approached is completely alien to me.”
Yup, me too…the funny thing is, those same guys who are complaining about having to make the first move, always turned me down…and I’m not talking about the flirty hinting here..I’m talking right out ask on a date, problem is, while I was asking them, they were eyeballing the “hottie” they wished were pursuing them…men often say one thing, yet mean another…the same thing they accuse women of doing…
I do agree that Clarisse oversells the struggle that men are facing here. I link to it because I think it raises important points, points I’ve touched on before, particularly in my post about my Brown University talk a year ago: http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/09/25/lust-and-humanity-desire-and-dignity-some-thoughts-on-an-all-male-consent-day-workshop/
Regarding that Brown University talk…I often talk to my nephews about their sexual experiences, as they openly share…but I’m less willing to offer my criticism in fear of being seen as a hate monger…The last thing I want is my nephews feeling unable to share just because a woman is in the room, but it presents problems if I am unable to question their views on their sexuality and whether or not they are socially constructed, or their own true feelings on the matter.
One conversation didn’t revolve around their sexual activities, but the sexual activities of a woman dating my other nephew (who was not present). This woman had previously been in an adult movie, and was so horrified by the situation that she never went back to it…the boys present were calling her names like slut, whore, etc… I was very irritated and asked them why can’t she have just made a mistake in her life choices, why does she have to be a whore? The obvious answer was because she was in an adult film, as they told me…(circular reasoning) I tried to point this out, but to no avail. I asked if she was such a whore why doesn’t she still do it…got no answer, I replied that she was very open about it being a bad experience for her, why would someone open up about such a horrible experience if it was something she was proud of…they honestly thought she was just trying to garner attention…by this point I was steaming mad…I said seriously??? seriously??? If she wanted to garner attention she could just flash her body around..wouldn’t that make more sense than to open up about a vulnerable situation, in which she opens herself up to be mocked by jackasses like you, do you honestly think your ideas about her are original, that she doesn’t face it on a daily basis with people who know her past?
I couldn’t listen anymore…I just shut off and went outside to smoke and blow some steam so I didn’t close off all communication for the future…it was incredibly appalling, and still all this time I was worried about how it might affect them…because I know they aren’t meaning to be asshats and trying to keep communication open with men is like walking on eggshells…if you can take criticism on your views without feeling like the person “must hate you”, then you will be safe to share…if you can accept that your views may be less of “you” than you think, you are able to be open about communication…views can change, and you evolve with them…there is no need to think just because someone dislikes your views that you are an abhorrent piece of doo doo, that is unless you are unwilling to change said views…yes in that case, you are an asshat.
Kristina brings up some good points about women who initiate sex. When I told the story about the hottie at the bus stop, I was by no means standing around like some wilting flower waiting to be plucked. That’s not my style at all. Flirting with strangers is a delicate process, like street vending. A lady first needs to know that she won’t end up in a wood chipper. “What do you do?” doesn’t necessarily mean “You’d better have a net worth of $1 million +”, It means “If somebody trusts you enough to work in such and such a field, you’re getting closer to convincing me that it’s ok to let you see me naked.”
So few men understand that partner screening is just like a job interview. Would these creeps who go around telling women that they want to sniff cunt because they know she wants it do the equivalent to a potential employer? “Yeah, baby, I’m gonna fuck up all your computers and come on your hard copy and you’re gonna pay me $100k…I know you want it, whore…” Hardly.
But many do treat women who are too candid about sex as if they’re doormats, especially at my age. Still being single at 38 is instant stigma. It doesn’t bother me, but it does leave me slightly more open to predators who perceive me as somehow more “vulnerable”, and therefore easier to fuck over without consequences. Some also consider me to be pathetic and creepy for hitting on twenty somethings at my age, and I don’t have time to undo damage done by vicious gossip parties. So IF I see a young thing sparkling at me, I make sure my “kind matron hat” is affixed firmly where it’s supposed to be. We’ll tapdance a little and he’ll let me know if he has a MILF fettish.
First, love mythago’s response (and plan on stealing “casting call for the long-running play, “All About Me” at my earliest opportunity, LOL!!!).
Maybe I haven’t been around long enough, but where are men’s sexual needs being demonized? Hell, at least men get to express that they have sexual needs without being pilloried as sluts. Maude forbid a woman publically admit that she really, really enjoys sex (much less admits to anything kinky) without having it be an invitation for disrespect. (and can Exhibit A that heterosexual male desire is not demonized be: the ubiquity of tits and ass in advertising—even for products that have nothing to do with sex?)
Clarisse, I live downstate, and I don’t know how often you drive down I-55, but trust when I say that there’s a whole lot of virgin-whore dichotomy down here—and that’s regardless of religious affliliation, background, or lack thereof. Atheist men down here are just as likely to have an ambivalance toward their own sexual desires (if outside some fictionalized, sanitized “norm”) or strong sexual desire in women, as the very religious.
In fact, now that I think about it, the one common factor that all the guys I’ve ever thought of as “creepy”, who didn’t necessarily trip my “physically dangerous” buttons—is that perceived ambivalence about sex.
“In both cases, a man took a woman’s discussion of her struggles with sexual desire/identity as an invitation to tell her about his own sexuality. That shows a clear expression of entitlement to make the situation about him and what he wants.”
This is a good example of the pathologizing Clarisse mentioned. It is common for people listening to others talk about their experiences to offer their own. This is an immediate method of finding common ground. But if we immediately label any man sharing his experiences as expressing entitlement, we conflate desire with entitlement and imply that there is no valid, positive expression of male sexual desire. Obviously that notion works with feminist theories about male desire, but it does not really help the men who want to talk about their experiences and want to be listened to. Instead, it sends the message that men are creeps just for talking about their experiences. That is a very negative starting point, and it is also quite dismissive of men’s feelings about their sexual identity.
Mythago, I’m confused. You write:
They project their desires onto others. A guy who wants to do X (BDSM, intercourse, whatever) and says “I enjoy X†or “I’d really like to do X with you†is expressing his desires. The guy who says “You really want X, baby†is pulling the other person into his fantasy; she’s a prop, not a participant, and she’s not receiving an invitation to play so much as a casting call in that long-running play “All About Meâ€.
But in my article, the guy who emailed me did the first thing, not the second. The thing you say is not creepy. I explicitly point out that he didn’t tell me what I wanted and did not email me with something like “Hey bitch, you know what you’re there for.” Yet you say he was creepy. ?
@Stentor, In both cases, a man took a woman’s discussion of her struggles with sexual desire/identity as an invitation to tell her about his own sexuality.
I do this all the time. When people are talking about their struggles with sexual desire/identity, I offer my perspective. Does this make me a creep? When people are talking about their struggles with, say, cooking cake, I will also jump in with my cake-baking experiences. You say that this is “a clear expression of entitlement” but I don’t really see why it should be seen that way, rather than as an honorable attempt to share experiences. And it seems unfair that men, as you suggest, should be expected to repress any talk about their sexuality just because there’s a history of male entitlement in the world.
@La Lubu, Clarisse, I live downstate, and I don’t know how often you drive down I-55, but trust when I say that there’s a whole lot of virgin-whore dichotomy down here—and that’s regardless of religious affliliation, background, or lack thereof.
America is a big place and I’ve spent most of my time in cities. I’m totally willing to buy that it’s a totally different story outside cities, or in non-liberal culture, etc.
I’m frustrated by some of the comments that imply that because feminism is about women, we can’t or shouldn’t think about these other topics. Yes there’s lots to be done helping women in the world, and I just got back from a year in Africa doing exactly that. But feminists, because we’ve got so much experience talking about gender, are (in many situations, like most colleges) effectively the gatekeepers on conversations about men and masculinity. I would never say that “female privilege” is a huge and sinister phenomenon the way MRAs think about it, but I do think it’s worth considering that women/feminists seem to have social license and societal training to articulate our feelings about gender and sex in ways that men do not. I don’t think it costs us anything to include male perspectives or to honor male experiences in those conversations, and in exchange it will make more men more willing to talk and listen to us.
P.S. Because there’s no email notification about comments here it might take me a while to respond to the thread when new stuff is posted. Sorry!
Clarisse, for more clarity….I live in an urban area, not rural (albeit not as large as Chicago), and Illinois as a whole is a “blue” state. People downstate are actually pretty socially liberal, and many times politically liberal. But sexually liberal? Not so much. I don’t ascribe that to any difference in mindset between downstate and Chicago, but merely to the relative anonymity a very large city offers. Here, where there’s less than 200,000 people, anonymity isn’t an option (as opposed to the Chicago metro area of damn near 10 million).
I’m not kidding. Anonymity provides a stepping-stone for exploration that can (but doesn’t always) lead to a greater openness and acceptance of one’s own sexuality and that of others. Having that hedge against say, being fired because your employer has a problem with the type of sex you’re having (bisexuality, homosexuality, BDSM, oral sex, anal sex, whatever) means a lot. And frankly, is one of the reasons people move to large cities despite the financial strain of living in one.
Just…I want to make clear that people who are socio-politically liberal are by no means necessarily sexually liberated. Many of the same men that are aggrieved at being assumed “creepy” for their expressions of sexual desire still aren’t ready for the same level of openly-expressed sexual desire from women. Or, they are conditionally—meaning, they want the option of slamming our desires safely behind the bedroom door, not acknowledging them in public. They want to be the agents of, as well as the objects of, our desires. Pulling the strings while we perform sexual puppetry. If we challenge that control, that’s when we become “sluts”—it’s all about who gets to control female sexuality.
“meaning, they want the option of slamming our desires safely behind the bedroom door, not acknowledging them in public.”
Like the saying goes??? Lady in the street, freak in the bedroom?
I’m frustrated by your choice to argue dishonestly and pretend that what you infer is what others actually implied.
“I’m frustrated by some of the comments that imply that because feminism is about women, we can’t or shouldn’t think about these other topics.”
How is that incorrect? Feminism is about women. As in, not about men. As in, men already have the entire world at their feet and considering the impact of improving the conditions of women is anti-feminist. Period.
@mythago, I’m frustrated by your choice to argue dishonestly and pretend that what you infer is what others actually implied.
If I offended you, I didn’t mean to, and I’m sorry. Could you please be more specific? I am trying to ask honest questions and have an honest conversation, but I feel that I, too, am being hugely and frequently misinterpreted based on others’ inferences. Including by comments that accuse me of arguing dishonestly and pretending that I’m inferring away from what others actually implied.
Can we start over? I felt that you took some liberties by co-opting part of my narrative in a way that I disagreed with, and that frustrated me. It distracted me from your point, which on another read-over I do agree with. Perhaps where we disagree is not on whether it’s unacceptable to assume sexual desires on the part of others, but on where the line is between the language of doing that and the honest expression of one’s own desire.
@La Lubu, Many of the same men that are aggrieved at being assumed “creepy†for their expressions of sexual desire still aren’t ready for the same level of openly-expressed sexual desire from women. Or, they are conditionally—meaning, they want the option of slamming our desires safely behind the bedroom door, not acknowledging them in public. They want to be the agents of, as well as the objects of, our desires. Pulling the strings while we perform sexual puppetry.
I think this is a fair and reasonable point, and I agree. I don’t want to enable men controlling women or further masculine control of female sexuality. But I do want to enable straightforward conversation about male sexuality. I don’t think this is a bad thing, because I think we live in a world in which a very specific stereotype of male sexuality is dominant, but the reality and variety of male sexuality is often elided. I think that if more men feel encouraged to discuss that, then they’ll be more likely to have mutual awesome sexual experiences with women, not less.
So maybe this is another where’s-the-line disagreement.
I think this mis-states our cultural relationship with sex. We don’t just hate sex, we also love it; we are horrified by it and it thrilled by it, we can’t get enough of it, but we do everything we can to lock it up, surround it with taboo. We sensationalize sex in all its forms while also (sometimes literally, sometimes metaphorically) slapping people’s hands away. The dynamic identified – of treating male desire as simultaneously pathological and necessary – reflects that deep ambivalence.
We’re still having the Victorian conversation about sexuality. Sex is the male domain, love the female one. We’re still living out separate spheres – to borrow a phrase women are connected with a world of love and ritual, men with action. Women are warned again and again to fear male sexuality, to believe it must be contained and they must do the containing. Men are told to be active, to pursue and seduce. The boundaries we set by default create the violations of those boundaries. If men can’t safely and openly discuss sexual desire, then there will always be those who deliberately cross those boundaries in the most offensive ways possible but also men who find creative ways to violate the boundaries that ultimately get them what they want; this second kind is the standard pickup artist schtick that you know is fake but somehow works often enough to keep being used (Clarissa your link to a discussion of the dynamic provided some interesting reading). The pressure to act (that Hugo has talked about in terms of the male body as a performance machine) underlies much of that insecurity. These socially inexpert men think they have to do all the work and they can barely order dinner at the drive through so they turn to the Pick Up Artist routine.


Some of your critique here echoes what authors like Katie Roiphe and Rene Denfield were saying a few years ago – we should neither pathologize male desire nor should we hobble female desire. I hesitate to use the term “empower” but that’s exactly what I’m talking about (I hesitate because there was a contretemps about this recently here at Hugo’s place). If I were to use the language of Our Whole Lives education, I’d say we’re talking about self worth, responsibility, sexual health and justice and inclusivity. Part of self worth is knowing and accepting yourself as a sexual being, part of responsibility is owning your mistakes. One of Roiphe’s primary criticisms in her early writing was the apparent willingness of too many authors to see male sexuality as nothing but “creep” and female sexuality as entirely passive.
I think there’s a similar call for sexual honesty in Clarissa’s article. Let’s not act on stereotypes of one another’s sexuality, let’s act on a more real world view.
Finally I just want to say how much I appreciate the line:
“Male sexuality should be approached from the concept of pleasure rather than accomplishment,”
That’s such a powerful concept – and for a lot of gay men that is a huge source of personal liberation – sex becomes a source of pleasure and personal expression of joy and happiness.
Glenden, thanks for the feedback. My name is actually Clarisse though, not Clarissa. (this is especially important here because there’s another commenter named Clarissa)
Clarisse – sorry I will get your name correct in the future. I’ve had Clarissa (the novel) in my brain for some reason today and that’s obviously confusing my relationship with the world.
“I do wish men would be a little more direct with me, though. No cussing, nothing that reminds me of Hannibal Lecter’s cellmates, no lies about “needsâ€, just an invitation for coffee or something.”
Giving you an “invitation for coffee” is not a direct expression of sexual desire, nor even a direct expression of a desire for any kind of romantic relationship – UNLESS you believe the tired stereotype that men only want sex. I would call this hypothetical inivtation an OBLIQUE statement, if anything. I don’t mean to pick on you, but this stood out to me as a young man who is working on reconciling his sexual needs with his relationship ones, all while making sure that any romantic relationship I find myself in (and am almost always expected to initiate) is a healthy one for both the hypothetical woman and myself!
There is a double standard I must navigate – if I point-blank say I’d like sex, I am considered a creep. If I say that I want to go for coffee but I am really just interested in sex, I enforce women’s cynicism about men’s use of deception to obtain sex.
Stating that something is a “need†is a claim on those who have been socialized to believe that their value and worth is tied to meeting those needs (heterosexual women, for starters.)
Too bad.
Some people, who have picked up fucked up ideas about their own responsibilities towards others either through their own innate pathology or through horrible education and training in their youths, lack the boundaries they need to understand that my need doesn’t create their obligation.
There’s such a thing as courtesy and nothing wrong with showing a little bit of it, but it isn’t my obligation to constrain my healthy expression for the sake of Hypothetical Alice’s unhealthy lack of boundary control.
Her bad socialization isn’t my problem and doesn’t alter the responsibilities we each have as autonomous adults with agency.
“Giving you an “invitation for coffee†is not a direct expression of sexual desire”
I beg to differ, and not because I believe the tired trope of all men want is sex…sexual desire does not have to be purely physical as this statement asserts to me. If a guy would ask me out for coffee, he wants to spend time with me, if that connection leads deeper yes it could lead to sex…but the thought on my mind isn’t that he just wants to get me in bed. Sexual desire to me doesn’t have to be direct..sexual desire can arise from emotional, and expressing an emotional interest, to me is directly stating sexual desire, yet at the same time with different people it changes…my friend can have an emotional investment in me and I don’t think they want to sleep with me, but does sexual desire really have to revolve around the physical anyway?
“but it isn’t my obligation to constrain my healthy expression for the sake of Hypothetical Alice’s unhealthy lack of boundary control.”
Can you define what you consider to be “Healthy Expression?”
kristina,
this is the old trope that men and women can’t be friends because the sexual always gets in the way.
Pingback: pandagon.net - it's the eye of the panda, it's the thrill of the bite
kristina,
this is the old trope that men and women can’t be friends because the sexual always gets in the way.
Well, then you’d be assuming I have no male friends…quite the opposite, I have mostly male friends. The last statement you seemed to miss…”but does sexual desire really have to revolve around the physical anyway?” Definitions of sexual: intimate, of or relating to or characterized by sexuality, having or involving sex. Sexual desire, can be intimate. definition of intimate: marked by close acquaintance, association, or familiarity; “intimate friend”, and intimate does not have to include sexual activity…such as sharing intimate details in which vulnerability is present (something you only share with friends). I think it’s your misconception of sexuality being strictly physical that lends to your assumption that I’m using that tired old trope of men and women can’t be friends because sexual desire gets in the way… What I’m saying is sexual desire and intimacy are inextricably linked…you need both in order to FULFILL the other, but both don’t need to co-exist in order for sexual relations to occur. You often hear happy older couples refer to being best friends and how that contributed to their long happy marriages…would you assume they have no physical relationship if they are able to stay married for that long? So, can a man and a woman be friends without sexual desire getting in the way? Absolutely…but not because sexual desire doesn’t exist in that relationship, but because boundaries are established…like how married couples are more likely to be able to associate with members of the opposite sex and have close friendships…that is, if neither party is jealous and controlling…the boundaries are established and unspoken because you are seen as unavailable…so, what lends to some men thinking because she doesn’t have a ring on her finger that means her boundaries aren’t established? How would a man find out what her boundaries are…being her friend would be a great start…sounds like circular reasoning though, right? Well…it could be circular reasoning if you assume that either party dislikes being single…this notion that single people are miserable or somehow unfulfilled contributes to the trope that men and women can’t be friends without sexual desire getting in the way..not my assertions.
Robert, your reply terrified me. I’m sorry that rape culture has put a damper on your sexual expression (you know, like it has everyone else), but it’s hardly worth a toxic interaction with someone to make a stand for what you think you should be able to do. A culture devoted to disarming women’s boundaries is actively hurting people.
Do you really want to be the guy who’s testing important boundaries? It’s not Your Job to police that for others, but if you can manage to help, why wouldn’t you?
kristina – Thanks. Though I disagree a bit on what is and isn’t sexual (and I don’t think you’re WRONG, as it’s open to interpretation), you’ve given me something to think about.
Because there’s no such thing as a sexual ‘need’, only ‘wants’.
You will die if you do not eat because you NEED food.
You will NOT die if you do NOT have sex because you do NOT NEED sex.
@Sara, I do not say that we should disarm women’s boundaries. I say that women must maintain their (own) boundaries and be strong enough to endure the horrible gales of men being sexual creatures.
If my comment “terrified” you, then I suggest toughening up before again engaging in the perilous business of talking to other humans on the Internet.
@Ahunt, for the purpose of this discussion, I’d be willing to use Hugo’s boundaries of what’s healthy expression; I’m sure we have quibbles on the edges but have substantial overlap.
kristina – Thanks. Though I disagree a bit on what is and isn’t sexual (and I don’t think you’re WRONG, as it’s open to interpretation), you’ve given me something to think about.
well I agree that what is sexual is open for interpretation, I just came to my interpretations through semantics of dictionary values, and how I observe intimate and sexual being used interchangeably, and yet somehow meaning different things in different situations. For instance I might say my friend and I have an intimate relationship as opposed to a sexual one, even though part of sexuality is intimacy…the only difference is the boundaries that lie in the physical realm…I think it lends to the thinking that sexual desire is purely physical, and I think that is damaging…so yeah my definition isn’t set in stone, but I think it may help us understand each other.
“I do not say that we should disarm women’s boundaries. I say that women must maintain their (own) boundaries and be strong enough to endure the horrible gales of men being sexual creatures.”
and I say men must be strong enough to maintain THEIR boundaries and go be sexual with themselves….seriously….what you said sounds so creepy. I’m not even going to engage any further, I’ll leave you to the inevitable feast that I know is approaching. berryblade….don’t let me down here…
Kristina, there is a difference between respecting someone’s boundaries and constraining one’s own sexual expressions. It is reasonable for me to ask women to respect my boundaries. It is unreasonable for me to ask that women preemptively curb their healthy flirtatious advances because to me their advances come across as an obligation on my part. It is unfair to demand a person not engage in healthy sexual expressions because some people have poor or non-existent boundaries.
How is that incorrect? Feminism is about women. As in, not about men. As in, men already have the entire world at their feet and considering the impact of improving the conditions of women is anti-feminist. Period.
For the ~100% of women who aren’t active lesbian separatists, neither can be considered remotely in a vacuum. There can’t be a liberation of women from their gender role without a corresponding one for men (I don’t mean that as a moral imperative, just an assessment of whether it’s possible or not.) As long as we’re in a cultural context where “no line is admitted between “male desire†and “male entitlement to have that desire fulfilled—, people will continue to not take the latter seriously because they conflate it with the former. There needs to be space for men to be interested in (heterosexual) sex without coming across as predatory, because when every expression of desire, from “So, uh, err, anyways, the thing is, well, I was thinking, maybe, if you were interested, but you’re probably not, but anyhow, there’s this museum of Inuit art downtown, and like, if you, maybe, I thought we could go, like together or something, if you’re free, but uh, you’re probably not, uh, look, forget I said anything, I gotta go.” and “Show us the front of your bum!” is read as similar, people simply don’t see the latter as as predatory as they ought to. So even in the “To hell with men, they get everything they want!” limit, it’s still a pretty explicitly feminist interest.
For what it’s worth, yeah, I wish there was space to have attraction and express it without being predatory as creepy, as much because I hate feeling predatory and creepy as because I don’t want to burden anyone with what should be my problem.
I was rereading Clarisse’s article:
I would push this even further and argue that in some cases, it doesn’t even require conversation. A look can be enough to stigmatize a man as a “creep”. Even sexualty education, it has come up several times in terms of “Why do men look at women like that?”
For the sake of clariy, I want to differentiate between the “leer” which I’d call the lustful “I’m fucking you with my eyes” look and the “check out” look. While the check out can desirous, I think it’s also very different qualititatively (and I think quantitavely – it really isn’t that long leer – it’s fast, up and down, side to side the moves on). I don’t know that I’ve seen much discussion in recent years of the “male gaze” but I still know women who react viscerally and negatively to it, others who seem to not notice and others who seem to enjoy it. I’m not suggesting any response is right or wrong.
I did some informal field research this weekend – there’s a place in town that does a brisk sunday brunch business with a large and visible glbt clientele but also lots of straight twenty-somethings. I found myself a nice corner booth with a friend and did my best to observe without being noticed. If you’re aware of it, there’s a huge amount of checking out that takes place – between men and women, women and women, men and men. What I found fascinating was comparing the same sex versus opposite sex dynamic. It feels as if there’s almost a different visual language being spoken. When checking out the opposite sex, women are far more surreptitious which is odd because I think most men wouldn’t care or mind being checked out a bit; when checking out women, men are less subtle but shy about being caught – if they get caught, they’ll look away or look down. In rare cases, you’ll see the pair make eye contact then turn away at almost the same time or hold the eye contact and start to communicate. Between the men, the look was very different. I saw a few instances of an old-fashioned leer, the object of the leer would make eye contact and hold it then turn away very pointedly. With the guys, you’d see check out check out, turn away, turn back, eye contact. It was fascinating. In the time I observed, even several of the obvious gay male couples were doing lots of checking out of the people around them. The groups of gay men were obvious about – there’s almost a sense of the group having a high as they were doing, a crackling sexual energy. For the heterosexual couples and groups the dynamic was more inner directed – unless the group was same gender. In that case, there was lots of flirting going both ways. With the one table of all women (weirdly enough I knew several of them so I know the group was at least predominantly lesbians) the flirting I saw was almost entirely within the group. But it was a also a group of old friends and former lovers (and agewise was more mature than the other folks to whom I was paying attention).
I saw a set of behaviors that fascinated me – some women were obviously unnerved by the check out while others simply weren’t. I wonder what the difference is?
I’m not sure I’ve drawn any conclusions but it was a fascinating brunch (and obviously there’s no way what I did could be considered scientific). My friend, btw, felt ignored and got drunk and I had to drive him home.
Getting back to where I started – what’s going on that in some cases even a semi-explicit discussion gets a powerful negative response from some people and not others? What’s going on that for some women hearing a man state even semi-explicitly his experience of desire and sexuality generates strong negative response while another woman participating in the same conversation might respond with a positive sense of mutual sharing without feeling the pressure? What’s going on that we our culture is finding ways to “enable female sluttitude in all its harmless, glorious forms”? But is that an accurate statement? Certainly women can use men callously and coldly and that’s hardly harmless or glorious. What is going on that one person (male or female) engages in a harmless and glorious sluttitude while another doesn’t?
If you look at much of the public discussion around sexuality it is almost exclusively in terms of risk and danger but there is rarely a celebration of the positives of sexuality – to the point that in a recent class I led, a group of teens were unable to come up with a more than three items they saw as positive about sexuality while generating a list of almost 20 negatives. With adults I often see the same thing – we as adults have hard time claiming and understanding what is positive about our sexuality.
Toysoldier:
I think you miss Kristina’s point. She wrote “and I say men must be strong enough to maintain THEIR boundaries and go be sexual with themselves,” which I understood to mean not that men need to maintain boundaries intended to keep out, so to speak, people flirting or making advances, but, rather, for example, recognizing that the mere fact of feeling sexual desire does not give one license to act on that feeling, even if the action is only verbal expression, in every circumstance and with every person towards whom that desire is directed. That so many men so often behave in ways that make it clear they do not have these kinds of internalized boundaries is the problem she, and I think others as well, was addressing.
I disagree, Richard. The act of feeling a sexual feeling DOES give you license to act out that feeling. It’s called “not being repressed”.
HOW YOU ACT OUT is an entirely legitimate subject for behavioral inquiry. “I’m going to fuck you!” accompanied with the attempted removal of a person’s clothing, in Home Depot, is grossly inappropriate, a total invasion, maybe even an attempted rape.
“Wow, I never realized how pretty your hair is. Say, you want to go out for a drink sometime?”, between peers in a socially acceptable context – not a problem.
Women are not entitled to expect men to repress their emotions so that women will be more comfortable. More generally, people are not entitled to expect other people to repress their emotions.
What do feminists call it when men expect women to repress THEIR emotions for the sake of male comfort? Patriarchy.
It IS reasonable to expect people to express themselves in a socially appropriate context, following the cues and clues that we use. The guy fondling women in Home Depot is a creep and a criminal; the one politely asking someone out is not.
I should say, I understand WHY people want others to repress emotion for comfort. It’s perfectly natural and a reasonable thing to want.
It’s just not something we’re entitled to.
“recognizing that the mere fact of feeling sexual desire does not give one license to act on that feeling,”
exactly…
“It IS reasonable to expect people to express themselves in a socially appropriate context, following the cues and clues that we use.”
I agree…but how can you know what is appropriate to every single woman out there? I have friends that love the up down and thumbs up look…other friends that wish the guy wouldn’t act like he was picking up a girl at a meat market…what may be socially acceptable to you, is not going to be socially acceptable to others…respecting THAT and not your specific notion of what is appropriate is taking into consideration that that person is human…don’t you think? It has nothing to do with women being entitled…everyone is entitled to their humanity, and respecting each others opinions and boundaries are a very big part of that.
I want to apologize for coming across so harsh too… it was to make a bold point…but I’m sorry for the rude way it came across…
“Wow, I never realized how pretty your hair is. Say, you want to go out for a drink sometime?â€
Why does it have to be a physical attribute??? I would much rather an approach where a guy says I make interesting conversation, let’s say we continue it over coffee tomorrow, or some other place where conversation takes precedence over getting drunk or grinding in a club.
Hugo,
“We acculturate women to believe that male desire (at least, the desires of a male with whom they are in some sort of relationship, like a boss or a brother or a father or a fiancé) is female obligation.”
Then we must have grown up in quite different cultures. In neither side of my family – Irish Catholic, Midwestern; Anglo, Episcopalian, five generations in ccalifornia – did I see any sisters expected to give a shit about any brother’s desires or vice versa. And that went for all other cross-sex interaction, and was also what I saw in the rest of the community where I grew up (Bay Area). Where there was obligation it was either murtual or complimentary.
If you are referring to the huge burden women put up with in clothing and weight and so on, that is indeed a huge burden, but it seems more like manipulation – I don’t like the harsh, accusatory connotations of that particualr word, but I can’t think of a synonym just now – than submission. I guess that is still a form of accomodation
kristina,
“I agree…but how can you know what is appropriate to every single woman out there? ”
Shared culture? And where that is missing, what do you do? At a certain point – very early for me – being explicit becomes quite of-putting.
“Why does it have to be a physical attribute??? ”
Amen. I was taught as a child that that was a personla remark and thuis rude whatever the content. You can compliment a person on being cheerful or whatever and get the same sense fo interest across.
“Shared culture? And where that is missing, what do you do? At a certain point – very early for me – being explicit becomes quite of-putting.”
I’m not sure what you mean by shared culture… as in common interests of pursuee and pursued, or as a whole??? I am in a lot of ways counter-culture…I just don’t like the shallowness of society men and women…yes people have desires, but I think the desires that are more likely to be less fulfilled are ones we don’t talk about…this discussion and your following agreement with my other point is illustrative of this. Some people get complimented on their looks, but it’s obvious that isn’t gratifying because there is no real standard for looks, even beautiful people feel ugly or not good enough, so what is left??? The actual person is a good start, yes their outlook can change, but it’s not seen as a goal, rather something that comes with experience and can lead to deeper emotional fulfillment if one grows WITH that person, and sometimes deeper disappointment when they grow apart..but the experience itself and having someone to share it with, who is concerned about it, who shares the same love of that experience, for however short amount of time it lasts, is VERY fulfilling…. Focusing so much on physical to me in some ways is making up for the lack of emotional, and it’s harmful to everyone.
women are far more surreptitious which is odd because I think most men wouldn’t care or mind being checked out a bit
Too many men would take a woman checking him out as an invitation to proposition her. So it’s not odd at all that women would be more circumspect about checking men out.
Glenden,
“In the time I observed, even several of the obvious gay male couples were doing lots of checking out of the people around them. The groups of gay men were obvious about – there’s almost a sense of the group having a high as they were doing, a crackling sexual energy.”
Your first observation, then one about couples checking other guys out, made me chuckle. Yeah, we do that, and enjoy it very much. It’s like walking through a garden and enjoying the sights together. It is part of being “fabulous” to eb in the company of good-looking men, certainly something to enjoy together. Anyone who would object would be a pathetic, insecure old queen, whether male of female, as far as I am concerned.
There is a dance to this. At first, as you go through the coming out process, it is like going west through the hole in the Berlin Wall. The Stasi may still exist, but they are no longer inside your head enforcing their control of your thinking. You look at whomever you want, as long as you want, and if he objects, you dare him to make something of it. God, I pity straight men and what you have to put up with, but not much because it’s self-inflicted – you tolerate so much daintiness and weakness.
But then you get a lot more subtle. Where once you were surreptitious so you wouldn’t get attacked, now you don’t want to give away any sign that you’re interested. Interest or wanting puts you in the one-down position; the very word impies inadequacy and lack. You lack what he has, or what he is. But here’s another step to the dance; he may be flattered that you’re looking. That flatters you.
I agree…but how can you know what is appropriate to every single woman out there?
You can’t, which is why the burden of toleration falls on the group with the wide range of expectations, while the burden of keeping behavioral expressions within a certain socially defined range falls on the individual.
I have to be not a jerk. You have to be not a fainting violet.
@kristina, no worries about harshness. My original comment was pretty blunt in tone and invited a similar response.
You’re right that the “gee your hair smells terrific” approach probably isn’t best. I’m an old man, long married.
Robert, I’ve been well out of the approach for years myself…about 7…but friends of mine…aren’t…they ask me the secret to how I use to find so many dates…I say, ummm… “ask a guy out.” Some of my friends refuse, citing that the guy is old-fashioned and might see it as a threat to his “manliness”, I say to them stop pussy-footing around the subject to protect your ego…just because you perceive him to be a good match doesn’t make it so, and if he rejects you, doesn’t mean he’s rejecting “you”…it could be a variety of reasons, some that may seem shallow, some that may actually be shallow…the fact of the matter is his perceptions in the situation matter too, and no matter how hurt you may be by his perceptions, he is entitled to them…move on, don’t take the approach that all guys must be shallow, or all guys are old fashioned and won’t appreciate being approached by a woman. In some ways puas are right..it is a numbers game…but not when the end is how many sexual partners you can get, or how many simultaneous relationships you can juggle. I always tell them if I got rejected it wasn’t the end of the world…you rarely saw my rejections as my friend, but they existed…I just took them less personally and more as an issue of compatibility…we just weren’t compatible is what I got out of those situations, not that I was a loser, or that this person was an oppressive jerk because HE didn’t like a woman making the first move..there are others who do…no need for me to whine that this specific guy didn’t like it, and carry that attitude into my other approaches…this is where I feel men feel entitled…yes they may get many rejections…but have they reflected on their inner dialogue that they feel safe to express on the internet…that is indeed their attitude in their approach.
Brian: in practice, when people say that “Feminism is about women. As in, not about men.”, they don’t actually mean that feminism is just about women and that men are irrelevant for obvious reasons. What they actually mean is that feminism is entirely for the benefit of women. Discussing men and coming to conclusions about what they should care about and how they need to act is unambiguously within the scope of feminism (even for the lesbian separatist variety, as far as I can tell) so long as you only consider how it affects women and not men.
“Too many men would take a woman checking him out as an invitation to proposition her”
I have purposely made it obvious when I was checking out a man exactly as an invitation for the guy to ask me out…given that I was single, and was interested…it helped that my style of clothing was conservative in a sense as well…It was hard to perceive me as “that kind of girl”…it left guys intrigued, and actually wanting to know more about me and what made me tick…I was unusual, and I’ve had many guys speculate what it was about me that was so alluring, because I was so off base from the typical women they were attracted to…I guess at some point I used it to my advantage by speaking their language.
Isn’t this statement exactly what Clarisse was talking about – the assumption that male sexuality is unwanted, unwelcome and aggressive? There is such a thing as misreading the signals or getting the hints wrong. If a man sees the check out and approaches the woman, I’d wager 99% of the time, it won’t be to proposition her, it will be to strike up conversation with her.
I mentioned specifically my observations of gay men because I think this may be a case where the exception is the solution. Gay men don’t generally find each other’s glances threatening or scary or offensive. Andrew Sullivan used a line in one of his books, “the male facility with sex” that I think gets at what I’m pondering.
Jim got at that with his metaphor about the garden – there’s something powerful about the experience of being in this group of good looking men, all the enregy crackling in the air. And maybe it’s just something intrinsically male (I doubt it but maybe) that is able to treat sexuality with comfort, to see in the exchange of looks and glances and words a combination of invitation and challenge.
I’m not sure I’m making sense here. I know lots of gay men who will say some of the best sex they’ve had has been with one night stands or with fb’s. I don’t know many women – straight or lesbian – who say the same.
@Makomk – yes, I realise that, but my response is functionally identical to that as well. Even if your moral standpoint is that you’re interested in womens’ welfare exclusively, your functional standpoint still has to address mens’ welfare as well, or you won’t get anywhere. There’s no liberation of women from the feminine gender role without liberation of men from the masculine gender role. (Yes, writing it this way is somewhat provocative, but it’s entirely true.)
I have to agree with Brian here..the polarity of the gender roles in society necessitates the concern for both, while at the same time not maintaining a biased atmosphere for either one.
“If a man sees the check out and approaches the woman, I’d wager 99% of the time, it won’t be to proposition her, it will be to strike up conversation with her. ”
In my experience, this is true…which is why it baffles me that men choose not to speak like a woman in terms of approach..they expect their way to be acceptable…it’s like getting angry that people in France speak French.
“I’m not sure I’m making sense here. I know lots of gay men who will say some of the best sex they’ve had has been with one night stands or with fb’s.”
I don’t know what an fb is, but let me tell you about bath houses. In a bath house you can approach anyone – that’s why you and everyone else is there. and then again you can just stand and pose all night. But don’t act all surprised when people approach you. You have no right to expect people to be mind readers. People go for sexual encounters; that is expected – talking is something you have to ask for and as often as not be told he didn’t go there for that.
The contact is negotiated nonverbally moment by moment. Either guy can just suddenly say thanks for playing and walk off. No one has any responsibility to continue anything and hurt feelings are your own problem, and considered pretty silly – it’s a bath house. Romance is for when you are in your drama queen mode, not when you’re in your sex pig mode. No one owes you anything. And that’s the perfect clear ground to really meet someone. I met my partner of 11 years in a bath house.
I met my partner of 11 years in a bath house. I met my wife of 11 years at church, 24 years ago. One relationship gets better and better and better; in the other we could never really communicate much of anything.
“they expect their way to be acceptable…it’s like getting angry that people in France speak French.’
kristina, that implies it’s her turf. In France you can expect people to learn and speak French, but in Brussels you speak Englsih and like, (or else get reminded you could all be speaking German, usually by a Brit.) Why is the woman’s way so superior when it comes to approach, seeing as women so seldom bother to make the effort and have so little experience of it?
Brian: yeah, but in practice that still doesn’t mean that men’s welfare gets addressed effectively. It seems to be far easier to just try and achieve this goal by taking on the men’s welfare issues that are directly and visibly important to women and ignoring the rest. This is especially true if you’re starting from a viewpoint that centers women’s concerns and experiences. In fact, there seems to be a not-uncommon attitude that if it doesn’t affect women in some way, it’s not a real problem for men and they must just be showing “entitlement” or “privilege”.
Robert:
This conversation has gone elsewhere, I think, and I don’t have much time to engage, but I did want to respond to this:
My understanding of repression, in the psychological sense that I think you are using it here, is that one tries not to feel the feelings one has that one doesn’t want to feel. Realizing that one does not have license, always, by definition, to act out one’s feelings simply because one has them is not the same thing as asking someone not to feel what he or she is feeling.
I would also point out that asking someone out for coffee because you find them attractive is not acting out a sexual feeling, per se. The goal of asking someone out may be to try to get the chance to act on one’s sexual feelings, but having a conversation over a cup of coffee is not, itself, a sexual act, as flirtation is also not in and of itself a sexual act, though it can certainly refer to the possibility of a sexual act.
I am defining “sexual act” very narrowly and literally here, and I am doing so for a reason. I think it’s important to distinguish between walking up to someone and saying, in whatever explicit way, shape or form, “Hey, let’s get naked”–which is unambiguously an attempt to satisfy a sexual desire–and being a clumsy or inappropriate flirt, or being clumsy or inappropriate in asking someone out. These latter two may end up being offensive, sexist, entitled, etc., in their own way, but the person who tries, however clumsily, inappropriately (and maybe even deceitfully as well) to establish a relationship first is not, in that process, acting out a sexual feeling.
“Why is the woman’s way so superior when it comes to approach, seeing as women so seldom bother to make the effort and have so little experience of it?”
I agree, but from my standpoint being someone who has “spoken” the language of men in a “pickup”(I hate that word)…successfully, I don’t see what the big deal is…Why can’t it be someone’s turf..you are after all “invading” their personal space…if a woman wishes to approach a man, she needs to be direct as men are not as good at picking up signals (this is what most guys ask for, and most women try to comply…I don’t find it unreasonable)so why is it unreasonable for a woman to ask the same?
PM, yes, when a twentysomething talks to a woman my age, he’s either lost, he thinks I work in whatever place the conversation is happening in, or he wants to fuck. If he invites a woman my age to do coffee or anything with him, besides homework or caring for something that shits and/or whines constantly, he wants to fuck AND lick clittie. Nuff said?
Xena, bless you. That’s as fine a taxonomy as I’ve read all week.
Any time, Hugo. Sometimes I get tired of tapdancing and I just have to call stuff what it is
Xena…I’m lost…what was the comment to PM about???
JIM! SWEETIE!! LOVED the Berlin Wall analogy! That was SO John Cameron Mitchell! LOVED Hedwig and the Angry Inch! LOVED LOVED LOVED!! Origin of Love is in my top 5 all time favourite songs. It’s CLASSIC!
kristina,
“which is why it baffles me that men choose not to speak like a woman in terms of approach.”
seriously? Because there’s a fine line between approach and approach. Even if you strike up a conversation without any agenda beyond talking – and who knows, maybe that will change in the course of the conversation – women don’t seem to want men to speak only “venusian”, if you will, they still want them to be recognizably male. And walking on that thin line is tricky for most men. Think of it like this: I have a female friend who’s the girlfriend of one of my best male friends. Recently, we’re sitting in a pub and the conversation moves to the relationship of another couple we all know, one in which the woman has tried to model the man to her will, he complied, and at the end, she became bored and dropped him. Now my friend’s girlfriend totally relates to the story, and – with my friend present – explains that she does this all the time, putting up little tests for him to comply, to model him like she wants him to be. But she also said – again, with him present – that she would totally lose interest in him if he did all she asks for. I don’t think *all* women are like that, but I think there’s a lot of this kind of power play in female-male communication, particularly in the early stages – where testing is fair game and not unhealthy like in my friend’s relationship. Point being, communication is difficult, and while I don’t think that women are better communicators in general, they – usually being pursued rather than pursuing – are setting the rules for the interaction. And it’s usually not *that* easy to navigate for most men.
Kristina, PM commented earlier that an invitation for coffee isn’t necessarily an expression of sexual desire. Something about assuming that all men just want to get jiggie.
I was just explaining that I don’t instantly assume stuff like that about guys my own age. Most of them are married anyway, so yes, an invitation for coffee is usually purely professional. When I’m talking to a younger guy, it usually comes down to the scenarios I mentioned above.
Xena,
hmm. Not entirely sure. I don’t have a lot of empirics on that, but I recently met an older woman (assuming she was 10 years younger than she actually was – about my age) and while I was attracted to her I didn’t approach her with that in mind. We kind of ran into each other and decided to spend the evening together (me being on a trip in her town). There certainly was sexual tension, so I can’t deny that, but we put the cards on the table and she said she was happily married and would not let herself be tempted, which was totally fine. We still had a great evening out… you may be right in general, but there are certainly exceptions to the rule.
Sam, how do you think the tension would have played out had she been single, like I am?
Xena,
not sure, but while I was interested, that wasn’t the only reason I was talking to her, my attraction was not only caused by her appearance, but also by talking to her in the first place…
Well, I won’t be so presumptuous as to tell you that you wanted to fuck AND lick clittie. But she was obviously attracted to you too, or she would have played the husband card and moved on. I think she was tempted, and if she had been single, you two definitely would have had a memorable evening or even a long term thing. She chose to stay faithful instead.
Point being, communication is difficult, and while I don’t think that women are better communicators in general, they – usually being pursued rather than pursuing – are setting the rules for the interaction.
This is the way I saw it as a woman who was the pursuer in most cases…If I really wanted a date, and found the way men were approaching me unsatisfactory I would make the approach…I guess I thought in terms of interaction and interpretation as opposed to treading on hallowed grounds. I always tell my friends it’s okay to ask a guy out, most are afraid they will get labeled a slut, or emasculate a man…and in some of the cases that I have approached men this is true…I’d say I got rejected WAY more than accepted, and got labeled and/or supposedly made a man feel “womanly”… so how do you go about using the stereotypes to your advantage? I fared much better when I started obviously checking a guy out, and sitting back and letting him approach…I made it clear it was “safe” that he wouldn’t get rejected, and still was able to allow him to feel masculine…What would the equivalent for men be, I don’t know, I haven’t much thought about it, as it was not a strategy I had to use…being female and all…
I don’t think the guy has to conform to everything the woman says…that’s ridiculous, and yes, would get boring…I’m saying in the initial phase of contact, not the whole dating phase…I dated a doormat, and I saw as a person I was becoming a demanding bitch…I tried to coach him out of agreeing with everything I said, but he just never disagreed (even on subjects I knew he differed on)…I had to end it because I felt I was taking advantage of him through no fault of my own, it wasn’t me modeling him to be this way…he just did…I was still young at the time, and probably confused as to what I wanted too though, but I never modeled him to be that way…he just was…
either way…speaking the language is used more in the approach, to let one another know it’s safe and not predatory or emasculating…everything from then on should be natural, and it’s not changing your entire being and opinions…you’re still you…just attempting to fill the gaps in communication that exists. I don’t see how you link the way a man normally communicates to everything that is male…to me it’s like you’re saying men are sexual and think about sex all the time and can’t help it so get used to it.. prob another crappy analogy…but it’s like you’re saying that someone can’t be bilingual unless they’re born in both countries.
Richard, what you and Robert describe would be suppression. Repression is a subconscious act; suppression is a conscious act. As for realizing that one does not have license to act on one’s feelings, technically that is suppression, and I do not think a person can suppress acting on a feeling without suppressing the feeling itself (at least to a degree). I agree with Robert that what matters is how one acts on a feeling, not just that one acts on a feeling. Obviously, this does not hold true for all situations, but in regards to men approaching women I think it does.
@makomk – I’m not sure I get all your nuance, so correct me if I’m wrong, but in the context here, Clarisse seems to think it’s an issue that’s worth addressing, I certainly wouldn’t say no. Hanging around feminist blogs as a man is a little challenging; I usually only comment in discussions about men, because that’s usually when I think I have something to say that might be worthwhile, but of course that comes across as only wanting to talk about men’s issues. Which is true; I want to talk about men’s issues, and listen about women’s issues. (Not that the two aren’t usually the same, of course.)
Entitlement or privilege can always be levelled as accusations, and never be defended, pretty much, sure. But when it’s probably appropriate to dive in, dive in with thick skin. Space is effectively free on the internet; if Clarisse, Hugo want to host a discussion on giving men the social space to express desire, I’m interested in participating. Free effort isn’t fungible, so whoever shows up doesn’t have anything better to do. For my own edification, too much of feminist discussion is “Don’t do X” and “Don’t do Y”, rather than “Do W” and “Do Z”. So I’ll ask for the latter and pay attention when someone who seems to give genuine consideration to men’s condition offers answers (and in what I’ve read from them, both Clarisse and Hugo do this sometimes.) What else, eh?
So I’m left with “Is there some practical way for men to express desire, or work towards it, that one can participate in?” In my private life, I’d say the asking to coffee really isn’t any kind of expression of desire; which I’d really only do in a relationship, in the “tell her you want what she wants, but ~10% more frequently.” mode that comes with the usual cultural training. Probably not ideal, but I’m not sure about practical implementation in this?
“Kristina, PM commented earlier that an invitation for coffee isn’t necessarily an expression of sexual desire. Something about assuming that all men just want to get jiggie.”
Ahhh…I see… I don’t see it as assuming all men want to get jiggie…but that there’s a possibility it may happen…girls who ignore this perpetuate the “friend zone” that guys complain about so much.
Just have to say, regarding the idea of men being able to feel sexual without feeling compelled–without assuming that the feeling by definition gives one the license–to act on it, the introduction to Timothy Beneke’s book Men on Rape is well worth reading.
“Is there some practical way for men to express desire, or work towards it, that one can participate in?”
Okay, I think demonizing men’s sexuality would be more along the lines of saying men are sexual beings, while not admitting that females are too…that said…everyone likes “sex”(definitions vary)…we get it..it’s creepy to mention “sex” all the time…it’s on everybody’s mind…simple…to keep mentioning it is redundant and to me on the verge of obsession, and that is creepy…so yes, a man telling me I’m sexy is redundant, or mentioning a physical attribute is redundant, it makes me think that ALL you’re thinking about is sex…and we know that’s not true right??
In my opinion it’s the redundancy that’s creepy…if we all enjoy “sex” and all think about “sex”…why do we have to mention our interests in it all the time..we all know deep down we want to get jiggie given the right circumstances..so mentioning it all the time comes across as obsessed to me…be original…please
Let me second Richard’s recommendation of Beneke, which includes the line I quote often when doing workshops or lectures on this topic:
“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.â€
Sorry for the double post, but I pressed submit accidentally. Toy Soldier wrote, agreeing with Robert:
I’d just like to point out that, while I phrased it negatively, my point was pretty much the same, and I find it telling that you felt the need to disagree with me nonetheless:
Wow richard…I didn’t spot that…nice!
Xena,
it was a memorable evening even without the exchange of bodily liquids. I usually don’t mind getting new friends.
kristina
“What would the equivalent for men be, I don’t know, I haven’t much thought about it, as it was not a strategy I had to use…being female and all…”
I think the equivalent is being socially attractive in the given environment so women present themselves as being interested in being approached. I think there is *some* power in being the initiator, but only for a small subset of men, those who are actually able to approach a woman they see irrespective of whether she has signalled her approachability to him.
“I don’t see how you link the way a man normally communicates to everything that is male…to me it’s like you’re saying men are sexual and think about sex all the time and can’t help it so get used to it.. prob another crappy analogy…but it’s like you’re saying that someone can’t be bilingual unless they’re born in both countries.
Not exactly. Well, I think the analogy is bit off. Neurologically, if you’re not raised bilingually you will always have two language centers in the brain and two ares representing the same thing whereas in people who are raised bilingually the same cerebral region will be responsible for both languages. So there is a difference. I’m not saying that men are sexual all the time. Not sure why you get to that? That would imply that women don’t think about sex at all, and I think that’s just as wrong. No, I was more talking about gendered communication patterns and ways to communicate. It’s not that easy to communicate playfulness and maturity and masculine strength and safety all at the time. There aren’t a lot of cultural artefacts to hold on to anymore that are unmistakingly masculine, all that’s left is probably, as a transsexual blogger once put it, some kind of energy motion, a certain body language. It’s certainly not easy to communicate all these things at the same time…
kristina,
you’re giving the perfect example – even when there’s no particular current agenda about sex, most guys don’t want to fall into the friend zone PER SE. Even without any particular interest they want to be perceived as sexual beings. So they need to communicate that they are, and doing so is difficult, as you mention with respect to your being annoyed about guys talking about sex after meeting you, when there is not that much for them to be creative with – the amount of cultural artefacts that convey male sexuality in a creative manner is certainly most limited. Hence, the less socially skilled are often falling into the “creepiness” trap. I think *that* was a main point of Clarisse’s article.
Brian, the going for coffee as part of the “tell her you want what she wants but…” mode does work, if she’s interested and you’re sincere. But there’s a buildup period where you have to be very patient and do fun things with her. By the second or third date (at least, if not sooner) you can usually move in a little and touch her hair and tell her she’s pretty.
Once you’re past the initial flirting stages,(which, unfortunately are different for every woman) and she’s demonstrated some trust, hair is a good icebreaker. So are foot massages. You wouldn’t touch your boss’s hair or feet. But you wouldn’t get labelled a perv for touching your sibling or child’s hair or feet. Hair and feet are in-between intimacy zones. She will let you know immediately if that wasn’t what she had in mind, but you won’t scare her or embarass yourself if you touch her feet or hair. A more direct request for, or attempt to initiate a kiss or other more intimate type of bonding will put her off.
And, if you’re good at foot massaging and hair stroking, and she feels comfortable with you, SHE’LL ask YOU to massage other places for her.
Sam
EW!! I never said anything about exchanging fluids! No glove no love. Always prophylactic protected.
Friends are good, though.
“Why is the woman’s way so superior when it comes to approach, seeing as women so seldom bother to make the effort and have so little experience of it?â€
I’d suggest that whoever is trying to approach someone needs to make the effort to do it in a way that will be pleasing to that other person. I realize that may sound to some of the male posters here as if I’m saying the woman’s way trumps, but I don’t see it that way, because I think it also applies, for example, to women who see themselves as approaching, but do so in ways that are subtle enough that the men they’re approaching are missing their approaches.
Also, it’s not that you need to approach in a way that suits every possible person you’re approaching; that’s not even possible, since none of us is a mind reading. It’s just that, if a particular approach turns out to be seen as creepy by the majority of women, then the answer is not to use that approach, rather than expecting the majority of women to change and not find it creepy. Similarly, if a particular approach turns out to be invisible to the majority of people you’re trying to win over, it might be wise to consider a different approach, rather than reproaching people for not picking up on your too subtle signals.
Good heavens. This thread really went wild while I was on the train to Portland.
I am sad that mythago does not seem interested in engaging with me further. I guess I should have had more sleep before my initial reaction to this thread. Some of the personal attacks have stressed me out to the point where I stopped being nice for a while.
@Xena — Well, I won’t be so presumptuous as to tell you that you wanted to fuck AND lick clittie. But she was obviously attracted to you too, or she would have played the husband card and moved on. I think she was tempted, and if she had been single, you two definitely would have had a memorable evening or even a long term thing. She chose to stay faithful instead.
Am I the only person who voluntarily hangs out with men to whom I am not attracted (or, at the very least, not immediately attracted … sometimes I get more attracted to a man over time) because I think they’re interesting? I can’t possibly be.
In the past some people have tried to convince me that interesting men only hang out with me when they think I am hot. Well, maybe; I have managed to get over my early-geek-girl-awkwardness to the point where I’m willing to believe I’m hot. But I just have trouble with the idea that it’s the only reason, or even the most important reason.
I mean, just the other day I talked to a gay man for a long time. He even asked me to do an interview on his radio show. And he was, you know, definitely gay. I am 100% sure that he was not trying to sleep with me.
I just … I can’t square this idea with my own experience, is all.
@Brian — So I’m left with “Is there some practical way for men to express desire, or work towards it, that one can participate in?”
For me, this is one of the only truly difficult and interesting questions left in the manliness debate. We got into a little bit on my manliness thread here:
http://clarissethorn.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/manliness-and-feminism-the-followup/#comment-1285
(he’s referring to this quasi-famous “Schrodinger’s Rapist” post:
http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/ )
We didn’t draw many conclusions though. There was an attempt at addressing this question here:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/feminism-friday-how-can-men-express-sexual-interest-in-a-feminist-way/
Predictably, it degenerated into name-calling.
I have been trying to convince some of the feminist-aware pickup artists who I know to design a curriculum intended for feminist men. I am not joking. They haven’t taken me up on it yet, sadly.
@RJN — I read Men on Rape in undergrad … I recall it being interesting, and somewhat anxiety-inducing. I’d like to hear more about your thoughts on it.
Xena,
“EW!! I never said anything about exchanging fluids! No glove no love. Always prophylactic protected.”
Yeah. Sure. But unless you’re actually thinking of full body protection including complete coverage of facial orifices and sweat absorbtion, physical intimacy will include some sort of exchange of bodily fluids…
And piggybacking on Clarisse’s last comment, let me push back against the “only expressions of interest are rooted in some form of sexual desire” trope that’s being bandied about. Even when I was single, heck, even when I was promiscuous to a fault, there were people with whom I really just wanted to be friends, and that included attractive women. The thread of barely repressed sexual desire is not shot through the entire bolt of human relationships.
Clarisse, I’ve been a size 4 and I’ve been a size 20. Right now I’m an 8, which at my height puts my figure somewhere around a Bollywood body. Think Deborah Harry in Hairspray. Actually, people tell me I look like her all the time–without the weird Hairspray ‘do, obviously.
I’m telling you, a vast majority of men, when they ask a woman for coffee, do so because they’re interested. Nice guy interested, maybe we can have a relationship interested, but still interested. Men stopped talking to me altogether when I was a size 20. Several of my bigger girlfriends say the same thing.
Gay men are different, but not always. I’ve had a few approach me with the intention of making me their “practice chick”, after they had nothing but bad experiences for coming out, or losing their “beard” of 20 years or whatever. After 2 AWFUL experiences, one with a stupid gay love triangle and one with a trauma survivor with psychiatric symptoms that required a specialist, not a girlfriend, I said no the next few times that happened.
Unless there’s some sort of professional common ground,like your gay friend’s radio show, men ARE talking to you because you’re hot.
Sorta off-topic since I’m directly talking about the analogy.
I think your language centers can ‘merge’ if you use both languages equally and very often. I don’t need to translate text in my head to speak English (yes, 2nd language, learned in school, on TV and videogames). I can “think” in English just as easily. Heck sometimes I forget the French word for something and replace it with the English one in my sentence (while aware of it, in conversations). I might be unaware of certain English words that are seldom used. I try to enrich my vocabulary when I can.
In other words, I consider myself perfectly bilingual and could speak French or English just as equally good. Write as well, and understand as well (I might not bet on Australian accents though). I consider my language centers to be one and the same. My mother was raised bilingual and speaks/writes at the same level as I do.
My secret to maintaining my language level? Reading walls of text every day. I also tend to write walls of text, or create files for fun in word or excel that take extensive typing.
@Xena, Unless there’s some sort of professional common ground,like your gay friend’s radio show, men ARE talking to you because you’re hot.
So … hobby common ground doesn’t count? In what contexts do I get to be legitimately interesting and in what contexts is all interest in me dismissed due to hotness?
Look, I’m not saying that attractiveness doesn’t factor in. I totally buy that it does. I just think it’s not cool to claim it’s the whole story, especially for people who have activist passions / hobbies / professions that they like to talk about.
That’s what I’m saying, Clarisse. People who have a cause or professional goal that they’re working toward will sometimes invite women out for coffee. But the vast majority of coffee invites are about sex.
You could gain 80+ lbs. to test that observation for accuracy if you’d like. My fat phase was a big eye opener. I learned in a hurry who my real friends are.
Clarisse:
It has been a very long time since I read the book. You’d have to ask me a more specific question for me to be able to give you an answer.
Exactly Schala…I’m not pulling this male female language thing out of my ass here..I “talk male” pretty well, and really it doesn’t take much effort…it’s definitely not my preferred language but I even get the intricacies of it.
Sam, the reason I’m saying it seems as if you’re saying men are sexual all the time, is because it seems the only approach men can possibly make is to tell a woman she is physically attractive…that seems to be the argument you are presenting…as for the man being attractive in order to approach a woman…it may seem that way because more attractive men have the attitude needed…I have seen below average men, pull hotties, they have what some would call an over inflated ego…but it obviously lies in attitude.
I don’t get annoyed that men bring up sex all the time…it did sound a little like that though…not what I meant…I mean, if we can all safely assume that sex is an eventual and MUTUAL goal whether it is tailored to that specific person or not, and attraction of SOME sort is necessary to carry a friendship with the opposite sex (I don’t mean physical attraction…it could be common interests…)then yes, it is redundant to mention physical qualities (to some women, physical takes a backseat after personality is revealed). Why do guys get stuck in the friend zone without ever knowing it…because some women believe sex isn’t a common goal…he might want it…she doesn’t…why she doesn’t want it varies in reason…it doesn’t have to be a lack of attraction…let me put it this way…a man that will honestly listen is hard to come by, and a lot of women are fearful to lose that friendship, because their experience with relationships has been less than savory, that men will stop listening once they achieve the goal of sex, because it has proven true in some of their relationships. It is how women observe men and what they display their goals to be that gets them stuck in that zone…they can date the “jerk” and know what’s going to happen and how to do the dance, or they can venture into territory in which the losses are greater.
I just don’t identify with the man has to be attractive model…what is attractive? It doesn’t vary? Maybe men are setting THEIR standards too high…of all the men I hear complaining about women being shallow, they fail to examine what they consider attractive, and presume they must “settle” because they are this or that…settle??? settle would imply you have set standards of beauty…that is shallow.
kristina,
“the reason I’m saying it seems as if you’re saying men are sexual all the time, is because it seems the only approach men can possibly make is to tell a woman she is physically attractive…that seems to be the argument you are presenting…”
I’m sorry, where did I say that? To be honest, I’d be rather careful with physical compliments until a woman is actually willing to appreciate them and not take them as standard blurb. When I talked about most mens’ wish to appear masculine, to be perceived as male sexual beings in such interactions I wasn’t talking about making inappropriate comments about her appearance. I thought that was clear from my comments above. And as for the general direction of the comversation – I assume we’re still talking about the at least assumed – though I believe real – pathologizing of expressions of male sexual desire. So I kind of assume we are generally talking about similar kinds of interactions.
“let me put it this way…a man that will honestly listen is hard to come by, and a lot of women are fearful to lose that friendship, because their experience with relationships has been less than savory, that men will stop listening once they achieve the goal of sex, because it has proven true in some of their relationships. It is how women observe men and what they display their goals to be that gets them stuck in that zone…they can date the “jerk†and know what’s going to happen and how to do the dance, or they can venture into territory in which the losses are greater.”
Wow, I guess you just rephrased the old nice guys finish last problem by complimenting the losers
["Look, you're just far too important to me to have sex with you"]. If you could just post that paragraph into most feminist discussions of ” nice guys ™. So isn’t this exactly why it’s important for men to be as clear as they can be about their desire to be perceived as sexual beings? Wouldn’t it be good for both if she had to come clean about this? A friend zone that isn’t mutual isn’t friendly at all.
“I just don’t identify with the man has to be attractive model…what is attractive?”
Sure. Again – where have I said anything about physical attractivity? Although it certainly doesn’t hurt in most cases.
ack…Sam…I’m sorry I misread one of your posts..I’m feeling a little under the weather today…I misunderstood you as mentioning physical when you didn’t…yikes I’m embarrassed… well at least we agree then.
As for the nice guy meme…there are genuinely nice guys…but there are guys whom you really don’t want to pursue a relationship with, it’s not because of their actions when they are friends with you…but their actions when they don’t get the physical benefits…it may not have been their ULTIMATE intention to have sex, but when they react badly when she chooses someone else it shows the motive of how nice = sex, instead of nice because I care about you… so if the nice guy would just say hey this isn’t working out because I really care about you, and just can’t stay friends with someone I’m attracted to and see you date other guys because it hurts me, and my relationship with you, and until I move on and am happy I think we should part ways. I think that would work much better than becoming bitter or martyring yourself when someone never asked you to.
I do think the nice guy dilemma is a lack of communication on both parts…the woman never says I fear losing you as a friend if sex is introduced, and the man never tells her that he is genuinely suffering from lack of physical intimacy…this is where the communication breaks down…some women will say, well all he was interested in was sex…I don’t think that’s true…he may have been interested in sex…but why??? I believe that men communicate a deeper love through physical contact…often why they can sleep around and still feel like something is missing, that’s the only way they know to fill the void of emotional intimacy, through physical contact..it is their language. I haven’t worked through the whole theory…it’s much too complicated…but I genuinely believe a lot of the problems we face is bad communication because we don’t know the intricacies of our own language…we fail to translate the physical cues into language.
kristina,
“we fail to translate the physical cues into language.”
well, but here you end up at the point where Clarisse started off, don’t you think – lack of communication *because* certain ways of communication about their sexual desires are not considered acceptable for men *because* their sexuality is socially construed as problematic…
To return to the analogy above. Then I don’t speak either language. I don’t see body language. I don’t see which I send myself. So it’s like I was deaf but could speak fine. I have no idea what I’m saying.
Maybe it’s asperger syndrome, maybe it’s lack of socialization. I’d bet on the former since former “out of touch” people learn the language fast enough once they get immersed with the help of friends and acquaintances. While I’d have to analyze like someone going in Japan for the first time – I’d get it wrong more than chance.
The only signal I can reasonably send is that I trust someone, but big time. Sometimes it’s overstated (I give extremely intimate details of my life) and someone thinks I fell in love with them when it’s not necessarily the case. I wouldn’t know the first thing about signaling a guy that he doesn’t need to fear rejection, besides saying it outright.
I’m also generally bad in social interactions. I don’t know what to say, how to do smalltalk (no interest) or how close or far I am permitted to be without being too forward or too cold. I have no idea when I can ask to receive, or when to give a hug to friends or acquaintances besides being plainly asked. I don’t detect boredom or annoyance either. Person walks away without a word, doesn’t tell me much. I talk too much and in too much details usually. Or stay away to avoid rejection from would-be friends.
How do you think I would do on the dating scene?
“I agree, but from my standpoint being someone who has “spoken†the language of men in a “pickupâ€(I hate that word)…successfully, I don’t see what the big deal is…Why can’t it be someone’s turf..you are after all “invading†their personal space…if a woman wishes to approach a man, she needs to be direct as men are not as good at picking up signals (this is what most guys ask for, and most women try to comply…I don’t find it unreasonable)so why is it unreasonable for a woman to ask the same?”
We agree, kristina. And do you notice how you have just identified the major advantage and incentive to be submissive, even pasive – you control the turf, someone lese does all the work and you call all the shots.
Not you you, but indefinite pronoun you. English pronouns are a useless mess – obligatory gender distinction in the third singular, no third/foruth person distinction, no first plural inclusive/exclusive distinction, no second person singular/plural distinction, and no indefinite pronoun. We are all doing very well here not to hugely hack each other off.
Xena. I had no idea I was getting cool points with the Berlin Wall refernce. What suggetsed it to me was a comment somoene like Vaclav Havel made about all the years of resisting Soviet control, that they lived “as if they were free” and that made all the difference, although they were still clearly not objectively free.
I have this to say about the coffee buisness and the idea that even gay man may be hitting on a woman – that absolutely does happen, and it can go further. I have a friend (woman) who believed an ex-friend’s professions of love. Gay as the daisies, but now he had fallen in love with a woman, and all that shit. It ended in tears and the whole mess was all his fault, the deluded shit.
But a lot of times the attreaction or bond is not sexual in the least. My bond wiht her is sibling. And then too, it is possible, even between straight people, to enjoy someone’s appearance or presentation in a purely aesthetic way. It’s rare and unusual, because face it, humans are not a very attractive species compared with so many others, but it is possible.
“How do you think I would do on the dating scene?” You would fare like everyone else. Everyone is pretty “blind”..which is why I said sometimes it seems puas have it right when they talk about numbers…no you can’t always tell what you are “saying” when you use body language, but I’ve known some pickup techniques that suggest paying attention to body language and even copying it from the other person to establish trust…subtly of course, and during the course of conversation so it doesn’t look like a screwed up game of simon says.
“And do you notice how you have just identified the major advantage and incentive to be submissive, even pasive – you control the turf, someone lese does all the work and you call all the shots.” Yes…I have, and have been trying to tell people I’m submissive out of choice not because society made me that way…that doesn’t in the least mean I am a doormat though… =P
Sam…I never really said I disagreed with Clarisse, it was more that I disagreed with the lengths some men were taking it to…but I guess that is bound to happen in any discussion… I still seem hung up on wondering what some guys consider healthy expression of their sexuality though…Can you give an example or examples of dialog that would demonstrate healthy/unhealthy…maybe some that hasn’t worked in a pickup.
besides the obvious let’s fuck
“Yes…I have, and have been trying to tell people I’m submissive out of choice not because society made me that way…that doesn’t in the least mean I am a doormat though… =P”
YES! There needs to be a name for this kind of verbal jiu-jitsu. If you ask to be the submissive one and get your way, how submissive is that? At some point these distinctions, like any others, break down under analysis. If that’s not too redundant.
We all need to continue this over a cup of coffee….. And “let’s fuck” the healthy or unhealthy expressions of anything.
@Xena — If you’re really saying “vast majority of coffee invites are about sex” then I do agree with you. It’s just that your initial posts pretty much said “all”.
I would add to this that the likelihood seems to be to be all about context. A guy who asks me out for coffee on the street is doing it because he thinks I’m hot, full stop. A guy who asks me out for coffee after I run a lecture is a lot less likely to be doing it because he thinks I’m hot. A guy who suggests that we meet for coffee based on something I’ve written (assuming that thing was not about sex, anyway) is even less likely to be doing it because he thinks I’m hot. I also think that friend networks factor in. A guy who is part of my friend network who suggests that we hang out is way less likely to be doing it in order to get tail, than a guy I have no social connection to.
Since I tend to meet people through existing friend networks and shared interests, it’s not surprising that I push back so strongly against the idea that “almost all guys are just trying to fuck you”. I’m pretty sure that I don’t do it because I’m in denial, but because my experience is actually different.
@RJN — I wanted to hear more about the connections you see between that book and my AlterNet article.
I guess I can concede to that, Jim. I sometimes find people beautiful to look at without any primal urge to hump them getting in the way. I enjoy beautiful women. I think the way some women deal with other women, as if they’re in a fight to the death over Brett Michaels or something, is just sad. I enjoy female company, whether the lady I’m chatting with is conventionally “pretty” or not. I think most women have pretty voices and pretty gestures. Their scent is different, more familiar somehow.
I didn’t know you weren’t referring to Hedwig with the Berlin Wall reference. I just assumed that on a site full of arty literature and theatre-type people somebody would bring up JCM. He and Stephen Trask did good myth rock inspired by Plato’s Symposium. I didn’t think that was possible.
The Czechs are an amazing people with a beautiful way of looking at friendship and community. “Freedom” is just the ability to choose one’s own joy, and one’s own loyalties to others, no matter what slave driver tries to call the shots. I think I’m grasping your coming out story now, right?
Your critique of English pronouns has me wondering if one of the Slavic languages is your first language. I can’t even imagine what a 3rd/4th person distinction would look like, or a 1st person inclusive/exclusive distinction. You’re almost reminding me of my diastrous attempt to teach myself Russian because I wanted to read Chekhov in the original language (<:-/ me) Trying to teach myself all those extra parts of speech was the most hilarious DIY ever.
Jim, I also want to say that even though I have noticed the advantages of being passive, I often chose not to be passive when pursuing relationships…I always said it was because I didn’t want to do the stupid dance that everyone does…I didn’t have time for that crap. I still don’t see why I would possibly want to give up that “advantage”. It was so much easier for me to ask a guy out then to wait for him.
ok..I think I came up with a situation in which most guys would consider it healthy…and hopefully most girls wouldn’t… anyone ever hear that Jamie Foxx song “Blame it (on the alcohol)” the whole situation he describes in that song is super creepy, but I haven’t heard many dudes that think it is…of course I don’t know many feminist men…so I’d like to hear some feedback on that from the guys and girls!
Yep. The lyrics are creepy. I wish I could say the song was his way of owning the creep thing, like one of the funny guy creeps he’s played in some of his movies. But even without hearing the song or watching the video (public lab–no sound, you tube problems) I don’t think that’s true.
*GASP!* Finally got visuals on that. What was Ron Howard doing in such a nasty T&A peddler?!?
Yes…the sad thing is, in a club this is common to happen…it’s not rape by legal definition…but definitely rape in my book…the creepiest part is when he says she said she normally don’t, but I know that she frontin’…so he knows what she wants??? after that lyric I discard everything he says as a reliable source of “reading” this woman.
Well so much for that social sci experiment. I think we’ve totally slanted the experiment for any guys that might be thinking of responding.
Clarisse,
It’s been a long time since I read Men on Rape, so you’ll need to take this with a bit of a grain of salt in terms of whether I am remembering the book accurately, but one of the things Beneke talks about in his book is that, when you talk to men who have raped (and maybe even to men who haven’t, I am not sure), one of the things you notice is that they construct their own desires such that the mere presence of an attractive woman makes them feel compelled to act on the sexual desire they feel, that somehow the desire itself is both a license and contains the compulsion to act, that if they don’t act they have somehow unmanned themselves. Or maybe this is more accurate, that feeling sexual desire without being able to act on it–because of the situation, because the woman is clearly unavailable, because the men are intimidated, whatever–is something the men experience as unmanning, and so the presence of the attractive woman becomes transformed into a direct challenge to the man’s manhood; it becomes something he has to respond to or be considered less than a man. In other words, these men Beneke interviewed do not have the capacity to separate the experience of feeling sexual desire from the need to act on that desire; they cannot simply feel it.
Anyway, that was what was on my mind when I referred to Beneke’s book upthread in response to I don’t remember now precisely what comment someone else made, not necessarily to your article per se. Let me stress that Beneke is talking about men who rape, not necessarily making a generalization about all men, though he is, I think, making a generalization about how heterosexual male desire is constructed within and by the patriarchy; and I think at least some of the responses by men in this thread bear that out. In part, if I remember your piece correctly–and I read kind of quickly it a day or so ago, so I may not remember accurately–you are asking a question, broadly speaking, about why it is so hard to make a space for men to talk about our desires without immediately arousing suspicions. Well, a lot of the male commenters here understood “talk about” to mean only or primarily express desire to someone for whom you feel it, not a lot of the men commenting here have talked about, simply, talking about–or being able to talk about or finding it hard to talk about, or whatever–what it feels like to be a heterosexual man and have desire, how those desires are structured and why, etc. and so on. Rather, the discussion seemed to, rather quickly, focus on–and I know I am being a little flip here, but it’s shorthand–”how to ask a woman out without seeming like a perv.”
I am looking at the clock and, unfortunately, I have to get ready to for work. I don’t know if this was an answer to your question. I hope it was.
“Well so much for that social sci experiment. I think we’ve totally slanted the experiment for any guys that might be thinking of responding.”
I sure in heck hope not…I think it should be pretty obvious this is not a healthy way to express sexuality, and it’s not like this is the ONLY way you can approach a woman even in a club. I haven’t had much club experience, but from what I have had I have found some guys able to approach politely, and if they weren’t being polite, to back off, but maybe this is why girls go to clubs with other women, and men feel the need to separate her from her “pack” so to speak. If Jamie Foxx heard her say she “usually don’t” then he should have moved on to a more willing girl, or a single girl…why is he “entitled” to THIS girl? Apparently if there’s any hint that she MIGHT, he has to keep on trying to charm her…or just get her drunk, hey that’s easier. Maybe some men are eternal optimists??? I don’t understand how hesitation = positive possibility..to me hesitation means I’d rather not.
Clarisse, I was referring to your introduction of the song. You said you came up with a situation that most guys would consider healthy and most girls wouldn’t.
I was just saying that if there were guys reading this thread who did consider the Blame It situation healthy, we probably won’t find out about it now.
Psych/soc tidbit# 101 for the day: wording effects responses to a high degree. Take for example polls regarding Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Should gays and lesbians serve in the military? is a very different question from Should homosexuals serve in the military? Respondents answer each question differently because of their concepts of gender identity vs. choice of sexual partner. The word homosexual draws attention to sex. Apparently the concensus is that it’s ok for same sex couples to hold hands, but it’s not ok for them to fuck <:-/ DUH UH…
Enlightening men about that nastiness is an entirely different matter. If our discussion got anybody to revise the belief that it’s ok to grope a woman bc she’s drunk, then our discussion was productive.
Actually, that was the female commenters. Most of the male commenters (I count seven, excluding you and I) talked about what it feels like to be a heterosexual man and have desires, and how stereotypes about male desire puts them in a double-bind. Their commentary comes across as “how to ask a woman out without seeming like a perv” because the women’s commentary has been about how men who approach women come across as creeps. I think that dynamic occurs because no one outside of Clarisse has taken men’s feelings about this issue seriously. To that extent, I think men’s commentary has been more “what would you (women) have us (men) do.” I agree that it is not very productive.
Then he is technically generalizing about all men. The trope that heterosexual male desire equals rape is nothing new, and based on excerpts from Beneke’s book it certainly seems to be the conclusion he is drawing. At the very least he seems to conclude that male desire is predatory, a notion seemingly shared by some of commenters on this thread. Ironically, such thinking becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If one assumes something constantly occurs, one will have little trouble finding evidence of it. If one constantly tells someone that their behavior is negative, that person will either engage in the behavior or constantly ask how to avoid it. One essentially creates the scenario one wishes to avoid.
TS wrote:
I will grant for the sake of argument–because I am not sure that I agree with you–that you are right that it was the women in this discussion who turned the focus, broadly speaking, on what happens when a man asks out a woman he desires. What you wrote above nonetheless makes my point. If what the men in this discussion really wanted to talk about was male heterosexual desire in and of itself, then they should have changed the focus. That they didn’t suggests to me that their focus when thinking about the questions Clarisse raised is more or less the same as the women you are talking about.
What I mean by male heterosexual desire in and of itself: Obviously, if I meet a woman to whom I am attracted and I desire her, then I desire her; but the interior structure of that desire, how it fits into who I am–since she is obviously not going to be the only woman in the world I find attractive–exists entirely independently of her. It is in me, about me, and one of the issues that I think Clarisse’s post points to is that we don’t really have a vocabulary for talking about male desire in those terms; and I think this thread is a good illustration of that lack.
Regarding Beneke’s book, since your comment suggests you have not read the whole thing and since I have not read it in a very long time, I will say only that I think you have misunderstood his argument and leave it at that.
Xena…that was me Kristina…not Clarisse…
The reason we are discussing scenarios is to hopefully clear up any misunderstanding in communication. It’s not saying you aren’t entitled to your feelings, but what if your perceptions are off (or not what women intend to make you feel), and if the perceptions are not off it is more productive to find a way that we can meet halfway…otherwise you’re essentially telling women to bow down to your will.
kristina,
I’m not sure what to say to the lyrics thing apart from that it’s clearly not ok to intentionally get someone inebriated to take advantage of them – if it involves sex that’s pretty close to date rape or even actual date rape.
On the other hand, I think it should also be considered that a lot of people, including a lot of women, do get drunk to intentionally lower their inhibitions (reducing the impact of the GABA neurotransmitter), and alcohol apparently has a stronger disinhibitive effect on women than on men, probably because of lower average body weight and sudden spikes in testosterone levels caused by alcohol intake that women aren’t used to handling, so the “spontaneous” testosterone is believed to have a much stronger behavioral impact on women than on men.
So, yeah, drinking a lot of alcohol will not rarely cause people, likely particularly women, to want things that may not want – or *allow themselves to want* – if they weren’t drunk. That not rarely makes them sexually more aggressive than they would be if sober. But not wanting them at a different point doesn’t automatically disqualify their wanting in that moment, it’s a bit more complicated, I think.
And it cuts both ways. I’ve experienced very drunk women suggest sex on toilets without saying as much as hi before or start groping me in inappropriate ways. I don’t think those experiences were a big deal, some were more unpleasant than others, but I think they illustrate again that some things aren’t usually considered “creepy” when done by women that would certainly be considered “creepy” if done by men. Actually, even being helpful can get a man seen as creepy – I’ve once taken a drunk women home who fell asleep on my shoulder (after having briefly flirted with me) and her female “friend” didn’t want to take her home (she lived literally 100m from the venue). So I decided to walk her home. But you know what? Instead of helping her friend herself she made sure she had my name, because she apparently considered it creepy to be nice enough to help a woman home who was stumbling over her own feet. She’s right, of course, all things considered, it probably *must* appear creepy for a guy to be helping a drunk woman get home, particularly if that woman is attractive and had been flirting with him. So I made sure myself the bouncers of the club knew where I was going and that I would be back in three minutes. The stumbling women still actually tried to pull me into her apartment (“oh come on, just for a chat…”) and would only let go after I would give her my phone number… she obviously never called, as she will have been too embarrassed the next day. So much for the effect of alcohol on inhibitions. But also about so much about the notions of male “creepiness”.
I wonder if people needed as much “liquid confidence” if we lived in a society that had a better attitude towards sexual pleasure and was more open to expressions thereof. Which brings us back to the topic at hand… Can’t you see how it is limiting your range of expression, particularly sexual expression, if you constantly have to worry about not being seen as “taking more than you’re getting” or even as potentially dangerous?
“I still seem hung up on wondering what some guys consider healthy expression of their sexuality though…Can you give an example or examples of dialog that would demonstrate healthy/unhealthy…maybe some that hasn’t worked in a pickup.”
I’ll try. I’ll get back to you on that later.
“I didn’t know you weren’t referring to Hedwig with the Berlin Wall reference. ”
Well, I was flattered anyway, Xena. Thank you. It was a very nice compliment.
Pronouns – this is about as tangential a derailemnt as I can imagine, but at least it’s not hostile.
“I can’t even imagine what a 3rd/4th person distinction would look like, or a 1st person inclusive/exclusive distinction. ‘
Algonkian languages – Blackfoot, Cheyenne, Ojibwe, Cree, etc. http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=681-16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algonquian_languages
have this distinction (as well as some other groups of languages).
“When he came in, he was already asleep.” If this refers to two people, the first one would get one rponominal; marking and the seciond would get another. It’s a very useful distinction and keeps narratives a lot cleaner.
First plural inclusive/exclusive is very wide-spread in the Pacific and East Asian region. Mandarin Chinese has it though other Chinese languages don’t.
“We’re going for drinks – do you want to come along?” This is 1P Exclusive, because it excludes the person you are talking to.
“Come on; we’re leaving.” This is 1P Inclusive.
Again, a very economical way to avoid confusion.
English is my first language.
Not that sure. I get inhibited, but due to taking testosterone suppression meds, I wouldn’t get spikes short of an ethylic coma.
My testosterone levels are 0. Literally 0. Most women have higher than 0 levels, something like 1-3, men 10-30.
That doesn’t prevent my having a libido. In fact, going from 20 to 0 T levels has *increased* my libido, from just about nothing, to a small one.
So I doubt it when I see “Testosterone does this” or “Estrogen does that” when we’re talking interests (like wether someone is horny or not, wants to take care of children) and not physiological (skin texture for one) or emotional effects (T dulls emotions).
Alcohol effects also depend on how “used to it” you are. Some people can remain lucid at levels where others get asleep.
At a certain level of drunkeness, we are so impaired in judgment that we think more or less like children. “I want this” in your brain, literally translates to “I want this” in real life, whereas an adult who is sober and unimpaired in judgment would check to see if it’s safe, okay with others, etc.
Being drunk causes entitlement. Wee.
“but I think they illustrate again that some things aren’t usually considered “creepy†when done by women that would certainly be considered “creepy†if done by men. Actually, even being helpful can get a man seen as creepy -”
Sam, that is exactly the scenario James Landrith was in that led to his rapwe by thepreganat woman he was helping. the And when he came out with this, he got a wall of victim blaming and white knighting on the rapist – “Oh, she was pregnant; her hormones….you have to understand…..”
In retrospect James and his article about his rape widened a developing split in the MRM between trad/chivalrists and actual MRAs. The rads were all over him for not being a real man in several double-bind ways. That disgusted a lot of other people.
Ref: your point about the creepiness double-standard, Paul Elam has a post on that at the moment. I won’t post a link out of consideration for Hugo.
“Can’t you see how it is limiting your range of expression, particularly sexual expression, if you constantly have to worry about not being seen as “taking more than you’re getting†or even as potentially dangerous?”
Yes, which is exactly WHY I’m a feminist… If I was that girl’s friend I MAY have found it strange that you were taking this woman home…but if I was TRULY concerned I would’ve thought of my friend first and taken her home myself… that being said I wouldn’t have necessarily thought of you as “creepy” as much as I would’ve thought the situation strange…I think the girl who refused to take her home was “covering her ass” more than she was actually implying you were creepy…her friend was extremely selfish…bottom line.
ne that I trusted this guy who was otherwise trustworthy, two: it could have been much worse if it was a guy that wasn’t my friend. I would’ve trusted him drunk or not…even though I knew he wanted to sleep with me I trusted him enough to live with him, I trusted him enough to drink when he was around, and I trusted he wouldn’t get me drunk in order to sleep with him…I had that same trust even when I was drunk and explaining to my boss at work that it was my fault for falling for it, because ultimately it was MY decision to drink at all….had I suspected R of being a creep BEFORE I even drank, it wouldn’t have happened, at all…but this is the level of trust men are asking for…it’s much more difficult than it seems, and situations aren’t so cut and dry.
I do find it creepy when women who wouldn’t normally give a guy the time of day until they get drunk, or if they suddenly fall in love just because the guy lost some weight or changed his clothing style or any other numerous shallow things you can change about someone, but being a woman I talk to other women and tell them, “Hey you’re being stupid”, even if they’re my friends, especially if they’re my friends…I can’t go around telling strange guys you’re being stupid, or really even my guy friends…or I’m labeled a hater, just because I happen to be the opposite sex, and we’re supposed to love each other, apparently even the stupid things we do to each other. I have gotten super drunk before…lots of times actually… and the only thing that got inhibited was my short-term memory…my decision making “in the moment” was intact. Let me tell a story:
I had 2 guy roommates, one that hit on me all the time(let’s call him R), and one that was like a big brother (let’s call him B). R and B had a small drink before work (we worked at the same place)I didn’t have to work my shift until much later and figured I’d be sober before I got to work so I’d throw one back too…R did a good job of distracting me while he kept filling my large cup with little bits…it’s hard to keep track of how much is in a large dark cup when pouring tiny bits in…I said I am NOT drinking anymore R, you must be filling it when I’m not looking…I trusted R enough that he wouldn’t want to get me tipsy so I finished the cup…now he didn’t rape me or even touch me, but he thought it pretty funny that the ten seconds it took to leave the room and get to the steps was where I realized I was insanely drunk…It may have been my fault, but I trusted him, the thing men ask women to do… now I’m not implying all men will do this with the intention of rape (it wasn’t even R’s intention), but he thought of it as a joke…god knows why, but it was funny that I started crying because I had no idea what was going on, I had also had an injury that made it painful to go down the steps when I was sober, let alone wasted..and I was told to suck it up and quit crying…The only thing either of them could think of was how much trouble THEY were going to get in at work. I did, and managed to make it down the steps. I almost got fired that day at work, until I told the story…no R did not get fired…and it was at my insistence that he didn’t get fired, because as far as I was concerned it was a misunderstanding because
Sorry Kristina, when these comment walls get really full my eyes stsrt to cross, and then names start to cross…
Schala,
I’m not saying “testosterone does this”, only that alcohol increases testosterone levels and apparently the relative increase in females is much higher than in males and it has been suggested (as in: I’ve read somewhere in what seemed to be a credible source) that this has a more significant libidonous impact on women than on men who are used to dealing with higher testosterone leveles. And I’m certainly no endokrinology expert.
Jim,
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. At the point she tried to pull me into her apartment, she was holding my arm so she wouldn’t fall down. She did try to “lure me in”, but probably only because she did not want to be rejected. So giving her my number was a face saving mechanism. Again, I’m not familiar with the stor you mention, and I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say…
The fact that women are in a club, to meet men, and drink proves they have a level of trust…They are sober before they reach the club, they know men will be in the club, they know they will be drinking…it’s when a decision comes into play as to whether or not this is a “good idea” that men are seen as creeps…if men were seen as creeps in general there wouldn’t be any women in the club at all, just like I wouldn’t have been living with a man whom I knew wanted to sleep with me if I thought he was a creep. If men were creeps in society we’d be segregated…well some of us anyway. I absolutely have faith that men aren’t creeps…but when I’m forced to make a “selfish” decision just because of the fact that I’m engaging with other humans it becomes more difficult to make the distinction, and many times is a life and death situation…I think what you did Sam was right…not only for her sake…but yours too..what if she had slept with you and cried rape…your decision was one of self preservation as well.
T levels don’t tend to vary for men though (they do over decades after puberty). So a spike isn’t something they are used to, either.
We’ve yet to determine what causes libido. For sure, absence of testosterone, or lower levels, make erections harder to come by or maintain – but an erection isn’t libido, that’s a physiological reaction that can be the result of tons of thing, including needing to pee.
So something that says a testosterone spikes increases libido, is highly suspect to me.
I take cyproterone acetate, daily. This eliminates all T present in my blood and prevents its binding to cells. None left, not even that supposedly caused by alcohol intake (I suppose, from adrenal glands).
For the record, this drug is used to treat prostate cancer – who often are encouraged to grow by T. It’s usage as a chemical castrator probably exists…but that will only make you infertile, while its supposed effect as an inhibitor of libido won’t do much – it will make erections less durable and less frequent, but that’s about it.
Desiring sex isn’t dependant on keeping it up. As much as Viagra and Cyalis commercials want you to think otherwise.
I got MORE libido now than before, when I had average male T levels. I had no libido at all then. I could say my libido is caused by estrogen, cause it’s the only positively correlated change with me.
In short; libido is caused by some factors that we don’t know about, and varies between individuals *independantly* of a given hormone’s level. It’s just more complex than that.
Getting drunk could be license to have sex for some, in situations they might not otherwise. And many of those drink FOR this reason. It’s effect on libido is questionable. I think puritanical morals regarding sex (psychologically, not collectively) taking a backseat to immediate gratification when drunk is more it.
Technically, an eunuch (no testes) who didn’t also have a penectomy (most didn’t), could have penetrative sex. He’s just 100% infertile. So trying to control sex offenders with androcur, thinking “now he can’t do it” is misguided.
Lyrics for the song under discussion:
Blame it on the Goose (goose)
Got you feeling loose (loose)
Blame it on Petron (‘tron)
Got you in the zone (zone)
Blame it on the a-a-a-a-a-alcohol
Blame it on the alcohol (fades)
(Verse 1)
Ay She say she usually don’t
But I know that she front
Cause shawty know what she want
But she don’t wanna seem like she easy
I hear you saying what ya won’t do
But you know we probably gon do
What you been fening deep inside
Don’t lie now
(Chorus)
Girl What ya drinking
Gone let it sink in
Here for the weekend
Thinking we can
See what we can be if we press fast foward
Just one more round
If you’re down I’m for it
Fill another cup up
Feeling on your butt-What?
You don’t even care now
I was unaware
How fine you was before my buzz set in
(My buzz set in)
Blame it on the Goose (goose)
Got you feeling loose (loose)
Blame it on Petron (‘tron)
Got you in the zone (zone)
Blame it on the a-a-a-a-a-a-a-alcohol
Blame it on the a-a-a-a-a-a-a-alcohol
Blame it on the Vodka
Blame it on the Henny
Blame it on the Blue Tap
Gotcha feeling dizzy
Blame it on the a-a-a-a-a-a-alcohol
Blame it on the alcohol (fades)
(Verse 2)
Oooh see?
She spilled some drink on me
And now I’m knowing she’s tipsy
She put her body on me
And she keep staring me right in my eyes
No telling what I’m gone do
Baby I would rather show you
What you been missing in your life
When I get inside
(Chorus)
Girl What ya drinking
Gone let it sink in
Here for the weekend
Thinking we can
See what we can be if we press fast foward
Just one more round
If you’re down I’m for it
Fill another cup up
Feeling on your butt-What?
You don’t even care now
I was unaware
How fine you was before my buzz set in
(My buzz set in)
Blame it on the Goose (goose)
Got you feeling loose (loose)
Blame it on Petron (‘tron)
Got you in the zone (zone)
Blame it on the a-a-a-a-a-a-a-alcohol
Blame it on the a-a-a-a-a-a-a-alcohol
Blame it on the Vodka
Blame it on the Henny
Blame it on the Blue Tap
Gotcha feeling dizzy
Blame it on the a-a-a-a-a-a-alcohol
Blame it on the alcohol (fades)
(T-Pain Verse)
Girl I know you feel good
Just like you look
Couple more shots
You open up like a book
I ain’t tripping
(Cause I’mma read ya)
I ain’t tripping
(I just wanna please ya)
I’mma take a shot of *Nuvo
Shawty didn’t you know
It’s going down
And we can go and kick it like Judo
You know what I mean
Shawty got drunk thought it all was a dream
So I made her say “Ah Ah Ah”
Now she got her hands on my legs
Got my seats all wet in my ride
All over my ride
She look me dead in the eye (eye eye)
Then my pants got bigger
She already knew what the figure
Had her looking at her boyfriend
Like “**** that ****”
(T-Pain Chorus)
Blame it on the juice
Got you feeling loose
Blame it on Petron
Got you in the zone (zone)
Blame it on the a-a-a-a-a-a-a-alcohol
Blame it on the a-a-a-a-a-a-a-alcohol
Blame it on the Vodka
Blame it on the Henny
Blame it on the Blue Tap
Gotcha feeling dizzy
Blame it on the a-a-a-a-a-a-alcohol
Blame it on the alcohol (fades)
Now to the Ballers popping bottles
With their Henny in they cups
Screaming “Money ain’t a thing”
And if it ain’t throw it up
In the sky Hold your drinks up high
And to the independent Ballers
Who can buy they own bottles
And if you looking like a model
When them broke fellas holla
Tell them bye
And hold ya drinks up high
You can…
Blame it on the Goose (goose)
Got you feeling loose (loose)
Blame it on Petron (‘tron)
Got you in the zone (zone)
Blame it on the a-a-a-a-a-a-a-alcohol
Blame it on the a-a-a-a-a-a-a-alcohol
Blame it on the Vodka
Blame it on the Henny
Blame it on the Blue Tap
Gotcha feeling dizzy
Blame it on the a-a-a-a-a-a-alcohol
Blame it on the alcohol (fades)
“Being drunk causes entitlement. Wee.”
In that case, we should be drunk all the time…we can screw like rabbits and nobody will be the wiser…too bad it will kill our livers…hmmmm… is this a hint that we shouldn’t feel entitled?
yuck…just reading those lyrics makes me want to take a shower…I really didn’t even mention the getting drunk part, because even if you take that out it’s still creepy…anyone telling you what you really want just because you might be seen as a slut is telling you your judgment is screwed up…I agree we shouldn’t see women that way just because they enjoy sex…but it still remains that it is that way…it’s telling a woman “given the current social situations in the world (being seen as a slut or similar reputation ruining rhetoric) is less important than me getting laid”….that’s messed up.
@RJN — Thanks for explicating the connection to Men on Rape. I agree that it’s frustrating that the idea of “starting conversations about male sexuality” has so quickly been reduced to “but how do I get chicks?”
On the other hand, the question of initiating and having relationships is the most practical and immediate concern for almost every man reading the article, I would guess. So it makes sense that it gets emphasized, and the more airy theoretical questions of how to discuss male sexuality is elided.
“On the other hand, the question of initiating and having relationships is the most practical and immediate concern for almost every man reading the article, I would guess. So it makes sense that it gets emphasized, and the more airy theoretical questions of how to discuss male sexuality is elided”
I have sympathy for guys who ask how do I get chicks…I think it’s an important way to discuss it, it puts theory into practice and makes it easier to understand and grasp than the theoretical, in which you’ll always be asking why. I can be concerned all I want about male sexuality and how it is perceived as predatory, and how that can become problematic, but if I was a male I certainly would want to know a good way NOT to be that way…if I discuss nothing but the theoretical I’m essentially whining without solving the problem…so the men that want to know, shouldn’t be thought of as whining that they can’t get chicks…it’s only whining when they refuse to take any consideration on what the women think of said situations…this is why I said it’s important to reduce it to scenarios..our perceptions are very limited and talking about them we may be able to come to a suitable conclusion in which we can apply that in real life. I only know my side of the story, and it’s important to know men’s perception of the situation, and that they know my thoughts during the social process…what they do with my thoughts is what determines how willing they are…same with situations reversed…
kristina,
“I think what you did Sam was right…not only for her sake…but yours too..what if she had slept with you and cried rape…your decision was one of self preservation as well.”
What in my descrription made you think I wanted to sleep with her? Of course, I told the bouncers so it was clear I’d be back in a minute. The problem is that doing the right thing – in this case helping her home – makes me vulnerable to all sorts of prejudices against men.Had I been drunk and had she taken me home, she would be seen as exceptionally caring. To be fair, another acquaintance of hers (whom I know (and know is attracted to me but in a relationship) but) who wasn’t around whe her other friend wouldn’t help thanked me later that night and she probably didn’t think I was creepy for helping since she has since introduced me to a couple of her friends…
“I still seem hung up on wondering what some guys consider healthy expression of their sexuality though…Can you give an example or examples of dialog that would demonstrate healthy/unhealthy…maybe some that hasn’t worked in a pickup.â€
On this. If you read a couple of the older posts on Hugo’s blog you’ll probably come along a post in which I explain my story in a bit more detail, but feminist education played a significant part in delaying my psycho-sexual development considerably. Not only feminism but also feminism. I heard male sexuality is toxic and “never push a girl” and ended up hiding entirely hiding my sexuality. Then I heard “I want to be pushed against a wall” for kissing from women and got even more confused. It took me years to work through my partly feminist induced issues of sexual shame and I’m stil not entirely there. I have become “good with women”, but one of my biggest self-expression problem is still transitioning to physical intimacy and kissing. Whenever I think it’s the right moment, there’s still a voice telling me – are you sure? If tried asking but that’s not as easy as it seems. Women don’t appear to want to make that decision verbally at that point, even if they do want. So I’ve certainly confused more women by not kissing them than I could have possibly confused by kissing them, and I missed out on a lot of make outs, because I still usually need to make the women want to initiate (and not a lot of women will, not least because at one point they are bound to wonder whether I’m actually interested (“you really talk a lot for a sitatuion like this, I’m used to guys who get on with business”), because I still usually can’t do it, even when I am as sure as one can be that she would like me to initiate. I’m worried about being wrong, about misreading, about making a mistake that would then somehow confirm my earlier feminist/religious fears about my allegedly toxic sexualiy. Does that example make the general problem a bit clearer for you?
I’m sorry if it came across that you did want to sleep with her…I’m pretty sure it wasn’t your intention, especially since she was drunk…I thought perhaps you were saying if she wasn’t drunk that you would have been “allowed” to be attracted to her…I thought there was attraction, but not one based on being able to take advantage of her…if there was attraction…that’s fine, if there wasn’t that’s fine too… I was essentially trying to make you feel better if you were attracted to her, even if she was drunk…it came out a little stupid as I was trying to make a worse case-scenario…sorry about that. I thought that was the theme of the post, how to be attracted to a woman without being creepy…
As for the confused about consent issue…it’s ok to make a small boo boo such as kissing when you initiate…think of it this way…when you’re younger your first kiss is extremely awkward…you wonder what do we do after that kiss, you pause after the kiss, just blankly staring at each other…Either a connection occurs afterward and you shyly hold each other, or nothing… I always thought of my first kiss as absolutely memorable because of that awkward moment…the vulnerability that both parties feel is connecting…Almost everyone I know remembers their first kiss…don’t you think it’s because of that awkward moment? If I was able to relive that first kiss moment with every new partner I would have been thrilled…yeah it was awkward, but the bond I felt with that person afterward was amazing…that being said I think someone can forgive a kiss with an awkward moment afterward, as opposed to a kiss that leads to something they aren’t so sure of…
“not least because at one point they are bound to wonder whether I’m actually interested (â€you really talk a lot for a sitatuion like this, I’m used to guys who get on with businessâ€)”
I totally understand this…I however don’t blame it on men, as much as I blame it on society for telling me and men that they are savage sex beasts…this is why I am a feminist…I know I have notions that are screwed up, that are ingrained in me as a young child, not just about what I’m supposed to be as a female…but what they portray men to be too. Those women that tell you that are told by society that if a man doesn’t want to screw you all the time he must not be attracted to you…I struggle with this with my husband…we don’t have sex as much as I’d like, and I have to struggle to tell myself I’m still attractive to him…It totally sucks for me too to think like that. I used to give my husband a hard time about it, saying he must not love me…until I realized I was being selfish…it wasn’t about him…it was about me and how I felt…it made me sick when I figured that out.
Well gosh darn Sam…I had an AH-ha moment…with you to thank… just because you are attracted doesn’t mean you WANT to sleep with her… DUH…see…I told you society did a number on me too… My intention still was to make a worse case scenario, and I think that got the best of my feminist thinking…or societal deprogramming if you’d rather I word it that way…
kristina,
I’m attracted to about 20% of the female population I see on the street. If I actually wanted to sleep with all of them I’d have a busy day
. Or, one of my very best friends is female and in a happy relationship with someone else. We’re very intimate and can instantly start and stop flirting, we’re just very familiar with each other. She’s a fantastic sexy woman to whom I am very much attracted (and I do think that’s mutual) and I still don’t want to sleep with her (also mutual, we’ve actually talked about it at some point).
“As for the confused about consent issue…it’s ok to make a small boo boo such as kissing when you initiate…”
well, I guees. But I think the more important point is what I think Clarisse is trying to say in her essay: That there is a tendency to see male sexuality as toxic in general, leading to collateral damage like myself. And that such a tendency should be opposed by those who are claiming to liberate gender – feminists, in particular. But just click on the link to pandagon below and what you’ll see is feminists who seem to believe that Clarisse is trying to take away a weapon in the battle of the sexes, hence she must some sort of enemy agent… it’s all about retaining discourse hegemony, apparently.
Yeah I went on there for a little bit and was kind of turned off by the comments…I just felt like it was a lot of shouting. I’m deeply sorry Sam…I really feel bad about projecting my insecurities on you…as I told you it’s something I personally struggle with, to think that if I’m attractive I should be getting “it” more often…granted it’s from my husband and not random guys…but still…I’m glad you brought that to my attention though. =P
kristina,
“I really feel bad about projecting my insecurities on you…”
no worries…
“That there is a tendency to see male sexuality as toxic in general”
It is important that Clarisse brings this up…I don’t think I ever disagreed with that…but it really took your scenario of how a man can legitimately become a casualty that really hit home for me…most men I hear just complain that they aren’t getting laid, with no real detail, into how the situations played out…this is why I say I like to hear about social situations..I don’t know what someone is perceiving is legitimate unless I’ve been given an example…otherwise I’m just going to wrongly assume they want to get laid by any woman they think is attractive (I acknowledge that is wrong of me to think…but you can’t deny that some men think this…maybe not even the majority…but some..and telling the difference in real life isn’t a matter of a man wearing a stamp on his head that says asshole…which is what I think feminists are trying to say) gah…I’m so confused…I was never good at math… LOL!
I feel like I just went backwards again… I can assume the majority of men don’t just want to get laid by every attractive woman they see, but how will I know which guy doesn’t just want to get laid, should I just assume he really wants to get to know me, and hold off until I know for sure that he won’t leave the second I give it up… What ideas would you have from your perspective of a man, to overcome this idea of men having a toxic sexuality? I would love to be able to just trust every guy, but in matters of preservation (not even talking about rape, but emotional)what precautions could I possibly take? (all this assuming I’m single obviously…I’m not ACTUALLY asking for dating advice..lol)
kristina: Let’s say I know two people, A and B.
A generally believes the worst of me while B generally believe the best of me. An examples is: If I am late for an appointment to A, A will think I am late because I don’t care while B in the same situation will think I am late because something came up.
Some questions: Don’t you think I’ll pick up on this after a while?
Do you think my behaviour towards them will differ? Which one of the two do you think I am most likely to avoid/disengage from?
And if I was late with A because I didn’t care – do you think I care about the fact that she thinks I don’t care? (That sentence turned out to be a mouthfull).
In short: stereotyping men as horndogs will not deter those who actually are, but it will deter those who are not. And sadly this will just reinforce your stereotyping. In addition stereotyping makes one blind against those who do not fall into the stereotype. People who stereotype muslims as dangerous religious fanaticals will notice information supporting that stereotype while information which weakens or goes against the stereotype will be noticed to a much lesser degree.
The same problem goes with the Scrødinger’s rapist thing. I will not feel comfortable around a women I notice have that view of me and will most likely disengage from them.
And, yes, there is in my opinion a difference between taking sensible and reasonable precautions to safeguards one’s safety and stereotyping men. Not stereotyping men does not mean do not take precautions, but keep them sensible and reasonable.
So, unfortunately no, I can’t give you any concrete precautions to take anymore than you can give me any concrete advice on when to initiate a kiss with someone.
One last point, please make allowance for the fact that men are also severly gender policed. I think we all can agree that one of the prevailing stereotype is that men are just interested in having sex. This I think makes men conflate sex, romantic relationships and intimacy. So I suspect strongly that quite a few of the men you’ve heard complaining about not getting laid actually are frustrated about not being able to get into a romantic relationships with real intimacy.
Gotcha…as for me personally, I’ve never had a problem with guys liking me or being turned off by my “thinking”…I pretty much always gave everyone the benefit of the doubt…my attitude when I was dating was one that was risk taking in general…I often approached guys because I know its hard to do, I took rejection well (after the first disaster I learned my lesson pretty quickly), I didn’t sleep with EVERY guy, but they definitely knew I cared for them…I actually left a lot of broken hearts in my wake because I was flighty, and had a lot of issues with myself…and that may have damaged some hearts…but more men told me they learned something from me, even some that I broke up with…basically I took an attitude that I don’t particularly care IF guys are horn-dogs, if I’m that worried about it I won’t sleep with them right away, but I ALWAYS made sure they knew I cared… I always saw relationships as you win some you lose some…I didn’t come in contact with a lot of guys who just wanted sex, and the ones that did would pressure me for it in bad ways (grabbing my arm, if you love me you will, being forceful, I even had one guy I just met attempt to rape me in a deli)…for some reason I could always just tell, and never got shafted in that sense…I’ve told people about the creeper stare…but most guys take offense to it…I don’t see it on the majority of guys…it’s an almost lifeless look…like staring into a void, and not all guys have it…but the rare ones that do scare the crap outta me… That being said, I was always a feminist in practice, but in theory it’s a lot easier to alienate yourself… I do like to muse over the theory, but if I set rules in my engagements of course I’m going to leave a lot of people out. There are some things I still won’t stand though, and silly comments about strip club therapy are one of them, and I hear that a lot. I still don’t believe using women’s bodies to satisfy your emotions is good…at least not in a non-personal way…
Staring at nothing in particular and more or less into the void is a ‘ strategy’ I developed in regards to having to wait, at school, hospital, clinic. Anywhere I got to stay seated doing nothing for a long enough time.
If someone sees me staring at nothing, well I am staring at nothing. Not objectifying someone. I can daydream like this, pretty fun when you master it. And it can be a way to have a form of escapism while in a place you normally couldn’t (ie school, when done with assigned work).
I didn’t say they were objectifying…and it’s different when you are looking directly at the person…basically I’ve seen guys interact directly…but aren’t all there…it’s not to say they were objectifying me, but it seemed like some personal connection to me personally was missing, it’s more on a one on one interaction basis than one in general…I said anyway it’s extremely rare…it could be the lack of the personal connection that skeeved me, and not the person itself…but I really haven’t met many people I don’t connect with…so it’s scary, not that I think they will rape me or anything.
kristina, I know that exact look you’re talking about, and I don’t think I’ve ever been the receiver of that look in a friendly conext.
PM, I do too. If they do it to a guy, there is likely to be a fight or at least a pretty thick atmosphere. It’s not some kind of over-reaction on a woman’s part to get creeped out.
Absolutely right. Anyone interested in this kind of thing should take a look at Paul Ekman’s research on how surprisingly uniform facial expressions are across cultures. Any time I’ve had that stare I tense up, and the few times it’s been accompanied by words they’ve been to the effect of “I do not care about you whatsoever.”
I really dislike the original article for all kinds of reasons (imprecision mostly, and conflating ideas that need to be separate), but the resulting discussion is interesting.
I think it’s silly to say that male desire is “demonized” in a general sense, and I really object to any suggestion that women are overly hasty in labeling men as creepy in general – in my experience, when men are labeled as creepy, there’s usually a good reason for it (like the guy I interviewed earlier this week who wanted to cut off a lock of my hair, and persisted in arguing that he should be allowed to do so after I said no – sorry, I feel no shame about labeling him as creepy). I do think, however, that we lack cultural scripts that allow men to express desire in ways that are precise. It all tends to get very vague, because it’s often considered impolite to be specific. In particular, we really lack commonly used, generally understood language to address what I think kristin is trying to describe – that slightly ambiguous space where you want to get to know someone, and you’re potentially interested in sex further down the road, but you’re not determined to get laid immediately or soley, and if things ended up going in more of a friendly direction you’d be OK with that too. Sex as a potential outcome but with no assumption of a guarantee, basically. Now, to me that situation is one that happens all the time, but in my experience our culture is woefully lacking in terms of teaching/allowing people to express that feeling, and I think it may be even harder for men because they tend to be raised to be less verbal about their internal processes in general.
I had one of those situations last week, actually, where I met a guy (this is the second time we’ve met) through work, he asked if we could hang out again next time he’s in town, I said sure, but I’m honestly not sure whether he’s suggesting a potential date or hanging out as friends, and I get the distinct sense that he’s not sure what my intentions/wishes are either. Now in that particular case there are specific reasons why both of us aren’t being more specific (again, work), but I do think part of the issue may be that men aren’t generally encouraged to verbalise things in ambiguous situations, and that we’d all be better of if they were encouraged to verbalise their thoughts/feelings/wishes more. I’d certainly be less baffled right now if that were general practise!
Also as a culture we do a shitty job of teaching men how to tell women that they’re interested in sex in polite, respectful ways, but that’s so heavily tied in with the culture not encouraging men to view women in polite, respectful ways in general, especially when sex is involved, that I don’t think you can solve the communication issue without first solving the bigger cultural issue that’s influencing it.
Question for the guys – in the situations where you do in fact know exactly what you want out of a particular situation but don’t say so, why is it that you don’t say so. Fear of seeming rude? Not wanting to scare the woman off? Just not sure how to express what you’re thinking? I think that in order to address this issue we kind of need to get down to specifics of the “in situation A., when man B. is thinking he’d kind of like C. to happen, how does he communicate that in a way that doesn’t make woman D. uncomfortable?”.
“The thread of barely repressed sexual desire is not shot through the entire bolt of human relationships.”
I honestly think that the fact that this is usually assumed when men express any personal interest in women is a big part of what’s poisoning the well, in terms of gender interactions. What I object to, though, is the assumption I’m seeing from some people (not you, Hugo, obviously) that the reason that is assumed is that women are meanies who’re just too quick to judge men. That’s not what’s going on here – the assumption that any time a man talks to a woman he wants sex is rooted in patriarchy and wierd, messed up ideas about male sexuality.
“Question for the guys – in the situations where you do in fact know exactly what you want out of a particular situation but don’t say so, why is it that you don’t say so. Fear of seeming rude? Not wanting to scare the woman off? Just not sure how to express what you’re thinking? I think that in order to address this issue we kind of need to get down to specifics of the “in situation A., when man B. is thinking he’d kind of like C. to happen, how does he communicate that in a way that doesn’t make woman D. uncomfortable?â€.”
As far as I know, being direct DOES make women uncomfortable, so you’ve got to ease into it. Eye contact, body language, smiling, and eventually asking for a phone number do a pretty good job.
Friendship is easy – ask for a phone number but make sure the first time together is with a group and don’t use suggestive body langauge.
As for sex, well, if you can tell me a polite way to tell a woman that you’d like to have sex then I’ll be really impressed. I want to have casual sex but never have done so and, since I would rather not meet my partner in a booze-soaked environment, I am at a loss as to how to go about finding a casual sex partner. Except the internet.
I made a post about this upthread, specifically the sex part. If I want to have sex but am direct about it I’m a creep. If I want to have sex so I decide to act like I am interested in dating first, I am a creep and a liar when she finds out my true intentions. Alcohol seems to be the “solution” to this sort of thing.
While I haven’t been particularly interested in having casual sex, I would be impressed by a guy that can express his intent…I knew guys in school that were “players” some that were honest about their intent upfront, and those that weren’t…Those that weren’t honest about skeeved me out…those that were, weren’t my cup of tea, but I had to give them props for being honest. I’m sure there are women who enjoy casual sex…as long as you are able to get it across that you don’t think she’s “that type” (girls who aren’t into that WILL take offense if they think you are judging them as “easy”)…it would actually make it easier if you could judge who was “that type”… So I can’t give you the exact advice, but being upfront to me is a plus…
I guess if a guy was to approach me and say something neutral like, “I don’t know if you’d be willing to have a casual sexual relationship, but here’s my phone number, friendship or otherwise…” and then walk off (that is THE most important part…and don’t approach other girls that night)…I MIGHT call him back…the might is based on whether or not I’m attracted to him…the friendship part you say is to save face…but don’t say it if you don’t mean it… Actually, I’d say for me personally there is a high probability that I would call him back and NOT be interested in friendship…it might be a while before you get a call too…but to me if I was approached this way it would be honest and non-threatening. There were several times when I was single and wished I had a guy friend that I could just have sex with.. someone that I could trust, and possibly call for a “booty call” on those extra lonely days…the trust though was a BIG thing for me..to me sex was when I was at my most vulnerable, and I didn’t just want ANYBODY poking around down there…you know?
I do not think that is the issue. The men on this thread and on Alternet had no problem verbalizing their thoughts. I think the problem is that no one listens to what they say. If men say they are demonized for experiencing their sexual desire and express how that makes them feel, it seems contradictory to first tell them that they are not demonized in anyway and that if they are called a creep they earned it, and then turn around and ask them to express their feelings. That simply silences men and invalidates their feelings. I think it would help men more if we listened to what they say about what they actually go through, and if we do so without making any assumptions or presumptions.
So you’re saying she was wrong for labeling lock of hair guy who argued on an interview that he should be able to have a lock of her hair??? How is that not shutting her up???
It’s not easy, nobody is saying that…but she could turn around and say you’re not listening either… Nobody is saying men shouldn’t express their desire for casual sex…there just may be a better way than what they are doing, and the only way to find that out is to ask a woman what she would prefer…since you are trying to appeal to her…If a woman is trying to appeal for a man, it’s best to ask what men find appealing… What men find appealing is diverse, what women find appealing is diverse…the fact that there is no “formula” is what is causing frustration…not women themselves, not men themselves… I think there may be some basics as to how to approach the opposite, but I think since both groups rely so heavily on stereotypes we’re damned if we do damned if we don’t, and it’s a natural human reaction to label when such stereotypes exist so we can avoid the real issue…ourselves and how being wrong (at least when we’re the ones making the approach) will make us feel…
Well, maybe I’m odd in that I work around the music industry, but I’ve seen plenty of cases where a man makes a direct statement that he wants sex and a woman accepts. The subtext, though, is that it’s generally assumed that if a man wants a relationship he won’t ask for casual sex, and if a woman wants a relationship rather than casual sex she will say no to the casual sex.
I think how successful this is depends on both body language and the words you use. I’ve never been offended by a suggestion of sex phrases as an offer, ie. “would you like to do X with me”. I most certainly am offended by “you will do X with me, now” and creeped out by “I want to do X to you” when it comes out of the blue.
What kristina said. Are you honestly suggesting that it’s silencing or unfair to call a man who randomly asks out of the blue if he can cut off part of your hair a creep? If so, I would say that you have some boundary issues. As in, do you understand that women have physical boundaries and that it’s not unreasonable for them not to want those breached randomly and without warning by strangers?
(sorry for calling you kristin earlier, kristina – typing fail)
Honestly what toy soldier seems to be suggesting is that men should be allowed to express their feelings without any consideration for the feelings of the people they’re expressing themselves to, and that’s just not OK. In order for any sort of relationship to work both parties have to listen to each other.
It’s okay Cassandra…I know what you meant… It would seem toysoldier is suggesting that…but I don’t really think he thinks that way…or hope not anyway.
I don’t see a problem with men being honest and straight forward about their desires..but I honestly don’t know how they are approaching the situation..so I can’t make a judgment call on that and that is one of the issues I have about just being so quick to say yes men should be able to express whatever they want however they want with no concern to how it makes the other person feel. If I say yes men should be able to be open about their sexual desires, and they hear that statement and go around saying to women something along the lines of you look pretty let’s have sex..I surely doubt that will have the desired effect either party wants…more men will be labeled creeps and more women will be labeled frigid. I try to keep situations that are out of context ambiguous for a reason…I don’t see that happening when some men comment on how unfair women are being…if you give me a context and I give you my interpretation on how I would feel…we may get a wider range of how to express those desires, especially as other women weigh in their opinions. Just saying women turn me down when I’m direct is NOT context… what is your definition of direct, where were you meeting women…what did you say.. what was her body language, what was yours, what did she say, who was she with, who were you with, even down to what were you wearing, what was she wearing..or if you can’t remember the details, what was HONESTLY your first thought when you saw her (if it was that you would get laid..say so, if it was that she was frigid, say so just be sure to express that was your impression and the possibility that stereotypes influenced your thinking)…all those are very important in social situations, not just for women.
“Actually, I’d say for me personally there is a high probability that I would call him back and NOT be interested in friendship…it might be a while before you get a call too…but to me if I was approached this way it would be honest and non-threatening. There were several times when I was single and wished I had a guy friend that I could just have sex with.. someone that I could trust, and possibly call for a “booty call†on those extra lonely days…the trust though was a BIG thing for me..to me sex was when I was at my most vulnerable, and I didn’t just want ANYBODY poking around down there…you know?”
Thank you, and I think you brought up an important point in the latter half of that. At least if just asked someone for casual sex and they labeled me a “creep,” at least I wouldn’t get the reputation of someone who was acting way outside the expectations of my gender and suddenly get bombarded qith requests from other women. If a woman were to do ask a man and it got spread around, my bet is other men would be thinking “so if she asked HIM…”
Yes…that is one of the reasons that I couldn’t just call a guy friend for a booty call…not to mention that if it was a guy I was good friends with I wouldn’t want to get emotionally confused (thinking I loved him because of the sex), and then end up confusing him too…I would be portrayed as “clingy” if I confused him…I guess I just knew my boundaries..I did have sex with one of my guy friends, and while neither of those things happened, he thought I would still be up for booty calls after he had a relationship with a girl I worked with…that was not cool…I still didn’t label him as creepy…but he did get the horn-dog label, and not because he was into having open relationships, but because his girlfriend didn’t know he was into open relationships.
Bottom line for me is I don’t respect dishonesty…at all
The other thing is that you always have to try to read the other person a bit first before making any sort of pass/offer/suggestion, whether you’re a man or a woman. Just randomly walking up to people and asking for sex is going to fail most of the time, but if you and another person have been flirting for a while, and then you suggest sex, that’s a totally different situation.
Yes Cassandra very much true.
That is not what I stated. I stated that if men say they are demonized for experiencing sexual desire and expressing how that makes them feel, it seems contradictory to tell them that they are not demonized and that they earned being called a creep, and then turn around and ask them to express their feelings. To do that essentially dismisses the feelings they already expressed. I can understand if you do not agree with what men say. You do not have to. It just strikes me as odd that anyone who wants a person to share their feelings would tell that person that he does not feel what he says he feel and what he says happened to him never happened. That seems counterproductive. I do not share my experiences or feelings with people I know will deny and dismiss them, and I assume you do not either.
I agree that in order for a relationship to work both parties must listen to each other. However, part of listening means accepting that you may hear things that might upset you. The point is not to agree with what a person says, but to come to a better understanding of what a person feelings. We cannot do that if we silence or censor people. Likewise, listening to others is not about waiting for your turn to speak. Sometimes listening means just listening.
I know that’s not what you said…I asked if it was what you are suggesting (since it seems the label creepy is NEVER justified), and it seems you made your point very clear…what would you do if someone asked for a lock of your hair? Maybe you would be flattered… what would you do if they still insisted?
I’m not saying we should label anyone creepy and just go around telling everyone about this “creepy person” and point them out in public as if we are stamping them on their forehead with a capital red “C”, but what if a woman has that opinion of a man, in the individual meeting sense, and not a general sense that all or most men are creepy because *blank* (I honestly don’t know what men think is earning them the label creepy or if they even are being labeled creepy…I’m sure the variations to situations are so great that everyone can draw their own conclusions and NOT necessarily be right) What would be a way for a man to get the hint that maybe his behavior isn’t widely acceptable to women, if they don’t get the feeling that maybe they’re doing something wrong…I don’t think every instance the guy does something that could be perceived as strange is met with a woman screaming creep in his face…so what is going on, how does the guy get the idea she is thinking “creep”, and if he does shouldn’t he perhaps tailor his behavior to be more acceptable…or should the woman just tailor her behavior so he doesn’t think she’s thinking creep??? Where does it stop? I have seen some instances where a woman has screamed creep…but not as many times as the woman not saying anything, and just avoiding contact…while avoiding contact may seem like she is calling him a creep, it’s mainly about NOT being able to verbalize her thoughts…much like you suggest, that women shouldn’t label men creepy..so where are men getting the idea women think they are creepy?
I did not say the label “creep” is never justified. I questioned the idea of telling men who say they were unfairly called creeps that “in my experience, when men are labeled as creepy, there’s usually a good reason for it.” We can probably find a host of valid reasons to label a man creepy, but can we honestly say the label does not get misapplied?
I also think you are asking the wrong questions. The better question to ask is why so many men feel they are in a double-bind. I understand that you want to use the label “creep,” but that is not really the issue. This issue is how we apply that label to expressions of male desire and how that makes men feel. I do not see how we can address that issue by telling men “don’t do things that make women call you creep” anymore than telling women “don’t do things that make men call you slut” addresses how their complaints.
As for someone asking for a lock of my hair, depending on the situation I would either ignore them or give them what they want. I do the same thing with sex. I either ignore the person or just do it to get them to leave me alone. For some reason people, particularly women, find me attractive and assume I would be fun to have sex with. I find having sex with them disabuses them of that thought. And since I tend to disassociate in uncomfortable situations, no one get harmed. They get their sex, and I get them to never bother me again.
This comment was made by Pounding Sand, and I accidentally deleted it. Not my words, but those of PS:
CassandraSays, I’m from Europe too and, not for the first time when reading some of the posts here, can’t help feeling that there are cultural differences that exist here in the US that somehow fundamentally effect the way opposite sexes see and interact w/ each other. It often seems that there is an overarching, almost puritanical, sense of fear and loathing on both sides that is very difficult for folks to negotiate. Nevertheless this entry, along w/ the Clarisse Thorne thread, have beeen the least antagonistic, and the most interesting readings, that I’ve seen here in a while.
Thanks Hugo.
I’m not saying the label doesn’t get misapplied…it does..I’ve dated supposed creeps, and they were fine to me.
I didn’t say I wanted to use the label creep…I’ve referred to incidents as creepy, but not men as creeps..perhaps that would be a better label, but it still won’t stop the issue of men’s feelings getting hurt.
As for giving someone what they want and then going about your business eventually getting what you want.. Let me relate to this the best way I can.
I was often labeled a lesbian because of the way I acted, dressed, or my interests. I had two choices: I could either change to appease the majority and essentially lose myself, or I could ignore the hurtful, untrue label and be me. I chose to be me, and lost a lot of potential boyfriends in doing so…but instead of feeling like they should like me because I’m a great person I figured why would I want someone who didn’t like me for me anyway…I started to embrace the label because it would weed out the jerks anyway, and it worked fairly well…my relationships were much deeper and more fulfilling. Was it fair that I got labeled like that??? No… did it hurt? Absolutely… The point is not to change people’s opinions..let them have them..you and I are not entitled to tell someone what they should think…period, no matter how much it hurts, and how wrong they are… It is unfair, but the answer is not telling people they can’t have an opinion, even if it’s wrong, it’s working with what you’ve got and making the best of a crappy situation. If those guys labeled creep feel that a change is necessary, good for them, if they don’t, then don’t change and make the best of a situation. I realize it can be hard when you are a guy and relationships with women seem to be far and few in between, but why waste the time thinking women think you are a creep…it may even come across in the approach to the next woman, and even though you’re not a creep your lack of confidence may make you seem creepy, even though the situation doesn’t warrant the label creep. Yes, people shouldn’t label other people..but we don’t live in a society where thoughts are policed and people aren’t ignorant, and it’s not very productive to go back and forth and say others shouldn’t have this or that opinion/label…would that be the best way to be? yes… is it that way? NO…make due with what you’ve got, everyone has to do it, to some extent.
I’m not trying to minimize anyone’s problems and say mine are even equal to that of these guys, because I don’t know…I just see a more productive way in our current situation..and I could be wrong about that too, which is why I leave it up to the individual, but if all we do is complain about the current state of society and social interactions we won’t get anywhere. I don’t think giving in to the other’s demands is a solution, and I don’t think staying in a state of self-pity is good either, but as for how each individual wants to handle it, it’s up to them…but don’t act like the ONLY solution is for everyone to just stop labeling (it would be the ideal solution, but most people don’t even see a problem with it in the first place..)so yes make people aware of the issue, but in the mean time do something to make it easier on yourself.
Kristina, even though I have no interest in dating women, I am pretty sure it would be a turn off for women if a man who embraced that label approached them. Likewise, I do not think accepting the label works in this situation because men do not know what makes them qualify as a creep. As for each individual coping with the situation himself, I agree. We cannot expect people to change their opinions to suit us. However, I do not see the wisdom in a person telling someone that staying in a state of self-pity is not good or that they should not act like the only solution is for everyone to just stop labeling them, especially when that person objects to the same thing being said to women who protest being called “sluts.” If we do not address the social narrative, we cannot begin to address the problem.
I never said we shouldn’t address the main issue…but it seems everyone is feeling shafted in it’s conclusions. I was only trying to relate in the best way I could, and I didn’t claim it as any solution…I mean either way we’re screwed until everyone stops being so opinionated…so stop beating yourself up and try something else…as for the self pity thing…yeah that was out of line…it was something that got me on my feet when I was doing that at the time though…but yeah…sorry bout that.
For the record, I just gritted my teeth and read the AlterNet comments (I’m thinking of writing a followup, so I thought it was the honorable thing to do) and I was pleasantly surprised by how many of them didn’t suck.
This thread is too much, but I picked up one thing I thought was spot on:
I’m from Europe too and, not for the first time when reading some of the posts here, can’t help feeling that there are cultural differences that exist here in the US that somehow fundamentally effect the way opposite sexes see and interact w/ each other. It often seems that there is an overarching, almost puritanical, sense of fear and loathing on both sides that is very difficult for folks to negotiate.
Yeah. This.
Pingback: Creep (NoH) | Feminist Critics
Pingback: Creep (RP) | Feminist Critics
Clarisse:
I did not see this the last time I was reading this thread, but I would nonetheless like to offer a brief, if late, response: I think that the dichotomy between theory and practice–which is implicit in what you’ve said–is not just a false one here, but that it interferes with actually talking about what you want to talk about. To the degree that men want to talk primarily about practice–how do I get chicks?–and that women are responding both to practice–the specific ways in which men express their desires–and to the structure (perceived or otherwise) of those desires, i.e., the sense of entitlement that conventional male heterosexual desire so often contains, then the discussion devolves into one of apples and oranges. In other words, I think that whether or not the “airy theoretical questions” are discussed has a direct bearing on the nature of the conversation you are trying to start.