A young man whom I’ve mentored was in my office this week, and asked me a question based on what had come up in one of my old Men and Masculinity lectures. I’m paraphrasing, but here’s more or less what he said:
I appreciate what you often say about the importance of being a “safe older man.” You are, and that’s great. But one reason you’re safe is that you’re married. You aren’t single and looking. It seems like that makes it easier for you to be a full-fledged feminist male, because you can afford to have all of your relationships with women other than your wife be completely asexual. So don’t take this the wrong way, but you’re not always that helpful as a feminist male role model because you can’t demonstrate how someone can be single, straight, looking for a girlfriend and be feminist. I don’t want to be seen as a creep, but I certainly don’t want to be seen as asexual either.
This goes back to some of the recent discussion around Clarisse Thorn’s piece at Alternet about demonizing men who are honest about their sexual desires.
It’s something I touched on in my write-up of my meeting with young men at Brown University last year. As I wrote then: “for men who long to be feminist allies, finding a way to affirm their own wanting (without an assumption that they are entitled to have those wants satisfied by women) is vital.”
So my student (who had read Clarisse’s controversial article as well as my post about the lads at Brown) was essentially asking me to explain the how of affirming male heterosexual desire while reconciling it with a commitment to gender justice and feminism. He wanted to move past the rhetoric that intimates that from a feminist standpoint, “the only good penis is a soft one.” But how can a man show sexual and romantic interest in a woman without being potentially creepy? That’s where my student — and many other well-intentioned young men – need help.
First off, being a straight male feminist ally is not code for “walking on eggshells” all the time. It does not demand that young men run about taking the emotional temperature of their female peers. There’s no better example of a false dichotomy than the suggestion that all men must be either painfully earnest nice guys or predatory, swaggering bad-boy assholes. The alternative to those unhappy models is one of compassionate confidence (or, if you prefer, confident compassion.)
What does compassionate confidence look like in interpersonal relationships? It starts with the recognition of the difference between one’s own right to want and one’s right to expect others to respond to those wants. In a culture where we raise women to be people-pleasers, generations of men have grown up assuming that their desires are women’s responsibility to solve. Whether it’s a husband who expects dinner to appear magically as soon as he’s hungry, or a boy who insists that his girlfriend owes him a blowjob because “she got him horny”, far too many of us are conditioned to believe that men’s desires are women’s problems to solve. So many men confuse wanting with the entitlement to have their wants met that it’s little wonder that a great many women are mistrustful of expressions of male desire.
A good guy knows that he has the right to want. His horniness and his fantasies are not sinful or wicked. But he’s very clear that his attraction to a woman (say a classmate with whom he strikes up a conversation) isn’t a compliment to her for which she is required to be grateful. He has the right to have a crush, he has the right to lust. He doesn’t have the right to have his wants reciprocated. He needs to do two things at once: affirm the essential goodness of his own desire, and affirm that the woman he’s attracted to has every right not to share his interest.
As I’ve written before, one of the greatest benefits of feminism to men is a greater authenticity and honesty in heterosexual relationships. Women who don’t feel pressured or coerced or “guilted” into a “yes” are going to be much more comfortable saying “no.” And a woman who feels safe to say “no” to the men to whom she is closest will also be someone who will be better equipped to speak an enthusiastic, honest “yes!” when she’s presented with someone she actually wants.
We live in a culture where women have good reason to fear the consequences of rejecting men. Making it clear that one doesn’t expect one’s wants to be met by others is a key part of putting other folks at ease. Dealing with rejection without sulking or shaming the one who has rejected you sends a signal about your safety and your essential decency. (For a marvelous example of why women have good reason to fear the consequences of rejecting men, see the opening scene of the hit movie “The Social Network”, in which it seems as if the very inspiration for the creation of Facebook is Mark Zuckerberg’s toxic rage at being rejected by a woman he’s already treated very shabbily.)
Because many women have little experience with men who take rejection easily and with equanimity, it’s little wonder that some women’s fear of male rage turns into a fear of male desire itself. “If he wants me, then I have to face the problem of rejecting him — and if I reject him, he may do something really dangerous or humiliating. Therefore, it would be better if he didn’t want me at all.” But the problem isn’t the wanting: it’s both the vulgar and crude ways in which some men make that wanting known, and more importantly, the outraged indignation so many men express when they are in fact rejected.
Learning to articulate one’s wants needs to go hand in hand with the graceful acceptance of the rejection that occasionally follows; that is the stuff of which “confident compassion” is made. And in the end, women’s acceptance of the reality (and goodness) of men’s desires is contingent on men’s acceptance of women’s (absolute and never forfeited) right to reject them.
This takes the question of “When is it appropriate to express interest?” (or “How is it appropriate to express interest?”) as the premise, but only seems to answer “When is it not appropriate to express interest?” (or “How is it not appropriate to express interest?”)
For those of us who already operate under the assumption that the answer is “Never” (or “In no way”), that’s not a very helpful answer. The original questioner comes across that way to me, though maybe I’m projecting because I’m like that?
The second you open your mouth, you’re already carrying all of the expectations that come with it. No matter how much you protest that you’ll understand if she says ‘no’ and you expect her to say ‘no’ and it was a stupid thing to say and you shouldn’t have brought it up in the first place, you’re already carrying the weight of all the expectations you’ve discussed. It’s an imposition, no matter how much you try to mitigate it, to force someone to reject you, rather than not bring it up in the first place.
In feminist jargon, what’s needed is an analogue of “Yes means yes”, to accompany the analogue of “No means no”. A model of what is good/acceptable/ethical, rather than just a model of what’s bad/unacceptable/unethical.
If anything, honestly, it’s women who have more entitlement in regards to sexual needs, because they assume that men “always want it”, and thus it doesn’t even occur to them that men may not “want it” at a given point and time.
Okay, look, you don’t have to approve any of this shit. Ultimately I think you just live in a different world than I do. The vast majority of people who approach others are men, and 9 out of ten times someone is rejected, that person is male. Many people are approached, and since rejection is common, obviously there are many men getting rejected. One, if women were so afraid of rejecting men, it wouldn’t happen so often. Two, if men were really so entitled and went into a rage so often, high schools and colleges and even workplaces would be literal war zones. But they’re not, because the vast majority of men accept rejection. Maybe they’re hurt or whatever, and maybe they express anger to their friends (just like women do), but this entitlement complex you keep pushing is simply a false phenomenon. It’s not true. It’s incorrect. And it’s frankly obnoxious.
Hugo,
I’m scratching my hat here. I imagine myself as the guy walking into your office and asking for your advice. I understand that you are sympathetic to my desires, but then all you say is – “Accept that your desire is good even if no woman wants you. And learn to live with rejection without blaming women. Be compassionately confident.” And then I’d imagine I’d walk out of your office and I wouldn’t be *any* wiser when it comes to initiating anything in the bar later tonight. This isn’t exactly advice, in my opinion.
See, I think your old post about the “temperature taking thing” (from 2006, I think, on the hugoboy blog) was one of the best things I’ve read from a male feminist on dating. You also once linked to another post by a young feminist called kiki who wrote a very, very good article about male desire. She didn’t constantly have to repeat “and don’t rape people”.
See, this is what I believe a lot of feminists don’t understand: there’s a huge audience mismatch.
Remember that game “hello baby”, an ego-shooter in which a woman is suppposed to kill all men who harrass her with “hello baby” on the street. Now, the problem here is audience mismatch. Such a game will have literally *no* effect on actual street harassers, but possibly a huge effect on shy guys who would like to say hi to a woman they see in a coffee shop. There are more men looking for feminist approval of their erections than you would believe. I was one of them.
So there’s the thing – feminists taking out their anger on these men is going to cause adverse selection: these guys won’t approach, will see other guys succeed where they don’t and eventually, potentially, start blaming women. Thing is, there is a feminist tendency to use generalized language when it comes to specific things. That’s a problem for those who do take what they say seriously and are not able to parse feminist-speak with a mental reality decoder.
“Because many women have little experience with men who take rejection easily and with equanimity, it’s little wonder that some women’s fear of male rage turns into a fear of male desire itself.”
Ah yeah. That’s why men so rarely get rejected…
If I could recommend something to your student, it would be to read all posts of Clarisse’s manliness series, which she starts off with the fundamental problem – as she puts it, pretty well -
“A male friend once wrote to me, ‘I think you personally find expressions of masculinity hot, but you also have no patience with sexism. You’ve caught on that it’s tricky for men to figure out how to deliver both of these things you need, that you don’t have a lot of good direction to give to fellas about it, and that neither does anyone else.’ So: How can men be supportive and non-oppressive while remaining overtly masculine?”
It will probably take a couple of days to read all of the about 1,400 comments, but I think those posts will become a reference with respect to this matter.
Sam, you mean this post? http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/06/06/some-thoughts-on-pro-feminism-young-men-and-always-taking-womens-emotional-temperature/
I think what I’ve written today is very congruent with that.
Hugo,
yeah, that one. And, yes, it’s congruent, but the other one was at least a *bit* more specific. I don’t know about you, but advice along the lines of “be confidently compassionate (or vice versa)” or “just be yourself” or “treat women as people” just isn’t enough to induce behavioral change for people who feel they cannot be themselves around other people or act confident when talking to women. In other words – it’s advice on a level that’s not helpful to anyone asking for this kind of relational help.
Although – to be honest – I was grateful when I read from a feminist that it’s ok to like women. Seriously. I was. So if your student was in the same feminist-inhibited position I was, that probably was helpful on a mental level, just not as advice, in my opinion.
You’re answering the question “can you imagine men expressing their desire morally?” If you go on to add a volume to Foucault’s trilogy on sexuality, that’s where this answer belongs. But I’d say it’s not the answer to your student’s question – he’s asking for a more behaviourally specific answer.
“How do I do that specifically†usually won’t be about an assumption that one kind of approach will work for everyone, but about the need to understand social concepts and learn to expand the interactional behavioral range one step at a time. I believe that many women are not aware of the discoursive challenges men face in this respect.
You, like many feminists, hand out general principles and those coming to you are taking them as specific advice, eventually realizing that they came without a manual – and more often than not, the result of gettomg to that point is either sexual retreat or a rejection of the principles, because “they don’t work”. It’s not that they could not work, but that they are so general that it’s impossible to use them not as an interactional guide. But, if I’m not mistaken, the latter is what your student (and most men) is looking for.
You said you were a good flirter, although you forced yourself to unlearn it. Now, why not use your former power for the good, and be a bit more specific about how to actually be “compassionately confident” (how to be attracted to a woman’s body and look at her in a compassionately confident way, how to initiate and escalate a conversation in a compassionately confident way, how to initiate phsyical contact, how to intiate physical intimacy, etc.) the next time someone asks you about this matter…
Sam: “Because many women have little experience with men who take rejection easily and with equanimity, it’s little wonder that some women’s fear of male rage turns into a fear of male desire itself.â€
Ah yeah. That’s why men so rarely get rejected…
You’re confusing the amount that men get rejected with women not fearing to reject men. Hugo’s right about the fear; just as it turns out, women would *still* as often as not rather deal with the fear than with the disgusted repulsion of having to touch someone they find nasty, as the “probably he’ll act like a horrible asshole” is still better odds than “definitely I would throw up if I had to have sex with him.” With “probably” there’s at least a faint chance it won’t turn out poorly. With “definitely” there’s none.
Hugo, Brian and Sam appear to want you to provide the male feminist equivalent of a set of pick-up lines, which leads me to think that I’ve either missed the entire point of both your mentee’s question and your response, or they have.
Lisa,
I’m certainly not ruling out the possibilty that I may have misunderstood the point…
“So don’t take this the wrong way, but you’re not always that helpful as a feminist male role model because you can’t demonstrate how someone can be single, straight, looking for a girlfriend and be feminist. I don’t want to be seen as a creep, but I certainly don’t want to be seen as asexual either.”
If that’s not a question about specific behavioral tips, what is it? Again, I may be wrong, but I don’t see it. What did you see in the question, Lisa KS?
I don’t really see where he’s looking for a laundry list of “do A through F to project this particular image;” perhaps he is, of course, I don’t know him at all, but if he is, then he’s not really a feminist, he’s a pickup artist, defined as guys who strive to deliver a package specifically tailored to the feminine psyche in order to get laid. (A pickup artist with a strange desire to focus his pickup attempts on female feminists, too.) But I’m assuming that’s not the case and that his question is in good faith, which means it’s not a laundry-list question, it’s the far more encompassing and profound “How do I project outside to women what’s truly inside me?” which in his case would be, feminism and heterosexual male lust and romance.
Hugo’s exactly right here too; by far the best way to have women pick up on this being how you are is to actually *be* that way. You might be surprised at how easily behavior that reflects your inner self is to project to others if you don’t bother *trying* to project anything in particular at all. Say how you feel. Act how you feel. If you’re really a feminist man and really a young healthy horny heterosexual man, that’s how you’ll come over to young heterosexual healthy horny feminist women.
Of course, there are women who will sneer at any man trying to indicate a sexual or romantic desire towards them because they simply don’t like men. These women do call themselves feminists sometimes. Projecting the above described attitude won’t get you in their pants or in a relationship, no, but I’m assuming that’s no great loss.
Of course, I could really be the one missing one or both sides of the point, too.
As an old married man of 59, perhaps I’m the last one who should stick my neck in this, but…
My sense in general is that men – young and not-so-young need to live in a “gendered world” where:
1.) They can relate to other men (oft times first) in healthy, nurturing ways and:
2.) They can relate to women in healthy, nurturing ways.
To the degree that men consider “being feminist” in a world where they lack male allies who have similar perspectives, besides the issues of “sexual tension” or whatever related to their issues, they also are likely to both be pretty emotionally isolated and greatly dependent upon individual women to do a lot for them.
Where men may, for example, have their “men’s world” which involves them Doing Things with other men, but not really talking with other men, Women seemingly must fulfill various important roles in their lives.
To expect as a “single man” that an individual woman is going to want and be able to be “everything” seems unrealistic to me. The woman might well want to be friends, but not want a sexual/ emotional relationship. The woman also might really want a sexual/emotional relationship, but want limits on the potential dependency of the man.
To the degree that men remain in worlds where men are their “buddies” but not related to in emotional ways and women are expected to be the “not man” fulfilling all the other needs and desires sexual and emotional, I see problems in such relationships.
Hugo, your young man might perhaps develop decent relationships with other young men in some church group forum perhaps ???, however if he doesn’t have it there, there aren’t that many places he’s likely to find it, unless perhaps he has Gay Buddies, but that might have its own separate issues. Thanks!
Lisa
What I actually want is a moral/ethical foundation which supports the notion that a heterosexual man can express unsolicited interest in a woman. I don’t know how to logic it through in a feminist paradigm without it being an entitled imposition and (thus) an oppressive exercise of privilege, prioritising your desire to express yourself/whatever over her right to be left alone. This is kinda how I read the guy asking Hugo’s advice.
There’s kind of an insistance you can do it, in what Hugo’s written, what you’ve said, but it rings false. Imposing unwanted attention, any amount, ought to read as wrong, and the only way to reliably avoid that is to never express any attention. I don’t care about the details of how to pick someone up (Though Hugo’s advice seeker might?), flabberghastingly, that seems to be a skill I have.
The only answer I’ve ever seen to the problem is to just wait for unsolicited interest, and respond, but unless it’s completely direct, you always run the risk you’re misreading the situation or imagining what you want to be there. (And on a personal note, given that I’m 28 and that’s never happened, I think I can securely guess it never will.) Now, the ethical answer might be “suffer” (And I’ve certainly seen that suggested), but if it’s not, you can understand why one might be curious.
With Respect, I find the conversation you and your young friend engaged in quite bizarre. Both of you are ignoring the elephant in the room. That is, both of you are engaging in a discussion on heterosexual relationships in which it is assumed that a respectful relationship is one in which males are not the objects of desire, he in fact he should assume that he is invisible. By contrast, both of you seem to relegate and then justify the role of women as gatekeepers. What is also absent in your discussion is any concept that heterosexual women have any social obligation or duty to express their desires towards males. Both of you seem to persue a conversation in which heterosexual women don’t and therefore they won’t. Hence the elephant in the room.
Of course there would be many who would find this type of heterosexual relationship emotionally simple and safe, without the element of risk and uncertainty. But for most males its very unappealing.
Lisa,
“Say how you feel. Act how you feel. If you’re really a feminist man and really a young healthy horny heterosexual man, that’s how you’ll come over to young heterosexual healthy horny feminist women.”
ah, well, ok. That’s how the world works. Horny heterosexual man tells horny heterosexual woman how he feels and everything works out fine. Sure, there are cases like that, it’s just not how it usually works out there in the real world, whether the woman is feminist or not. Most of the times, that’s because neither participatn in the process will directly be aware of what they may eventually want. How does horny heterosexual man know the woman he’s approaching is actually looking to be approached?
“Hugo’s exactly right here too; by far the best way to have women pick up on this being how you are is to actually *be* that way.”
Yes and no. Not everyone who *is* something is also able to *convey* that. That’s why I said “just be yourself” is useless advice. Which part of oneself? People are different things at different times, and different places. A female friend of mine went out with another male friend, and tried to figure out what his issue was. So she listened in while he tried to talk to another woman, and later told him what her impression was. She didn’t recognise him, she told me. He just wasn’t able to “be himself”, she said. Well, he was himself, that’s what he is like in the stressful situation of having to strike up a conversation with a complete stranger. Just being himself didn’t get him anywhere. It’s a good start to know what “onself” is, but it’s just not enough. Inteacting with people is a skill that is not necessarily related ton someone’s personality.
So, you have the problem laid out in Clarisse’s article – men cannot simply express their sexuality, as it is generally considered at least suspicious or dangerous. A guy can *be* as safe as he wants, if cannot project that safety in a conversation, if he cannot, while being safe, still excite her (being safe enough to let her relax, but unsafe enough to be exciting), any sexual connotation in the conversation with be seen as creepy.
As for your definition of pickup artist -
“defined as guys who strive to deliver a package specifically tailored to the feminine psyche in order to get laid”
the criticism being what? Dishonesty about motives? Well, leaving the question of motives aside for the moment, I think we can all agree on the performative aspects of gender – and that includes dating. Some people perform gender more, some people less, but we all perform to a degree, and we all respond to different performances thereof. So – a package specifically tailored to the feminine psyche (assuming here is something like that for the moment) would be a masculinity performance that is particularly appreciated by a larger number of women.
I mean, I’m not sure what you’re suggesting – you say that “he should just be himself” because that allegedly works best – but in that case, would his “being himself” be a “package tailored to the feminine psyche” (so that women find him attractive)?
To be honest, I think the biggest problem for communication is indeed the different roles usually played by men and women in mating/dating. Men are usually required to initiate, thus running the risk of creating unwanted attention, while women are usually waiting for men to initiate, but thus forced to deal with the possibility of unwanted attention.
So the essence of every question about this is really – how to minimize creating unwanted attention both for ethical and practical reasons. I really doubt that’s a question that can be answered without specific behavioral advice, but I think it should be something more appropriate than a “laundry list”…
@Sam & @Lisa KS
I think I understand what you’re both saying.
I would like to iterate the point that when I feel a guy understands “No means no”, then I also feel more confident with my “Yes!” I would also like to iterate that I do feel scared to initiate because I am afraid of the possible reactions if I have to possibly say no in the future. It means that someone would have to really impress me before I’m ready to date them because I don’t want to have to give a “No!”.
When guys have their own honest “Nos” than I know they have honest “Yes” as well! Then I don’t feel like they’re a creep when they’re expressing interest in me!
I’m having a hard time following what everyone is saying in this conversation; I really boggled at Brian’s statement about wanting a moral/ethical foundation whereby heterosexual men could express sexual interest in heterosexual women….I guess I just always took that as a “duh!”…that it was, in fact, both moral and ethical. But, I think culture clash is a big factor in my lack of understanding.
Meanwhile: To be honest, I think the biggest problem for communication is indeed the different roles usually played by men and women in mating/dating.
Again…this isn’t the same among all groups of people. There isn’t a universal male, nor a universal female way of relating or role-playing. So, specific behavioral advice has to be targeted to the specific demographics of the people you would like to attract….socioeconomic, ethnic, religious, educational, cultural. What “works” with the country-club set won’t work with the poker run (it’s a motorcycle thing) set, and vice versa.
I think it’s worth mentioning that I have literally been a feminist my whole life, and it boggles my mind that any man could think that (heterosexual) feminists aren’t sexual beings or that we do not have a strong sexual desire for men. Could it be that your culture doesn’t allow women to express sexual desire without losing social status…and that the feminists in your world have either internalized this to a degree, or are merely in self-protective mode?
La Lubu…I’ve been a feminist as far back as I can remember, and these scenarios to me seem to paint women that are unforgiving…omg you said something wrong to the woman…watch out she might chop off your nuts…or gasp…never date you… Maybe I’m more forgiving than most feminists, but once I’ve been offended and express it an apology will usually suffice…nobody is perfect, but realizing your mistakes and being willing to correct them is very attractive in men.
I agree with Brian and Sam — this post doesn’t seem to actually answer the original question. But I think the discussion between Sam and Lisa — over what the original question was, and how best to answer it — has actually taken us even further from answering it. If I can make a long comment, I’d like to try to answer it.
I want to start with what Brian said in his second (I think) comment, since I think this is an excellent expression of the original question:
What I actually want is a moral/ethical foundation which supports the notion that a heterosexual man can express unsolicited interest in a woman.
What do we (you, whoever) mean by `interest’ here? Consider three scenarios.
(a) The young, straight, single, feminist man [YSSFM] is out with his friends at a bar on a Saturday night. He’s a little horny (or perhaps a lot), and is surrounded by any number of young women with whom he’d like to have sex tonight. He’s particularly attracted to one young woman, who does not appear to be at the bar with a male companion.
(b) YSSFM is riding home from school one afternoon on the bus (train, &c.). Just across the aisle, he notices a young woman, also apparently on her way home from school. Perhaps he sees her occasionally on this same commute; in any case, they’ve never so much as made eye contact before. He finds her quite attractive, and would like to strike up a conversation with her.
(c) YSSFM is extremely attracted to a young woman in one of his classes. He knows her name, and maybe they have even met socially once or twice, but they don’t have common friends or any other substantive connection outside of class.
In each of these scenarios, we can imagine the young woman in question has not expressed an attraction to YSSFM. But this isn’t the same thing as assuming she’s not interested; like many young straight women even today, she may think it’s inappropriate for her to `make the first move’. Now, is there a right way for YSSFM to `make the first move’ in these scenarios?
In answering this question, I think there’s an extremely important difference between (a), on the one hand, and (b) and (c) on the other. In (a), YSSFM is basically just interested in sex — a hook-up, a one-night-stand. In (b) and (c), YSSFM is interested in testing the waters for a potential friendship and romantic relationship. When he looks at the young women in (b) and (c), he’s probably thinking about sex, but he’s probably also thinking about things like their intelligence and sense of humor, the way they express themselves through their clothes and bookbag, their taste in music and books, and their other interests (to the extent that he knows any of these things). His interest and attraction in (a) is very narrow, and purely sexual. His interest and attraction in (c) is much broader, and while still sexual, not purely sexual. His interest and attraction in (b) is somewhere in between, depending on just how much he knows about this woman.
In (a), I’m not sure that there is a right, respectful, `feminist-approved’ way for YSSFM to express this narrow interest, simply because it does seem to me like he simply sees her as an object to be used to satisfy his sexual appetite. I suppose my advice to YSSFM would be to spend the night with his right (or left) hand instead of having a one-night-stand.
In (c), I’d recommend YSSFM pursue the friendship, based on common interests, rather than the romantic relationship as such. Relate to this young woman as a person first. If that friendship develops in a sexual or romantic direction, it will be a sexual or romantic relationship built on your mutual affection and respect, not on sheer lust. The radical notion that women are people implies that all relations between men and women are (or ought to be) relations between people, first and foremost. This doesn’t preclude sex (people are sexual, after all), but it means that sex must be sex between two people, not sex between the predator and his prey or between the conqueror and his treasure.
In this light, (b) is underspecified. If all he knows about `cute bus girl’ is his attraction to her, I’d recommend keeping a respectful distance; this is much too close to (a). But if he knows — say, from the stickers on her bag and the books she reads — that they have similar interests, then this is much closer to (c). Here I’d recommend the same basic approach as (c). The conversation starter should be obvious: `Hey, is that Animal liberation?’ (Or whatever the book is.)
Do keep context and space in mind, though, and read her body language carefully. Someone curled into a ball in the seat next to the window, ear buds firmly in place and eyes firmly in the book is not someone who’s looking to meet new friends on the bus. Don’t start a monologue about how you know all about veganism (or whatever the book is about). Start a conversation — ask her how she got interested in it, for example. The point isn’t to show off for her. The point is to get to know her as a person — to strike up a friendship. Don’t, whatever you do, trap her by taking the aisle seat next to her or standing directly between her and the door. As Hugo puts it in the post, make her feel safe to say “no”, whether it’s to the conversation, your friendship, or a sexual relationship.
To go back to what Brian wants, the ethical/moral foundation for YSSFM to express an unsolicited interest in a young woman is simply that women are people. He shouldn’t (I think) pursue or express a purely sexual interest in her, but he can and should pursue or express his interest in her as a person.
Add me to the people who don’t understand where Brian etc. are hearing that a simple and honest expression of interest is a bad thing.
Brian,
I think your particular problem is fairly unique. So my advice would be specific rather than general. If you can not play the “male” role of pursuit and you would like a relationship play the “female” role. Women express their interest in men very clearly but without any coercion overtones. You know, a lot of eye contact, laugh and smile at everything she says, show that you thinks she is super interesting, be available to hang out etc. Lots of men have trouble knowing how to be passive, part of expressing passive desire is the silent invitation for the other party to be aggressive. If being ‘aggressive’ is too difficult for various reasons abandon the attempt and work on being successfully inviting. For example simple statements like “I’d love to talk more” “I’d love to hang out sometime” etc. are clear expressions of interest that leave the ball entirely in the other person’s court.
I agree that a laundry list like the above is silly – but it seems to be what some people need.
In general I think advice to “express interest confidently and with no expectation that the answer is going to be yes and no anger if it is no” is pretty explicit and clear. And right on point.
Sam – is there any point to providing ‘feminist pickup lines’ other than to put up targets for you shoot down, with anecdotes about how surely penis-hating feminist bitches will find SOME way to twist them against poor helpless men such as yourself?
Brian, it’s really pretty simple. Express your interest in an appropriate setting, without physical or verbal intimidation, and be cool about it if it’s not reciprocated.
I put in ‘physical intimidation’ not because I’m suggesting you’d ever deliberately do so, but in my experience, a lot of men are unaware of when they’re using their size or presence as a communication tool with women. I’ve had men grab my arm to get my attention, or move into a door when I’m trying to leave a room, and I’m not talking about unremitting creeps, but generally nice guys who were appalled when I pointed out what they were doing. They weren’t even thinking about what they were doing.
Oh, and don’t flip your shit if a woman expresses interest first. (That latter may seem an odd comment, but believe me, there are guys who take a sexually assertive approach from a woman as everything from proof that she’s an irredeemable strumpet to God’s opportunity to unload all his pent-up anger at every woman who’s ever blown him off.)
I put in
Victoria – being aggressive is easy; justifying being aggressive is hard. For what it’s worth, I know the problem I’m talking about isn’t super-uncommon (though I can’t say exactly how widespread it is.)
It should be pretty straightforward; in the generic case where you don’t know that your attention is wanted/welcome (and you never know, it’s always guesswork and risk-taking), you’re prioritising your desire to express your attraction over her (possible, anyhow) desire to be left alone, not imposed upon, whatever. This should be more or less what you’d usually call a textbook example of male privilege. Even if it’s fairly low level, it still fits the sexual harassment behavioural template of unwanted attention. And being passive is better (but not good), you’re still expressing interest if you’re expressing interest, you’re just making it easier to ignore.
In practice, I think this means I’m personally likely to stick to dating via dating internet sites and the like; people there have voluntarily assumed an openness to expressions of interest, something people in the real world haven’t done, which mitigates a lot (though I’m not totally sure all) of the problem.
Brian, I’m genuinely unclear on whether you’re having trouble distinguishing ‘appropriate initial expression of sexual interest’ from ‘harassment’, or whether this is some kind of coded snipe at feminism for ruining your sex life.
Of course you ‘never know’, but you can make an educated guess as to whether an expression of interest is appropriate based on where, when, to whom, and how it is made.
Mythago – it’s really not any worse, probably better anyhow, so I’ve no complaint. My overall purpose for being here is mostly self-improvement, and while many might argue that we all ought to be proselytising feminism, patriarchy-smashing begins at home (or something.) Just because I didn’t begin life with the vocabulary to describe the issue in a feminist paradigm, doesn’t mean I wasn’t aware of the same issue (or a similar issue) in different language, I was.
Yes, you have some guess at the odds, which varies with context. But you’re always running a serious risk that it’s intrusive/offensive/oppressive/whatever, and it seems like it should always math out to “Be cautious, don’t express anything.”
Dan’s comment (above) was stuck in mod for a while, but it’s splendid and deserves to be read by all in this discussion.
“Of course you ‘never know’, but you can make an educated guess as to whether an expression of interest is appropriate based on where, when, to whom, and how it is made.”
See…this is where I take problem with some of what is being said…Making an educated guess and being wrong isn’t the end of the world or a direct jab at feminism…refusing to take an educated guess and blaming it on feminism/or implying it’s difficulty because of feminist ideology…is.
THANK YOU DAN!!!!!! You seriously bring me hope…seriously… I can’t wait to see the responses on this.
Dan,
I think you’re trying to be specific, and I appreciate that, but you’re still reinforcing negative stereotypes about male sexuality, in my opinion, when you say that you would prefer he masturbated, “simply because it does seem to me like he simply sees her as an object to be used to satisfy his sexual appetite.”
Would you say that with respect to a woman going out with the intention to hook up? Probably not, I’d say. So I’m assuming you believe in and are thus reinforcing a paradigm in which male sexuality, male desire, male wanting can never be something good in its own right, but needs redemption from something transcendent in its own right – love, or female sexuality/desire.
So here we have two problems going hand in hand – negative stereotypes about male sexuality, much older than feminism, but currently usually particularly reinforced by a feminism that hasn’t entirely axiomatically figured out how to include male sexuality in sex positivity when its main focus is sexual violence at the hands of men, and miscommunication and lack of specific advice for men about how to be both masculine and non-threatening.
I think Hugo’s post would have been a better answer to Dan’s comment than to the original post, because Hugo, at least in theory, is apparently accepting that male sexuality and desire can be positive forces in their own right. I don’t see that in Dan’s reply. But *that* notion is the origin of the particular notion of “gender trouble” that we’re looking at here.
La Lubu, Mythago, kristina,
“I really boggled at Brian’s statement about wanting a moral/ethical foundation whereby heterosexual men could express sexual interest in heterosexual women….I guess I just always took that as a “duh!â€â€¦that it was, in fact, both moral and ethical.”
Yeah, I’m not surprised that you’re surprised by that, LaLubu. I think a lot of feminists don’t believe that they are, in many ways, for a lot of men, the moral authority on such matters – this is what Kristina said here, picking up something Mythago said before -
“See…this is where I take problem with some of what is being said…Making an educated guess and being wrong isn’t the end of the world or a direct jab at feminism…refusing to take an educated guess and blaming it on feminism/or implying it’s difficulty because of feminist ideology…is.”
Look at the contrast to this part of a comment by Cessen in the latest masculinity thread at Clarisse’s:
“I think to some degree I’m still stuck feeling like feminism/feminists have final say on what appropriate/ethical behavior is. At least with regards to this issue. And I’m stuck feeling a great need to make sure that my behavior is 100% beyond reproach.”
This is the kind of misunderstanding I’m referring to. Feminists often make general statements about how experiencing unwanted attention basically equals sexual violence and how it is creepy and actually almost rape – when they are actually, probably, not trying to keep all men from talking to women but trying to improve the way the communication is happening when it is happening.
But they don’t seem to realize that those men who are listening are, more often than not, in my opinion, believing that the only good penis is a soft penis, as Hugo pointed out – unless a feminist declares an erection to be moral.
Now it may seem bizarre to outsource one’s moral judgment in this way, but I think that this is a logical consequence of feminist discourse hegemony in gender matters. The problem of ethical approaching is old, and has been dealt with already by the old Grreks – albeit with respect to Greek male pupil-philosopher relationships. Now women are the dominating the gender discourse, so I don’t think it’s too surprising that those men who *do* think about such things are turning to feminism for answers. But that usually leads to the scenario described by Cessen or to a general rejection of feminism as “not working”. My best guess is that’s also where a lot of “nice guys ™” in the narrow, passive aggressive notion, come from. All of it is bad with respect to developing a comprehensive vision of gender justice, and for feminism.
Mythago,
“Sam – is there any point to providing ‘feminist pickup lines’ other than to put up targets for you shoot down, with anecdotes about how surely penis-hating feminist bitches will find SOME way to twist them against poor helpless men such as yourself?”
Bit of a cheap shot, no? I think we’ve exchanged enough comments for you to know that I’m no longer helpless in this respect. Part of that was for me to stop outsourcing my sexual ethics/approach ethics to feminism. When you’re brought up that way, it’s hard to do, possibly similar to rationally leaving religion behind. We all know about Voltaire on the deathbed. It’s not easy. But there certainly is a huge need for specific social interaction training that allows a better understanding of (at least) both perspectives.
And it’s too easy for feminism to say that “people don’t get what is being said”. If a message is misunderstood, even if it’s communicated with the best intentions (and let’s assume that for the moment
), it’s usually at least partly because there is a problem with how the message is communicated.
Everything Dan says make a lot of sense, though I think in real life, about how to evaluate the situations, though I think the “what to do in case (c)” is a bit of a miss, because it basically answers “How can I express a nonplatonic interest in someone?” with “You can express a platonic interest in them”, which kinda misses the point. (On a personal level anyways, I’ve really only ever expressed interest in someone when they were in the transition area from what I’d call “acquaintance” to “friend” anyhow)
What I think Dan’s really addressing (and everyone else too) is “How” is it appropriate to express interest. What I don’t get is “Why” is is appropriate to express interest? (And I realise I need to use more question marks, so it comes across more like a question, less like an objection. I have the same problem in real life, and should know better.)
Sam: “ah, well, ok. That’s how the world works. Horny heterosexual man tells horny heterosexual woman how he feels and everything works out fine. Sure, there are cases like that, it’s just not how it usually works out there in the real world, whether the woman is feminist or not.”
So true, because the man generally ain’t a feminist. That’s the rather crucial part of what I said that you’re missing, and yep, if all you’re projecting is horny heterosexuality without the feminism, it won’t work out with you and the horny hetero female feminist.
Sam: “So, you have the problem laid out in Clarisse’s article – men cannot simply express their sexuality, as it is generally considered at least suspicious or dangerous. A guy can *be* as safe as he wants, if cannot project that safety in a conversation, if he cannot, while being safe, still excite her (being safe enough to let her relax, but unsafe enough to be exciting), any sexual connotation in the conversation with be seen as creepy.”
I haven’t read Clarisse’s article and don’t particularly plan to, but if her premise is that men need to project any degree of unsafeness at all to be exciting to most women, I’d have to suggest to the author that she get out a bit more and interact with more than the apparently oddly skewed handful of women she’s only ever discussed the topic with. Unsafeness generally makes me personally make like a banana and you know, split. And I’m definitely a woman, last I checked.
Sam: ““defined as guys who strive to deliver a package specifically tailored to the feminine psyche in order to get laidâ€
the criticism being what?”
Did I criticize somewhere? I missed it if I did.
Sam: “I mean, I’m not sure what you’re suggesting – you say that “he should just be himself†because that allegedly works best – but in that case, would his “being himself†be a “package tailored to the feminine psyche†(so that women find him attractive)?”
Being himself, if himself is a feminist horny heterosexual man who is not deformed, massively out of height-weight proportionality, not living on the street or in jail and has good personal hygiene, guaranteed will attract some members of the heterosexual feminist female crowd. Will it attract *all* or *most* of them? Probably not, but neither does anything else that any normal person in normal circumstances possess. It’ll attract at least as many of ‘em as being any other relatively normal way. If he’s looking to attract most or all, he (and any other person) is going to be doomed to a life of self-inflicted and unhappy neuroses.
Sam: “To be honest, I think the biggest problem for communication is indeed the different roles usually played by men and women in mating/dating. Men are usually required to initiate, thus running the risk of creating unwanted attention, while women are usually waiting for men to initiate, but thus forced to deal with the possibility of unwanted attention.”
Feminist women tend to have less of a problem with waiting around for Prince Charming to ride up on his charger and beg for a date from the get-go, and as they mature this problem recedes even further in the distance. By specifically being interested in feminist women, Hugo’s young friend is already setting himself up to avoid some of those communication issues already.
I hate all this trying to justify male sexuality that happens around her. It’s just more male-centric thinking. Male sexuality ISN’T ABOUT YOU. Male sexuality is something that happens to women in the form of rape and murder and abuse and pressure and regret and shame and infection and death by childbirth. As long as it is all those things, and it will never not be about those things, it can never be justified; all you can do is come up with rationalizations for your disguisting selfish sexist behaviour.
Would you say that with respect to a woman going out with the intention to hook up? Probably not, I’d say.
I would. Even more so to a woman than to a man. Masturbation is 100% risk free (no pregnancy, no STD, no sexual assault), plus—guaranteed orgasm! One-night stands are notorious for piss-poor chances of female orgasm. Just sayin’.
Sam: just because a woman (whether or not she identifies as feminist) states what is or is not a turnoff to her regarding pickup techniques, is not necessarily an indication of whether or not the pickup techniques are moral/ethical. There is a difference. I don’t find (most) aggressive pickup techniques “immoral”, but I do find that tactic a total turnoff—one that the guy couldn’t “recover” from (I’d assume a basic compatibility mismatch—can’t recover from that!). Same with the game-playing about calling on the phone (waiting a few days before calling)—it’s not “immoral”, but it is a sure sign of lack-of-real-interest.
What I don’t get is “Why†is is appropriate to express interest?
Brian: I’d say, because human sexuality is healthy. Because people who are not asexual have an emotional need for sexual expression. And because contrary to popular belief, women have strong sexual feelings and desires, as well (trust me, sex isn’t something we’re “putting up with”).
Dan: “In (a), I’m not sure that there is a right, respectful, `feminist-approved’ way for YSSFM to express this narrow interest, simply because it does seem to me like he simply sees her as an object to be used to satisfy his sexual appetite. I suppose my advice to YSSFM would be to spend the night with his right (or left) hand instead of having a one-night-stand.”
Sure there is. Obviously it’s inappropriate to go up to any total stranger and just outright ask them for anything intimate or personal or valuable of theirs, but if you really want something of theirs badly enough (including their person) if you spend a bit getting to know them beforehand, there’s nothing wrong with courteous hinting. Of course, chances are far higher that she’ll be uninterested than that she’ll be interested, bu there’s nothing disrespectful or anti-feminist about courteously hinting that you’d like to share a night with a woman. Actually, it’s rather more anti-feminist to assume that feminism means that any woman who might want to have a one-nighter with a man she finds attractive that she meets in a bar is objectifying herself.
I haven’t read Clarisse’s article and don’t particularly plan to, but if her premise is that men need to project any degree of unsafeness at all to be exciting to most women, I’d have to suggest to the author that she get out a bit more and interact with more than the apparently oddly skewed handful of women she’s only ever discussed the topic with.
That’s not her premise.
If you’re going to speculate about it, why not read it? It’s short.
There are a lot of things I liked about Dan’s comment, but a lot of things I didn’t like, too. This, for example:
In (a), I’m not sure that there is a right, respectful, `feminist-approved’ way for YSSFM to express this narrow interest, simply because it does seem to me like he simply sees her as an object to be used to satisfy his sexual appetite. I suppose my advice to YSSFM would be to spend the night with his right (or left) hand instead of having a one-night-stand.
I mean … look, I have definitely gone out places specifically looking to get laid. While in those places, I would way rather be approached by a dude than when I am, say, on the bus reading a book. I am puzzled by this assertion that it would be unfeminist to approach me when I’m at a place where people specifically tend to go in order to have sex (bars). As long as everyone’s honest about their motives, where’s the harm?
I thought this recent situation out of Duke University, the girl who released a PowerPoint slide show detailing her alcohol-fueled sexual exploits, was interesting. Possibly it is also relevant to this discussion. Was this girl selling out to the patriarchy?
http://lovebites.blogs.chicago.timeout.com/2010/10/09/feminist-blogs-seem-uninterested-in-duke-university-womans-sexploits/
In terms of pickup artistry, well, there are a lot of valid critiques to be made of that community. But I think it is worth reading more about it before judging it 100% awful. I recommend this:
http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/about/seduction-communitypickup-artists/
Quotation:
There are many values that PUAs and feminists would agree on if they understood each other’s views better. Just as there are many techniques and concepts in pickup that are negative from the standpoint of feminist values, there are many techniques and concepts that potentially achieve feminist values more effectively than practically any other source of advice to men in our culture. Actually, there are some ideas that both PUAs and feminists seem to agree on that we consider problematic, such as gynocentrism (exemplified by the tendency of some feminists to go beyond merely focusing on women, and marginalize men).
Feminists tend to criticize male sexual behavior and only explain what not to do. PUAs are exploring what to do. If feminists want to guide the expression of male sexuality in ways other than shouting “don’ts†from the peanut gallery, then they would do well to study the teachings of the seduction community, take from it what they like, and throw away the rest. Despite its flaws, the seduction community has the highest concentration of advice for consensual and mutual sexuality that exists in our culture and actually works, particularly for people who are average or below in social skills.
Finally, Charlie Glickman, fabulous feminist sex educator, had a recent post with some advice for men on how best to ask for sex, but it focuses on how to do so within an existing relationship.
http://www.charlieglickman.com/2010/10/sex-tips-for-men-how-to-ask-for-sex/
Why don’t men just leave women alone? Why not let women do all the asking and approaching? That way, you would be free of being obnoxious or violent seeming.
Any man who approaches any woman can be threatening. I’m ready to punch men out if they don’t go belly up, and any man who approaches me while I’m buy putting something in a car or at an ATM machine deserves to be…(fill in the blank).
I don’t think men have any self-awareness at all in this department, or any idea how creepy they appear to most women. I’m with women all the time who do the eye-roll the minute some creep finally goes away. Say a group of us women having a beer, laughing, and having a great time. We don’t want men bugging us, or interrupting us.
Get lost, stay lost. Let women decide, and most of may decide that we don’t want you in our lives at all. Maybe we need public spaces where men just aren’t there, and we can enjoy life. Every occur to you how oppressive urban spaces are with men in them?
Having read Agourial’s comment, I would like to emphasize something from mine that could get lost: while I do think many people tend to go to bars to get laid, some don’t have that on their agenda at all.
Wading in to point out that I go to bars not infrequently these days. I don’t drink, and I don’t want to pick anyone up. I go to bars to watch sports in community with others and drink Shirley Temples and diet Cokes.
Once again, let me point out that this is a feminist blog. You don’t have to be a feminist to comment here, but hostility towards feminism doesn’t belong in this space. Civility matters, folks. It is not the highest virtue, but damned close.
Hugo, could you be more specific about who was hostile towards feminism and where?
This comment from Sam walked right up to the line. And I’ve been deleting stuff from the mod queue pretty aggressively, so y’all aren’s seeing what I’m seeing:
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2010/10/21/of-the-validation-of-desire-and-the-graceful-acceptance-of-rejection-on-male-wanting/#comment-562097
Clarisse: “hat’s not her premise.
If you’re going to speculate about it, why not read it? It’s short.”
I was responding to a comment made by someone who read your article; I was speculating on what he said the article was about, which is why I said “If” that is her premise. Clearly I don’t want to speculate on what you actually say in the article, honestly because the article’s title and what I read it was about (via Hugo and Amanda Marcotte) didn’t interest me much. That’s not meant to be an indictment of you as a writer; I skip at least half of Hugo’s blogs because the titles and/or introductory sentences don’t interest me, for instance, and I really like his writing.
Thanks for being specific.
As I’m reading this thread, I’m in bed with a friend who is still sleeping after an unplanned matinee and so I’m obviously being badly influenced by current events. As I read this threat I can’t help but feel that much of what’s being said here is disconnected from the actual experiences of the pleasures of the flesh. There’s an honesty in mutual desire that’s almost impossible to avoid – you get the electricity when your eyes meet. Why not just drop all the pretenses and the games and move past the whole “How can I say just the right thing?” nonsense? Sometimes there is no “right thing” to say and sometimes a simple, “Hey you wanna?” is more than enough.
So much of this discussion presumes that desire is one way or that one person has to play offense and the other defense. It seems to skew the whole conversation. Sex is pizza not baseball.
Agourial- the thing is these men are asserting it is rare for a woman to approach a man…in their experience is always specified…I have approached many men myself, and a lot of times got rejected…but overall the assertion is that women will NOT approach men but demand that men approach them on their terms.
glenden-while I agree that the carnal desire can be mutual, I disagree that one can tell with just a look…unless of course you know your partner and that look is something you associate with them and how they communicate with you (like a pavlovian conditioning of sorts)…a generic look doesn’t exist…it varies from person to person…My husband’s look may be different than one of my past lover’s looks…
Also, while I may give my husband that look, it does not always mean I wish to have sex…sometimes I like to incite desire and call me a tease if you wish but it doesn’t mean I want to initiate sex…I can give him that look with the children in the room, doesn’t mean I’m going to have sex with him in front of them, or that if he ends up tired later that I will be inciting a riot for not receiving my fix…other times I just want him to know in the deepest way possible that I desire him, and he doesn’t have to do anything to earn it…I just do because he is who he is…
Not that I’m saying you’re asserting these things…just adding my 2 cents for whatever that’s worth.
Clarisse: I am puzzled by this assertion that it would be unfeminist to approach me when I’m at a place where people specifically tend to go in order to have sex (bars). As long as everyone’s honest about their motives, where’s the harm?
Yeah, me too.
I think Dan’s advice is actually the kind of thinking what leads to Nice Guy behaviour. Thinking that sexual desire needs to be preceded by friendship, that women shouldn’t be approached purely for sex and that to do so is unethical.
I think that the actually bad advice might be “women should be approached”, period. No matter what strategies you use to not look creepy, you are creepy and a potential rapist and every woman knows it. Trying to hide that just makes you manipulative.
You are a creep. Live with it.
Hugo,
hmm… I’m really asking here – could you point out what specifically bothered you about my initial comment? I don’t really get it… thanks.
Lisa,
“I haven’t read Clarisse’s article and don’t particularly plan to, but if her premise is that men need to project any degree of unsafeness at all to be exciting to most women, I’d have to suggest to the author that she get out a bit more and interact with more than the apparently oddly skewed handful of women she’s only ever discussed the topic with. Unsafeness generally makes me personally make like a banana and you know, split. And I’m definitely a woman, last I checked.”
Yeah, sloppy wording, that was me layering stuff on top of Clarisse’s article. But I stand by it and I’d say that we’d need to define “safe” before we’re going further here. Any initiation is logically coupled with insecurity about where the interaction is headed. Only not escalating an interaction at all is completely safe – but nothing will happen. This isn’t about physical safety, of course, but only 100% predictable stuff is entirely safe, but usually also entirely non-exciting. Did I make clearer what I’m trying to say.
“Did I criticize somewhere? I missed it if I did.”
It sounded to me like you did, but I may have misread.
“Feminist women tend to have less of a problem with waiting around for Prince Charming to ride up on his charger and beg for a date from the get-go, and as they mature this problem recedes even further in the distance.”
I think it depends on the women’s feminism, but by-and-large – I think I’d agree.
“By specifically being interested in feminist women”
I didn’t read that – I thought he was asking for some idea about ehtical communication of sexual desire to women – I don’t think that the women’s political orientation is important in that respect. I don’t think non-feminist women deserve to be approached less ethically than feminist women – given that feminist women may be (depending on their feminism) less caught in expectations of gender performance (eg prince charming), that aspect is, I believe, particularly relevant for a guy who’s wondering about the ethics of approach. He wants to do something because he believes it’s right, but he also needs to find a way to make it work. Is that clearer?
LaLubu,
“Same with the game-playing about calling on the phone (waiting a few days before calling)—it’s not “immoralâ€, but it is a sure sign of lack-of-real-interest.”
interesting. You watched “Swingers” (1998), right?
Well, it could be, but it could also be a sign of real interest – trying to make it right to minimize the risk of not seeing you again. I think you’d have to know someone a bit better to make the call whether this kind of playing games is a sign of interest of lack-of-interest. Communication isn’t easy, I think we should cut everybody some communicative slack.
Clarisse,
yeah – the Charlie Glickman post is a good example of a useful level of specificity for advice!
Wow, did somebody send out a casting call for fake radfem trolls?
Sam – no, it was a serious question, and yes, based on a long history of seeing you post. As you know, I agree with you that it’s really unfortunate (to say the least) that a previous generation of feminists decided that not only was male sexuality potentially dangerous but inherently dangerous, and dumped that attitude onto their sons; you’re not the only man I know who grew up with that. But I’m pretty goddamn tired of you taking it out on the rest of us.
Brian – if your problem is that you’re painfully shy or bad at judging social situations, and I say this without an ounce of snark, you should be getting professional help to learn those skills. If you’re expressing interest appropriately – in an appropriate setting and manner, to an appropriate recipient, and you accept rejection politely – then you have nothing to be ashamed of.
EndlessBridge: are you seriously saying men should never approach women anywhere? And that there’s no difference between a sleazy come-on and a charming one?
If that’s what you’re saying, I couldn’t disagree more. I don’t want men to leave women completely alone. I like men. I want men who are confident, respectful, and can take no for an answer. And who are confident enough to at the same time think there’s a good chance for a yes. Is that wrong? Is that anti-feminist? I truly don’t think so.
I’ve never seen any of these traits you are discribing here. Are you sure we are talking about men? Men are arrogant, not confident, objectifying, not respectful, and none of them think you have a choice in the matter so it doesn’t matter if you say no. Some men lie to themselves that they are “good” and “pro-feminist” and try to wear down your defenses after you say no, some go back to their friends and talk about how much of bitch you are for not bowing to his needs and so invite the group to objectify, villify, and possibly assault you later, and others just rape you in the back of your own damn car because you deserve it for refusing them.
The only thing that I think when I hear a “charming” come-on is that this particular guy is trying to hide how much he wants to use me. At least the sleazy guy is being more honest.
^^^ Are you a troll? Holy cow.
EndlessBridge: I think that the actually bad advice might be “women should be approachedâ€, period. No matter what strategies you use to not look creepy, you are creepy and a potential rapist and every woman knows it. Trying to hide that just makes you manipulative.
You are a creep. Live with it.
I don’t know if you were replying to me, but looking at your posts I’m thinking I’m not the creepy one out of the two of us.
Mythago,
“Sam – no, it was a serious question, and yes, based on a long history of seeing you post. As you know, I agree with you that it’s really unfortunate (to say the least) that a previous generation of feminists decided that not only was male sexuality potentially dangerous but inherently dangerous, and dumped that attitude onto their sons; you’re not the only man I know who grew up with that. But I’m pretty goddamn tired of you taking it out on the rest of us.”
seriously, you lost me a bit. When I’m saying that there should be both a general positive feminist discourse about male sexuality *and* advice on a level of useful specificity that’s “taking anger out?” When I’m saying that certain parts of the feminist discourse is (still) having an unfortunate effect on men (as you apparently also believe), particularly those who do give it moral authority and do not merely dismiss it, and that their understanding of the feminist message is also a consequence of the way the message is communicated, that’s “taking anger out?”
To be honest, I’m more frustrated than angry these days – not with respect to my personal relations with women and my ability to attract them to me. It would be great to finally find the one woman I want to be with forever, but apart from that, I’m ok, and not even bitter about the time I’ve lost (partly) due to the stuff you mention. There was a time when a post like EndlessBridges comment would have been so triggering I would have replied. I can just dismiss it now. So what in trying to get everyone understand that this kind of communication is difficult, that approaching is difficult and ethical approaching even more, that there is *not* much good advice about it, and that common misunderstandings about these matters lead to men either withdrawing themselves from their sexuality or dismiss feminist ideas as harmful and not working is “taking anger out”? I’m not sure. If you feel that way because you think – yeah, but really, we’ve been there, we’ve dealt with that in those epic posts in the Summer of 2009, then, sure, we’ve been there. But I don’t feel that having had one good conversation about this means there is no need to ever bring it up again. I believe – maybe contrary to you – that *this* is one core issue of gender justice. And I believe that feminism would benefit greatly from looking at it in more detail. I *liked* the Schroedinger’s rapist post precisely because of that – while one had to *want* to see through the potentially triggering feminist language, it was actually a positive attempt to help out with the complexities of the situation (*if* one was able to parse the language positively).
So, sorry if you’re annoyed by bringing up the things I think are important for the debate in general. But I’m certainly not “taking anger out”, certainly not on the “rest of you”, or you in particular.
Every time I read through one of these long comments threads at Hugo’s blog, I realize once more how many bitter, resentful people there are in the world, and I reaffirm my commitment once more to NOT becoming one, nope, NOT, I won’t do it, I don’t CARE how shabbily any individual has ever or will ever treat me. Can’t make me!
“Why†is is appropriate to express interest?
Because you are a human being and deserve to. Because women are human beings and not fragile glass sculptures and much like you are frequently trying to find a partner.
Because except for what I very strongly suspect are trolls in the above thread no one thinks that a non aggressive expression of interest to a woman is a bad thing. Even if due to an unusual set of circumstances your very nice expression of interest caused a particular woman distress – I guarantee 90% that she will not blame you for it and will get over it. An appropriate expression of romantic interest by a non creepy guy is… by far not the worst thing that a woman in our culture experiences.
Your decision that a possibly unwanted expression of interest, even if passive, is soo much worst than not have interest expressed in you – is you making a decision for women and then blaming that for your problem. You could just trust all the women who tell you that your balancing is way off and comes down on the wrong side. But you choose not to trust any of the women who tell you this and continue to insist that the slightest possibility that your approach is unwelcome is devastating to women and you can not possibly ethically do it. That’s your choice. IMO you’re being ridiculous. Most women do not mind being approached in an appropriate way. Most women who are single and looking have cultural reasons not to the approaching themselves and would like to find a partner.
“So what in trying to get everyone understand that this kind of communication is difficult, that approaching is difficult and ethical approaching even more, that there is *not* much good advice about it, and that common misunderstandings about these matters lead to men either withdrawing themselves from their sexuality or dismiss feminist ideas as harmful and not working is “taking anger outâ€?”
I don’t see one post claiming communication isn’t difficult…It seems you have an answer yourself deeply rooted in your mind…so what is it Sam, what is your proposal? How would feminists solve this problem of bad communication? Are we even anywhere near the mark with this conversation…I don’t feel anything is resolved because again all I hear is this is so hard I give up, or whatever it is you’re trying to say.
Hugo is so right about his basic premise, here. When I was a teenager, and just beginning to understand my sexuality, I made a mental list of the best (male) flirts I’d ever seen — mostly for those times when some unfortunate, silly boy would refuse to stop bothering me, so I could remind myself that male sexuality can sometimes feel good. After a while, I found that most of the entries on that list had one thing in common. Setting aside the widely varying styles of charm, wit, or simple personableness, the main thing that they pretty much all had was that each of them had found their own way to express desire without expressing a demand.
The first guy who made the list was a guy who flirted with everybody — he’d dart in, make some cleverly complimentary comment, perfectly off-hand, and then go back to flirting with the girl sitting next to him, and I found I liked being able to keep the compliment without worrying that he was expecting anything.
The next guy was pretty much the opposite: he would focus on me completely. So I was initially amazed to realize that he could be capable of doing that without being threatening. But I think the most important factor in that was that he was confident, so completely confident that even when he was (literally, I am not making this up) composing silly songs about my smile, he could pull it off without looking like he’d be crushed if I refused him. He wasn’t asking for validation from me. It wasn’t “Here is my compliment to you, now, please, say you like me back or you will be hurting me terribly and you should feel awful about that.” It was “Here is my compliment. It is free! Enjoy.”
Boy #2 always looked as if I could go on enjoying his compliments for as long as I liked without owing anything in return. But I knew he wanted to have sex with me — I knew sex was the main thing he wanted to have from me! He was that sort of guy. I felt like I was a bit young for the style of relationship I was fairly sure he wanted. So after a couple of weeks of this, I made the decision to gently stop responding to him. I hoped he’d get the message, but I couldn’t be sure. So the next time he flirted with me, I closed off a little, raised my hands, said “ah-ah.” And he stopped. Immediately.
Honestly, I was floored. I almost wanted to run after him and say “Stop! I’ve changed my mind!” I probably could have. But I hadn’t really changed my mind. Truth is, I wasn’t ready for that level of intensely sexual relationship until several years afterward; the decision was the right one. Still, damn, I never forgot that guy.
So when I’m flirting, I try to remember the lessons that guy taught me. I’m not as good at it as him — no making up silly songs for me! But my basic theory of flirting is that you want to do two things:
(1) Communicate your interest (sexual and/or personal) in the other person.
(2) Get a sense — or, better still, allow them to communicate directly — about how they feel about you.
You want to do this in a way that makes it easy for the other person to politely communicate “no”, so that if they’re not interested they will have no trouble communicating this to you and you can respond by leaving them alone.
You start small, since initially you may not have permission for anything. So with a guy in a bar, or at a party, (and I disagree with Dan, sometimes you can talk to girls in bars) I might talk to him if he made eye contact with me, and his body language was open, and he seemed like he wanted to chat (same should go with genders reversed). But I wouldn’t just walk up to a guy without establishing small, nonverbal openness to conversation first.
With a guy I was friends with, but with whom I wanted more, I might test levels of personal space by reducing the normal space between us by, oh, ten percent? Only do this to people who have space to move away from you! But if they have the space, and they want more space, they’ll probably move unconsciously without noticing that you’ve done anything. And if they have the space, and don’t want it, well, there you are. That’s something.
And yes, I have pick-up lines. Well, I have one. It goes “I’m really enjoying this conversation.” It only works if you’re having a good conversation. Specifically, it’s perfectly designed for those times when you meet some guy and unexpectedly find that, actually, you really like him, and you don’t know yet, but this could be something, and if you don’t say something he might wander off into his life and you’ll never see him again. What do you do? You say “I’m really enjoying this conversation.” If this conversation is the only contact you’ve ever had with him then this is functionally equivalent to “I like what I’ve seen of you so far,” but it’s ten times less creepy. Then he can reply with an enthusiastic “Yes, I’m really enjoying talking with you, too,” in which case I ask if maybe he’d like to continue the conversation some time? Or, if he’s quick, and he wants to date me, he’ll take my statement as an opening and say “Yes, me too, we should meet up sometime,” and then he’s done my work for me.
If he’s less enthusiastic, he can change the subject. “I’m really enjoying this conversation.” “Yes, and we’ve had such lovely weather today. Excuse me, I need to use the toilet.” Shot down. Oh, well. No muss, no fuss.
The one problem with “I’m really enjoying this conversation” as a pick-up line is that it doesn’t express sexual interest (well, not unless it was a really fun conversation!). I generally try to make up that gap with body-language. But it does always help to be shameless — and by shameless I mean without shame, not without restraint. There’s a difference. ‘Shameless but courteous’, that’s my motto, and I try to live up to it.
Lynet makes an excellent point regarding Guy #2. A lot of times people think feminists are saying- and unfortunately, on occasion they are saying, read EndlessBridge- that men need to be somehow deferent and grovel in front of the women they may be interested in. In my own meager experience, this is in fact the opposite of the truth. A seemingly “desperate” man is going to alienate women- is going to, paradoxically, come off as entitled- because he is asking something from them. Insecure men don’t have a sense of their own worth, and so by expressing interest they are asking a given woman to give them a sense of said worth. Obviously, if this request is denied, these men may be angered to the point of intimidation.
On the other hand, confident men aren’t asking for anything- it is, as Lynet said, a free compliment, with no expectations attached. If you are truly confident, you as a man know that you’re worth it- and you don’t need a woman’s validation to know your own worth. She rejects you? Oh well, her loss. Therefore, you’re not asking for anything
I realize that confidence is not easy for some people, but perhaps this fact makes it a bit easier for some- confidence is the antithesis to creepy.
Lynet, yes yes yes. Perfectly said.
That was pretty awesome, Lynet.
Pingback: Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » Feminist pick up lines
thought of this discussion when I read these quotes from John J McNeill’s book Sex as God Intended:
As McNeill’s views it, the emergence of a strong feminist movement and voice in our current culture is a necessary balancing of the traditional masculine – a sort of cultural pscyhological process.
The masculine domination of western culture has led us into a dead-end; we can continue to follow the path into destruction.
The answer lies in a quote from Judy Graham:
We cannot be made whole without one another, without the anima and the animus, without the individual and communal, without the male and the female.
Applied to the realm of sexuality, this means recognizing the validity of both male and female desire and sexuality, both male and female libido, male and female bodies and the honoring the goodness of all the above.
Since people keep coming back to what I said about the one-night stands, I thought I’d chime in again. Hopefully much more briefly!
More so than the rest of my comment, my thoughts on one-night stands were expressed as my own view, my personal opinion. I think my views on one-night stands are reasonable, but I also think there are other reasonable views to take, and I think some of the other comments in this thread have expressed such views.
Also, I think the ethics of picking up strangers in bars is much less interesting and important than what happens in the other two sorts of scenarios that I described. Barring unfortunate accidents (STD, unplanned pregnancy), one-night stands don’t have much impact on our lives. Our friendships and (medium- and long-term) romantic relationships do. Even if it’s possible to have a healthy and ethical one-night stand, I don’t think it’s possible to have a healthy and ethical romantic relationship that’s not built on the respect and intimacy of a healthy friendship. My concern is that the wall of separation our society has built between friendship, on the one hand, and sex and romance, on the other, undermines our ability to have healthy and ethical romantic relationships. (Can a wall undermine something? Is that a mixed metaphor?) I was trying to tear down that wall in my comment.
Absolutely Lynet, and I echo how you felt like wanting to tell guy #2 you made a mistake, but realizing you didn’t want that at that time in your life…I honestly don’t understand what’s so hard about being assertive but not pushy…Most women can tell when a guy has sex on his mind….there is no need to say “Hey, wanna fuck?” so yeah stating it is redundant, and suggesting you expect it and will throw a fit if you don’t get it….it’s not the suggestion that is creepy, it’s how we think you will react that makes it creepy.
there is no need to say “Hey, wanna fuck?†so yeah stating it is redundant
Well, that depends. Some people find talking dirty a turn on, and, if you’ve gotten to the point where it’s clear you both want sex (maybe even have both already had sex with each other and know each other’s turn ons) and that’s the kind of thing you like, “Hey, wanna fuck?” is just fine. It’s not the approach I’d suggest, though, with a woman you’re not sure of
.
Echoing others: wow, Lynet, that was beautiful. Insights that ring so true with experience, plus some actually potentially useful advice. Every boy — no, every kid full stop — should be given that to read some time before graduating from high school…
kristina,
“I don’t see one post claiming communication isn’t difficult…It seems you have an answer yourself deeply rooted in your mind…so what is it Sam, what is your proposal? How would feminists solve this problem of bad communication? Are we even anywhere near the mark with this conversation…I don’t feel anything is resolved because again all I hear is this is so hard I give up, or whatever it is you’re trying to say.”
well, “just be yourself” certainly is assuming simplicity, no? I think the assumption that this is not difficult is the some sort of background for what I perceive to be the misunderstanding. I think feminists can do two things in this respect to make this world a happier place for everyone: One, to be more outspoken about *positive* aspects of male sexuality, what Mythago apparently believes is already the case. I don’t think so, I think the main approach to male sexuality in feminist discourse is one that is indifferent at best, toxic at worst. There are exceptions, but they are, in my opinion, rare. This is the what Hugo did in his reply – telling his mentee that his sexuality is valuable. Again, there’s a reason why this question comes up when men are in this debate, and it probably has *something* to do with feminist discourse. Two, to be more specific in their discourse about these matters – don’t call annoying interactions at a bar sexual harassment when it’s not sexual harrassmentm but an annoying interaction. Accept that initiation logically requires some sort of experimentation in the realm of the unknown, and that, on the other hand, implies that, even with the best intentions, misunderstandings can happen. But to see miscommunication as accident sort of requires the benefit of the doubt – and that’s something not usually given to men in feminist discourse.
I don’t think that feminists can solve all or even most of the difficulties surrounding this part of life. But I think they could do better in making sure they aren’t unintentionally making things harder than necessary. And I think there’s a lot of venting in the feminist discourse that’s limiting its potential reach among men and causing unintended effects among those who do listen (but take it literally).
Lynet,
yeah, I liked your comment, too. Some things though -
“so I could remind myself that male sexuality can sometimes feel good”
why did you feel the need to explicitly mention the “sometimes” in that sentence? I doubt if a man had written a similar post about female sexuality, he would feel the need to note the female sexuality only sometimes feels good. I mean, it’s self-evident that both sexualities will not feel good when they are unwanted, so I think that “sometimes” is somehow constrasting the few positive cases of male sexuality with how male sexuality usually appears – “not feel good”.
And this touches upon the next stereotype, which, also has some truth to it: The stereotype is that female touch is always wanted/appreciated. That’s certainly not the case – but it is a notion that is based upon the probably common perception – although it’s tricker scientifically – that sexual desire is not evenly distributed between the sexes, that female sexuality is scare and male sexuality is abundant. And something that is abundant doesn’t have value. Accordingly male sexuality has value only when it is made scarcer by additional factors – like love.
That’s one side. The other is the usually perceived matter of actual scarcity of female sexuality. A lot of advice for men appears to assume an abundance of female sexuality that is not common – Hugo recognized this implicitly by mentioning that he was criticzed about not seeing the plight of other men in a post about his chosen period of celibacy a while ago. It’s much easier to be non-needy when you believe you *do* believe that you have options.
Again, I don’t think feminists can “solve” this problem. But I think they should help deal with the reinforcing cultural elements of the differential instead of reinforcing it. They should help more men feel *worthy instead of entitled* (something I think Mythago or LaLubu mentioned in a thread in 2009) and thus gain the ability to be as confident as guy #2 in the story. He welt worthy of you, but not entitled to you. And that’s the mental state that communicates out of the alternatives I have, I’m *choosing* you, not because you are the only alternative available.
In my perception, much of the feminist advice is *assuming* that state of mind as a baseline – possibly because it is the baseline female experience? – and is hence wondering why men aren’t doing it. Since it appears to be easy and logical, they seem to not *want* to do it for some reason. And thus we go back to the point where communication mistakes are not given the benefit of the doubt.
And we are at the point at which I’m saying that more specific behavioural advice about ethical approaching/communicating is needed *to help guys get to the point where the less specific advice, like Hugo’s or Lynet’s stories, can be helpful, where they can be “naturally confident” and the specific advice will no longer be needed, it will be absorbed in their overall personality.
“Why did you feel the need to explicitly mention the “sometimes†in that sentence?”
Oh, Sam! When I met the guy who started that list for me I was seventeen. Most of the male attention I’d had so far was that horrible guy who would put his face four inches from mine and sing nursery rhymes to stop me from ignoring him. Forgive me for having a low view of male sexuality at that time! I didn’t want to hate it, I wanted to know it could feel good to be desired, that’s why that list was so important to me.
If it helps, I don’t feel that way about male sexuality any more. I’m twenty-five now, and most — no, make that all — of the guys around me are way too mature to resort to nursery rhymes, thank goodness! I don’t apologize for thinking badly of male attention in general, back when I was younger, because some of those teen boys really were horrible to me. But they were teenagers at the time, so I forgive them.
I hope this helps to take away the sting: I love being heterosexual. I’m sure being homosexual is fun, too, but as far as I’m concerned, men are wonderful, and sexy, and good. That’s my first reaction to the idea of male sexuality these days. Hooray!
Also, I hope you note from my post that I, at least, do not always assume my attentions will be desired. That’s important to me. Since I want people to give me the courtesy of not assuming that I will be interested, I make sure to give the same courtesy to others.
i don’t see anything wrong with Lynet’s view on sexuality as a teen. We’re so malleable at that age and we’re just forming our own sense of self, cut her some slack. When I was a kid I had a pretty negative view of female sexuality. It was in a different manner, of course- I saw it as elitist, too good for me… I don’t know, it’s hard to really explain. And while I recognize it was wrong, I will not apologize for it, because my limited experiences were indeed negative I did the best I could as a 16 year-old kid.
Sam:
and
I wonder, Sam, if you even recognize the double-bind into which you are putting feminists–assuming for the moment that feminists are the more or less single-minded, unified party your writing, intentionally or not, characterizes them as.
Then, later on, you write this:
Leaving aside the question of what the second sentence even means, I wonder if you realize that you are here making feminists responsible for teaching you about your own sexuality, that you are making women–since you are, really, talking about heterosexual female feminists here–responsible for doing your emotional work for you. Which is a dynamic essentially no different from the patriarchal one that gives rise to and expresses the heterosexual male entitlement your rhetoric at least agrees is not a good thing. More, I wonder if you realize just how infantilizing of men this way of seeing us is.
Lynet,
thanks for explaining the “sometimes” and its biolgrpahic dimension. Makes sense to me now.
“Also, I hope you note from my post that I, at least, do not always assume my attentions will be desired. That’s important to me. Since I want people to give me the courtesy of not assuming that I will be interested, I make sure to give the same courtesy to others.”
I understand that. I think that also gives you the opportunity to understand the difficulty of the initiator. But there is no level playing field, I’d say. No one has it easy, but, take your referen ce to body language – that’s a core element of the things that can become (inadvertendly) crepy when done by men, yet rarely so when done by women. Examples… I talked about this with a bisexual woman last year, and she said that men could never do to other women what she does. Did you watch the latest episode of Glee? There’s a scene in which Finn talks to Kurt, the out-gay guy, and says “the way in which you were all over me last year – if I had done that to a girl, she’d have slapped me with a restraining order”. And just yesterday, I had coffee with a married female friend and we got into talking about flirting and how she misses it and how she misses the feeling of being pushed against a wall for the first kiss. She realized that she wanted men to magically know when to do it, and that knowing that knowing was also some kind of test. But imagine that happening due to miscommunication – probably the definition of creepy.
Women have different things to worry about in dating/mating, so I’m not trying to say it’s all so easy for them. It’s not. But women definitely have an easier time being perceived as not threatening not creepy. We can’t change that to the extent that it is a consequence of physical shape and strength, but we can to the extent that it is a problematic cultural notion. Just as men should make more of an effort to understand the female position, women should not assume that their experience automatically qualifies them to judge the male one…
Richard,
not at all. I’m not asking them to do my emotional work for me. I explicitly explained above how disentangling myself from my feminist-your-sexuality-is-toxic straightjacket was a part of my personal groeth process.
It’s all too easy to say that it’s infantilizing men when problems in a discourse are pointed out – “yeah, but they don’t mean it that way. You *should* understand that…”. I think, if anything, just glossing over the imprecisions in feminist discourse is infantilizing the feminist discourse structure in this respect by accepting that its not even up to its own theoretical standards. I mean, just go and look at the replies to Clarisse’s essay on Amanda Marcotte’s blog (including her post…).
So, no, I don’t see a double bind. I’m just asking them to a) be fair towards male sexuality because it is not *the enemy* and b) put themselves in the initiator’s shoes for a minute when they are making general claims. In my experience, this is pretty much what happens in face-to-face conversations with reasonable feminists. I’m basically just asking to extend that reasonable discourse to general discussions, online, and offline. So, where on earth is that a double bind?
Sam,
Go back and look at the language you use: Asking feminists to help men feel “worthy instead of entitled”–an important difference that is about men’s interior experience of ourselves before it is about women’s experience of us–is asking women to do the emotional work that we (men) ought to be doing ourselves.
I would also point out that holding women accountable for the things they say and how they behave in flirting, sexual, etc. situations–something which is entirely reasonable–is quite different from providing instructions on what feminists can do to make this world “a happier place for everyone.” The first is the mark of a mature adult establishing his own boundaries; the second bears a strong mark of entitlement. (And I want to be clear, Sam, I am not calling you, personally, immature. I think you are honestly struggling with issues that are deeply important to you and that you are trying, to the best of your ability, to do it honestly.)
Regarding the double bind: if you tell someone that you understand they can’t solve a problem at the center of which you stand and then go ahead and give them instructions on how to solve the problem, you are placing them in a double bind.
Richard,
“Asking feminists to help men feel “worthy instead of entitledâ€â€“an important difference that is about men’s interior experience of ourselves before it is about women’s experience of us–is asking women to do the emotional work that we (men) ought to be doing ourselves.”
I’m asking them to help by not making it more difficult to do this than it is anyway. I’m not asking them to do it for men, which is logically impossible. If my language is not sufficiently clear, please help me clear it up.
“is quite different from providing instructions on what feminists can do to make this world “a happier place for everyone.—
No, I think that’s exactly what they could do to make the world a happier place for everyone, including everyone engaged in such discussions
“I think you are honestly struggling with issues that are deeply important to you and that you are trying, to the best of your ability, to do it honestly.”
Thanks. I appreciate this.
“Regarding the double bind: if you tell someone that you understand they can’t solve a problem at the center of which you stand and then go ahead and give them instructions on how to solve the problem, you are placing them in a double bind.”
Hmm, maybe this is a problem about “comparatives”. When I’m saying “could make the world a better place for every one” I’m not assuming that, even in that happier world, the problems will be truly solved entirely, just that it will be better compared to where we are now. I think I’ve laid out why I believe that some problems in this realm cannot be solved entirely but that there are parts which we can work on – those are the parts that I believe could benefit from a different treatment by feminists/feminism. I don’t think that’s placing anyone in a double bind, but I think it is reminding, as you say, people of their mutual responsibilities.
Sam,
Frankly, I don’t see much in your response that is worth engaging, and I mean that not as dismissive but as a statement of how far apart I think our perspectives are, and I just don’t have the time to do justice to what a fuller conversation with you would require. Nothing you have written suggests that you are willing to consider the possibility that the “help” you are asking feminists to give or the instructions you are asking them follow are in fact things that you need to do for yourself; nor do you seem to be troubled by the arrogance–and it is arrogance, not matter how gently you put it–of insisting it is even partially women’s responsibility to make your sex life easier. I will say again that I think you are sincere in struggling with these issues and that I think you are being as honest with yourself and those with whom you are talking as you can be; I just think you are looking for answers, for resolution, etc. in the wrong direction, and I think the direction you are looking in is only going to make things more difficult for you in the long run.
Richard,
contrasting this -
“I would also point out that holding women accountable for the things they say and how they behave in flirting, sexual, etc. situations–something which is entirely reasonable”
and
“of insisting it is even partially women’s responsibility to make your sex life easier.”
you seem to believe that it’s ok to hold individual women accountable but not the collective feminist discourse? I disagree. Holding the discourse accountable is, I believe, more important than holding individual women accountable. Even though the personal is political
.
“and I think the direction you are looking in is only going to make things more difficult for you in the long run.”
Did you read the part of my replies above about me being quite happy about *my* dating life? I’m not quite sure why we keep talking past each other…
“you seem to believe that it’s ok to hold individual women accountable but not the collective feminist discourse?”
Believe it or not, there is not a feminist overmind. Individual feminists can and should be held responsible for their discourse; there is no way to hold *any* “collective discourse” responsible for anything, feminist or otherwise. How would you suggest going about such a thing, beyond holding individual feminists responsible for their individual discourse?
“How would you suggest going about such a thing, beyond holding individual feminists responsible for their individual discourse?”
Sam seems to be very concerned with how women view men’s sexuality..namely that women individual and otherwise view it as toxic or are indifferent to it.. I personally have not viewed men’s sexuality as a group as toxic…hence why “labeling” can sometimes be helpful, as in I’m trying to separate creeps from good guys…or if it would be preferred to say a negative experience from a positive one, but I still don’t see how expressing actions you don’t like is such a horrible thing. I certainly don’t want someone unknowingly doing something I don’t like over and over and over again, not just for my comfort, but so they aren’t baffled if I completely ignore them, or leave the situation. I just don’t get it…there isn’t a level playing field when it comes to viewing sexuality..but why? Why are men viewed as toxic, and women viewed as safe, is feminist language really the cause of this? I don’t feel like it is…I know men who view other men’s sexuality as toxic as I pointed out before…I’ve had more men tell me guys are dogs than women…women seemed to believe more in the fairy tales, and I’ve found feminists somewhere in between.
Lisa,
I’m very happy to have a discussion on microinstitutionalisation and how that relates into social discourses, sometimes to the extent alleged truths aren’t even questioned anymore. That’s actually not too far from the critical theory derived common feminist approach to looking at the world. There are feminists who believe that there is a systemic patriarchical overmind and they are wrong, but that doesn’t mean that ideas aren’t institutionalised into discourses that shape the way we discuss them, what we take for granted and what we question. There certainly is a huge difference between separatist lesbian feminists in the 70s and sex positive feminism that some feminists are exhibiting – it’s a difference so huge that I sometimes wonder why they both want to carry the same label. Sex positive feminists during sex wars weren’t particularly concerned about male sexuality, they were more concerned about being told they have no agency and are victims of Patriarchy Stockholm Syndrome.
Rightly so, of course. But even when it became ok to be feminist and have sex with men, male sexuality was still mostly present in feminist discourse with respect to sexual violence. I mean, just look at feministe, feministing, yes means yes – and check for sex and masculinity and count the amount of genuinely positive posts you’ll find. And this is from self-declared sex positive third wave feminists, who want to talk about their sluthood. Cool, all fair and well, but is there *any* consideration of possibly unintented effects of that still largely negative discourse?
There may be – as Mythago’s comment indicates, but it’s, well, relatively rare. And is there any consideration of the problematic effects of mostly building a wall of “don’ts” without as much as even thinking about a set of “dos”? Not so much.
So when you ask me, “how would I go about it” – I’d ask individual feminists (who agree with my perception) to challenge the general “don’ts” notion in feminist debates by raising the specific “dos” point of view. By trying to not only speak or write about male sexuality in the context of sexual violence, thereby raising the social value of male sexuality, reducing the perceived social value difference between female and male sexuality, thus contributing to making everyone’s life easier.
And with time, hopefully, such notion will be incorporated into mainstream feminism, hopefully amending, or even changing, the still very negative discourse.
You know, now that I think about it…it’s not that I have a problem with men’s sexuality per se but how they view my sexuality as a woman…that perhaps I feel they think I’m always ready to hop in the sack, or that I even want to be complimented..sometimes I wish I could just fade into the background and not be worried about being judged on my looks….
I think this is where all the don’ts come from…that I perceive that men view me as wanting sex or not, and not all the complications in between that exist in even me as just an individual, not even taking into account the complications of a group.
I would say everywhere outside of feminist circles male sexuality is not viewed as violent…you know the whole bad apple thing..that the only men capable of sexual violence are the “other guys”, when it’s obvious to women who have suffered from abuse there is no “other”, you’re asking feminists to think like women outside of their ideology, the very thing feminists are protesting…the ideology relies on awareness in an otherwise unaware world…you have the masses on your side…in a society where violence is sexy, you’re asking feminists to applaud the decency that you’re supposed to have as a human being? It seems you don’t think women are oppressed, or you don’t know how oppression works, or maybe some other option I haven’t thought of…if most of society applauds male sexuality, it doesn’t matter what feminists applaud or don’t applaud…Anything positive we say will just be justification, and most negative things we say are dismissed or argued by those that don’t feel the experience of being a woman warrants a discussion on the negatives.
Sam,
So why aren’t you writing, or at least trying to write, those feminist-oriented sex-positive positive posts? Why aren’t you finding your own vocabulary with which to say, “This is what it means for me to be sexual; this is how my sexuality grows out of my feminism.” Why aren’t you, in other words, trying to articulate the view of male (hetero)sexuality that you want to have? Having that kind of vision come from men like yourself will be far more compelling and will be far more likely, over time, to have the result that you want–”incorporated into mainstream feminism, hopefully amending, or even changing, the still very negative discourse”–than will waiting for feminists to do it for you.
Instead, you intellectualize and over-intellectualize and end up more or less right back where you started: asking feminists to “raise the social value of male [hetero]sexuality,” something which it simply is not in their power to do. And before you tell me that I should look at the ways in which feminist discourse has, society-wide, devalued male heterosexuality, I would point out to you that there isn’t a single negative thing that feminists have to say about male heterosexuality that men themselves have not been saying for a very, very, very long time. Women did not invent the notion that male heterosexuality is predatory and violent; men have been saying that for millenia. You want to change society’s view of male heterosexuality, you (and me and Hugo and men in general) are the only ones with the power and authority to change that discourse.
I have already linked to this page once in this thread, but I am going to do it again, specifically, in response to you (even though you may have read some of them already), because the posts in my Fragments of Evolving Manhood series are my attempts to work through, in terms of my personal life, my sexuality and sexual experiences, my understanding of what it meant, means, could mean to be a man, precisely the kinds of questions you have been asking in this thread. I will not say that these attempts have been successful, and I do not offer them to you as a model of anything other than an attempt, but I really do think that you will only find your answers through your own version of what I have tried to do for myself.
There certainly is a huge difference between separatist lesbian feminists in the 70s and sex positive feminism that some feminists are exhibiting – it’s a difference so huge that I sometimes wonder why they both want to carry the same label.
Partly because self-identified feminists (of otherwise varied views) are responsible for the changes that allow women like me to hold jobs in traditionally male fields, have credit independent from our husbands, etc. I’m sure I, for one, wouldn’t want to abandon the label “feminism” to some set of women who have different attitudes from me about sex, because that means suggesting I’m not part of that common ground favoring equal opportunity in the work force and in finances, both areas that are very important to me.
Sam, as I understand, feminists share a basic commitment to women’s empowerment and equality, and disagree with each other about the means to getting there. Women aren’t monolithic. I’m a feminist who wears heels and lipstick and waxes and likes (make that LOVES) men. And I’m no less and no more of feminist than a lesbian in the stereotypical docs and dickies.
Lynn, Geni, sure. It’s really just something I privately wonder about occasionally – I also share a basic commitment to women’s empowerment and equality and yet I would not want to call myself feminist.
I think SamSeaborn’s comments here are the best things about this blog.
Sam, it sounds like you’re saying that the only way to affect a “collective discourse” is to address it one individual’s discourse at a time, which is pretty much what I was saying in the first place.
In terms of what you specifically object to, you seem to think that the conflation of male sexuality and male violence wasn’t an imbedded idea in human society until feminism came along, which is a very strange outlook on the subject indeed. All feminism did was make it socially acceptable to object openly to pervasive male sexual violence and insist that there was something wrong with it; the idea of pervasive male sexual violence and violence as something that inevitable colored male sexuality predated feminism by millenia, literally. The only thing feminists can do on the subject of male sexuality and violence would be to stop complaining about it, and given how hard it was for feminists to get their complaints taken seriously in the first place(and sadly this has hardly been eradicated as an issue) I can’t imagine what motivation feminists could have for shutting up on the subject til the link between male sexuality and male violence stops being a significant problem for women in general.
In terms of feminist sex-positivism (and I definitely could be considered a sex-positive feminist), it benefits feminists who want to have sex with men (I’m firmly in that group as well) to encourage men to approach us openly and comfortably about consensual sexual encounters, and I’m quite sure already we are doing that. We are also trying to change a culture that insists that any woman who encourages men to approach her sexually is somehow announcing to all and sundry that she’s lost the right to refuse any man, any time–a bigger problem for us than the problem of men feeling like it’s difficult to approach a woman for sex period.
I’m sure that once male sexual violence becomes less of a problem for women than male sexual comfort levels and availability, feminism will shift its focus accordingly. But that’s not a problem imbalance that feminists, individually or collectively, have the ability to change. I think it’s fairly obvious who, individually or collectively, would be more likely to have the power to change that situation.
“you seem to think that the conflation of male sexuality and male violence wasn’t an imbedded idea in human society until feminism came along, which is a very strange outlook on the subject indeed. All feminism did was make it socially acceptable … ”
Sorry, but I read this to mean – “we’re not responsible for bigotry because we didn’t create it.” Or, alternatively, “The one thing Patriarchy did get right is its view that men really are dangerous and predatory.” Funny how some Patriarchal notions are quite beloved by feminists. The way “pervasive male sexual violence’ just rolls off the tongue in your post means you don’t easily distinguish between the acts of some men and the nature of all men.
Sam’s mistake is crediting feminists with some special moral authority, and consequently putting way too much stock in their views about men. Men don’t need advice from feminists, or the approval of feminists, to lead good and loving lives. If you have a loving relationship with just one woman, you know more about her wants and needs that any feminist theorist does. Her happiness is a better foundation for your self-worth than proving some silly academic discourse is wrong.
STF, Sam has bent over backwards (to far, clearly, in your estimation) to honor that this is a feminist blog. You want to make snide remarks about feminism, you can go to countless other right-wing outlets where that view will be welcomed. Not here. Sam’s making an effort, and the dialogue is civil as a consequence. Please join him or move along.
Pingback: Still Stumped « Toy Soldiers
That might actually explain a lot.
Male sexuality that isn’t violent and oppressive isn’t a problem. It’s also… not mine, it’s theirs. So why would I write about it? To write about it seems a bit weird, I (or any feminist) could only write about our experience of and appreciation of positive male sexuality… but ah, that seems a little intimate since we would only be familiar with certain individuals and writing about the sexuality of individuals is TMI and often uncomfortable.
Sam, can you point to an example of something that talks positively about female sexuality in the way that you want society to talk about male sexuality?
Both Richard and Victoria seem to express an idea that male heterosexuality and female heterosexuality are different things, and that we’re somehow each responsible for our end, without any input to the contrary, which seems really off. I would presume that it’s a shared thing, and (thus) it makes very little sense to not be keen to know what women (collectively and individually) think of what I’m up to, and decide what’s appropriate/inappropriate based on that.
And I understand the ethics behind “Don’t just ask to be told what you’re supposed to do, dumping work on someone else like that isn’t cool” makes sense, from a practical perspective it’s not clear to me there’s any other way to address heterosexuality as a man, except maybe to refuse to participate. I mean, you can ckeep devising ideas on your own, and running back saying “Is this okay?”, “Is this okay?” – but I think it’s functionally identical. When you’re doing something jointly with someone else who ultimately has the authority to decide what’s okay, no okay, trying to come up with a plan yourself is pointless and frustrating; when I go to dinner with a picky eater, or someone who keeps Halal, or a vegan, I don’t try and suggest restaurants; it’s their preferences that’ll determine where we go; it’s completely unproductive for me to make suggestions because they’re unrelated to what’ll happen.
Everyone seems really enamoured on Lynet’s response, though it reads as pretty strongly in the “If it turns out that it was okay, then it was okay” vein that’s really unhelpful until after the fact, maybe good for soothing one’s conscious at night, but it’s not a useful axiom for deciding on behaviours. I dunno; I don’t see why Victoria’s answer wouldn’t be obviously problematic if we replaced “deserve” with the near synonym “are entitled to”; and I don’t see how “Stop with unwanted attention when someone makes it known it’s unwanted” addresses the “Don’t put unwanted attention on people” ethic, when you have to put it out there to know whether it’s wanted/unwanted.
I’m not sure if I think male and female heterosexuality are the same, or at least to be expressed in the same way seeing as the claims are that one is toxic and one is not, and that both parties may want the ends to be the same, but not necessarily the means (both may want the end result of a caring relationship/or sexual encounter, but see different ways of achieving that). As for unwanted attention, yes you have to put it out there first, and on the receiving end you have to receive it first in order to make the decision on if you want it…It still works, if someone isn’t reciprocating leave them alone..it’s much easier to forget the “injustice” of being approached by unwanted attention than it is to forgive the guy/gal who just won’t leave you alone.
Technically that is true. However, feminists write about negative male sexuality in general. If that is possible, then should they not also be able to write about positive male sexuality in the same way? That question echoes Brian’s point. Since the decision about what counts as positive male sexuality does not lie with men, what option do men who want to date women, particularly feminist women, have other than to ask those women what they should do?
Brian,
“Everyone seems really enamoured on Lynet’s response, though it reads as pretty strongly in the “If it turns out that it was okay, then it was okay†vein that’s really unhelpful until after the fact, maybe good for soothing one’s conscious at night, but it’s not a useful axiom for deciding on behaviours.”
Actually, I’d say “Try to set things up so that people can easily communicate to you whether they’re okay with it or not. Also, going slower makes it easier to not accidentally cross an important boundary all at once. If it turns out it wasn’t okay, apologize and/or just give the poor guy/girl some space.” I don’t think making a mistake is the end of the world — if you accidentally squick some girl out, it doesn’t mean you’re a terrible person, it just means you should step the hell back, already.
Sam, you mentioned that the fact that I’m always aware that my attentions might be unwelcome makes it easier for me to understand how tricky it can be to be the initiator, so I just have to say, yes! Exactly! And that way lies hope. The more women who initiate small sexual interactions, the more men will understand what it’s like to receive unexpected sexual attention, and the more women will understand what it’s like to give unexpected sexual attention.
I have been in situations where my attention was unwelcome — like when J. was wiggling his butt in rehearsals and enjoying the attention from us girls, and then a week later I suggested he might be getting a bit cocky from having had a whole bunch of girls staring at his ass, and he looked at me, genuinely uncomfortable, and said “You were looking at my ass?” As in “Oh, gosh, I thought I was just being silly, I didn’t really think I was being sexy, and now I’ve been unexpectedly dumped in a sexual situation and it feels weird and I’m not sure I like this.” This might seem a terrible thing to say, but I think the world could benefit from more guys knowing what that feels like — and probably also from more girls having had to go through the process of “Whoops, I’ll just have to be uniformly serious towards him for a while and hope he doesn’t retain any weird feelings about me.”
So I say that feminism can help — by encouraging more women to be sexual as well as sexy, by encouraging more men to understand that yes, they can be objects of desire as well as subjects of it. Refusing rigid gender roles will make it easier to understand each other, if we can just discard “The Rules” and stop playing “The Game” (if you know what I mean).
The truth us that the best relationships often involve ‘initiation’ on both sides. If I say “I’m really enjoying this conversation,” and he says “Yeah, me too, we should continue it some time,” and I say “Sure, can I have your phone number?” then which of us did the initiation? I mean, in this conversation, it turns out he was the first one to suggest meeting, but he could do that because I deliberately gave him an indication that it might be welcome, and then it was me who turned that vague ‘sometime’ into ‘I’ll call you’, and me who will, later (hopefully) be doing some calling, and him who will have to agree to a time and place (or call it off, I suppose, if he changes his mind). In the hypothetical situation given, we both have agency, and we were both pushing the potential relationship along. That’s the ideal situation: both people pushing. If feminism can’t take us to that sort of equality, then what can?
Toy Soldier wrote:
But of course it does. To suggest otherwise is to abdicate responsibility for our own sexualities.
Lynet wrote:
I think it’s important to point out that the benefit would come both from the positive and negative aspects of having someone express physical attraction; because while it is certainly true that most heterosexual men do not know what it’s like to have our bodies “checked out” in a demeaning, ogling, pushy, etc. way on a regular basis; it is also true that most heterosexual men don’t know what it’s like to be, physically, the object of someone’s active, interested, respectfully enthusiastic, curious, etc. desire.
Toy Soldier wrote:
Richard Henry Newman answered:
Richard, are you saying that I as a man, can decide, irrespective of what any woman might feel about it, that wolf-whistling at passing women expresses ‘positive male sexuality’?
Or do you think, after all, that it’s for the women to decide whether it’s positive or not?
If there was a dispute between a wolf-whistling man and an outraged woman, whose side would you be on?
Sorry, ‘Richard Jeffrey Newman’, I should have written.
I think, Tom, you miss the point. It is one thing for women to assert that wolf-whistling is something that turns them off and for men to take that assertion seriously and agree that we will stop wolf-whistling; but I think we also have to agree that this assertion would be about more than just the physical act of whistling; it is about whistling in the context of a sense of entitlement on the part of the whistler(s). In other words, unless not wolf-whistling is merely a surface change, a change in behavior only that does not reflect a more fundamental change in how wolf-whistling men see women–such that they are not longer wolf-whistlers in terms of their ideology as well as their behavior–then there has not really been much of a change at all.
On the other hand, if men really take seriously the feminist critique of wolf-whistling and decide we want to change at that deeper level, then it is up to us to figure out how not to be/feel/etc. entitled in our sexual interactions with women. Of course women can and should tell us how our behavior and the thinking that informs it makes them feel, and we need to respect those feelings, but we can–and, where appropriate, should–disagree with them when they insist that we change to accommodate those feeling if their feelings are inaccurate.
We are responsible for our own sexualities, not women; we are responsible for whether or not our sexualities express entitlement, not women; we are responsible for articulating and expressing the interior experience and meaning of our sexualities such that women do not experience them as “negative”–a word I don’t particularly like, but which I am using because it is the word you used in your comment. Women are not responsible for that.
And I just have to say that anyone whose response to what I have just written involves any kind of statement that includes the notion that, well, you know, men want to have sex and need to figure out how to attract women to have sex with–I just have to say that this response is an entitled response precisely because it avoids the question of the underlying ideology of male heterosexuality and heterosexual expression and focuses on how men are going to get sex from women; and this idea that sex is something men have to get, that men are entitled to get, from women is the problem with wolf-whistling in the first place.
Victoria said:
Thanks for saying this. Unfortunately, this was not the type of message that Brian, Sam, and I got from feminism. Actually, it’s quite possible that if we took your post and gave it a male handle
Yes, the moral view he is articulating is ridiculous, just like the notion that women who have premarital sex are “sluts” is ridiculous. Yet these notions can still be so ingrained in people that they are difficult to shake.
Yes, most of them do. But some of them don’t. And you can’t necessarily know in advance which group a particular woman falls into. Yes, you can look for cues, but these are just guesses. If you want to guarantee that you won’t make an unwanted approach, the only solution is to not approach. Trying to achieve this guarantee is ridiculous, but many men have been made to feel that they must satisfy this ridiculous requirement.
I think that’s exactly the correct point of view… so why did I first hear this sort of logic from a pickup artist, and not from a feminist? Actually, you are the first feminist (if you self-identify that way) to articulate this reasoning, in many conversations I’ve seen about men approaching women.
The message I got from feminism gave me the feeling that the potential costs of my sexual advances would outweigh the potential benefits. I eventually developed a more healthy and realistic perspective of the potential costs and benefits of my sexuality for women, but I had to go outside typical feminist discourses to do so. I had to actually go out and try stuff, discover that my worst mistakes just resulted in minor annoyance, and that my successes could totally make the other person’s day; of course, this still involved a risk of making women uncomfortable.
In feminist discourse, sweepingly negative portrayals of male sexuality drown out realistic moral perspectives like Victoria’s, and positive experiences or advice like Lynette’s. Unfortunately, the rhetorical environment that feminism creates seems more successful at getting women to speak up about negative experiences with male sexuality, than about positive experiences.
As a result, these more positive and nuanced views mainly come out when feminism is under attack, which is unfortunate.
Oops, forgot to finish my first paragraph. It should read:
Hugo is welcome to fix it and delete this post.
Too many replies…
Victoria,
“Male sexuality that isn’t violent and oppressive isn’t a problem. It’s also… not mine, it’s theirs. So why would I write about it?”
I’ll have to echo Toysoldier’s point on this one – problems are generalized/collectivized, seen as systemic parts of the problem while positive experiences are considered individual/private. This sounds a bit like “the personal is political” is a one way street.
“Sam, can you point to an example of something that talks positively about female sexuality in the way that you want society to talk about male sexuality?”
Well, that’s not *that* easy, because the respective problems for male and female sexuality aren’t symmetrical, even though they are intertwined.
Feminism has been great for women who were looking for a way to embrace their sexuality, to go out and celebrate their empowered sexual condfidence, their “sluthood”, to name a recent essay, as an example I can think off right now.
But while being a “stud” probably still has some social status among certain men, the social narrative is decidedly negative. A woman celebrating her sluthood is celebrated as an enlightened being, a heterosexual man who’d write about his exploits on Craigslist in the same way would likely be seen as a compulsory womanizer who’s not able to see that the days of chauvinist masculinity are long gone (without mentioning what they have been replaced with). I do realize that she also got decidedly negative feedback from conservative circles. But while there probably is a general tacit acceptance of “men are like that”, I would say that their general understanding of male sexuality is not at all positive, which is why I think this criticizm can be canceled down.
So, yeah. It would be great to read an essay like that one by Jaclyn Friedman and it would be great if it would be seen as an empowering and liberating instant classic.
Lynet,
“Refusing rigid gender roles will make it easier to understand each other, if we can just discard “The Rules†and stop playing “The Game†(if you know what I mean).”
Yes, more fluid gender roles will certainly help if we (humans) are able to deal with the added insecurity of what amounts to appropriate behaviour. I suppose the verdict on that one is still out. As for the dating advice literature you mention, you are right if you look at this material statically – but if treated as one source of information among others about how to deal with this part of one’s existence, I suppose these books can actually contribute to the fluidity of gender roles. As one example, if you ever read “the game” you’ll probably notice how much of the prescribed behaviour, from painting nails to withdrawal strategies are modeled after what is commonly seen as feminine strategy…
“If feminism can’t take us to that sort of equality, then what can?”
True empathy, and a willingness to not let group membership and axiomatic assumptions about the inherent nature of group conflicts and group-member-motivations determine the position one takes with respect to any particular problem. For some, that may be a subset, or a superset of their feminism, but not for others.
The message I got from feminism gave me the feeling that the potential costs of my sexual advances would outweigh the potential benefits.
But those messages are only about a particular subset of sexual advances – ones that continue after I’ve said no, on the grounds that I might not actually mean what I say, ones that are offered by someone who controls my paycheck, that sort of thing. For most sexual advances, Victoria’s perspective is the one that applies.
Tom,
This is a brief continuation of my response to you above, which I realize came out kind of garbled, since I was writing quickly.
It would be an interesting exercise to turn your question about men and women into one about white people and black people:
Do I really need Black people, at this point in history, to tell me that using the word “nigger” is wrong? Sure, maybe if I’d never heard the word before and was using it only because I heard other people using it; if I’d never met a Black person before and so didn’t know that this word which had been in common usage in my community was, in fact, offensive; but instances like these, in which real, basic education needs to take place not what is being discussed in this thread, or in the original post. More to the point, though, are you really suggesting that the only reason not to call Black people nigger is that they don’t like it–which is the racial corollary of the sexual terms of your original question. Or, to put it back into your original terms, are you really suggesting that the only reason for a man not to wolf-whistle is that women don’t like it, that the fact that randomly wolf-whistling at someone in the street–because let’s all agree that wolf-whistling at someone you know in an appropriate context is not what we are talking about here–is demeaning of that person precisely because of the entitlement it expresses is not, in and of itself, sufficient reason not to do it?
Lynn,
“But those messages are only about a particular subset of sexual advances – ones that continue after I’ve said no, on the grounds that I might not actually mean what I say, ones that are offered by someone who controls my paycheck, that sort of thing. For most sexual advances, Victoria’s perspective is the one that applies.”
Possibly. Well, probably. But when I was told that male sexuality is toxic and dangerous, when I hear that all men are potential rapists, I didn’t get the idea that my approaches could be very welcome. It’s probably *assumed* in the discourse, that some approaches are welcome, but’s rarely *stated* and in the rare occasion that it is stated (like Hugo’s post) it’s still not filled with a lot of useful specific information beyond “duh!”.
This is the misunderstanding I’ve been referring to all the time. Feminists often make general statements about how experiencing unwanted attention basically equals sexual violence and how it is creepy and actually almost rape – when they are actually, probably, not trying to keep all men from talking to women but trying to improve the way the communication is happening when it is happening.
But, as we are seeing right here, right now – communication on this matter is difficult. And you can look at this misunderstanding from two angles -
One, you can say that “when it’s not about you, it’s not about you” and disregard the collateral damage for those men who are adversely affected by the discourse. But *how* was I supposed to know this when I was growing up and I felt like my sexuality was potentially dangerous and hurtful to the women I liked (Again, feminism is *one* not the only reason for my delayed psycho-sexual development, it would be unfair to say it was the only reason). How was I to know how to parse feminist messages that weren’t directed at me when I they are don’t noticeably differentiate between someone rnadomly groping women on the sidewalk and someone who’s too afraid to touch the breast of a woman who initiated a make out with him until she asked if there was something wrong with her breasts…
And there’s another problem with the lack of precise discourse and the requirement to parse it – it’s basically a “meta confirmation” of the problematic notion you mention yourself – that women don’t actually mean no when they say no. Don’t you see that? When feminists say publicly that “only a soft penis is a good penis” and are only privately adding qualifiers (“only if x and y happened, apart from that, I love erections!”) then they are, at least implicitly, reinforcing the notion that women don’t actually mean what they say – even those women who are particualarly concerned about language, meaning and consent.
And while the first perspective is mostly problematic with respect to the boys/men who are affected by it, the latter one – the one that may make boys/men look at feminist messages and wonder which ones could be some kind of hoop they have to jump through to demonstrate masculine dominance by saying “ahh, it’s not about me” – is actually problematic for feminism as a discourse, and potentially also for actual women.
Do you see what I mean?
How can one be responsible for one’s sexuality if one does not make the ultimate decision about how one’s sexuality gets viewed?
In your response to Robert you stated:
That begs a host of questions: How do men know women’s feelings are inaccurate? How would the declaration of inaccuracy not count as male entitlement? How can men disagree with women’s feelings within a feminist framework that views such disagreements as male entitlement? And perhaps the most obvious question, what if men do not think they are demonstrating any entitlement?
In linking male sexuality to entitlement you justify my initial point that the decision about what counts as positive male sexuality does not lie with men. It is unlikely that most men view themselves as entitled, particularly in their desire to have sex. So if one starts from the position that men desiring sex counts as entitlement, does that put men in a position to ask women, particularly feminists, what expressions of male sexuality are appropriate?
I think some of your responses to Dan’s critique of one night stands is based more on hypothetical than actual scenarios. Sure it’s one thing to say that women want to get laid too. But have any of you ever been in a situation where a total stranger just walked up to you and said “wanna fuck?” I have. More times than I can count. It is unnerving at best. Even if the guy is super hot, he loses some of his sex appeal with an approach like that. And when I pressure him with “why?”, it ALWAYS comes down to “I saw you outside that soup kitchen (or whatever) the other day. Most of the girls that go there are… you know…” or “well my friend says you did him…” and his friend is the f#!*ing GOOF I turned down yesterday. Believe me, guys who are bold enough to approach a stranger in that manner are not guys you wanna know.
Dan is absolutely right, imo. And at the risk of sounding creepy myself, I think he’s kinda cute. Good thing we’re in different countries. I wouldn’t want to scare him or anything
TS
I never said that men wanting sex counts as entitlement; that is your projection. If you want to argue with me, please argue with what I actually say.
Also, regarding men’s ability to know when women’s perception of our heterosexuality is inaccurate: perhaps I am dating myself here, but I remember when the news first hit popular culture versions of sex talk like Dr. Ruth that men don’t always want sex. Women didn’t somehow magically readmen’s minds to figure that out. Men had to speak up about it.
Richard,
well, if you never said wanting sex counts as entitlement, what is it that you were trying to say, say, here?
“And I just have to say that anyone whose response to what I have just written involves any kind of statement that includes the notion that, well, you know, men want to have sex and need to figure out how to attract women to have sex with–I just have to say that this response is an entitled response precisely because it avoids the question of the underlying ideology of male heterosexuality and heterosexual expression and focuses on how men are going to get sex from women;”
Sam:
To feel desire is not to feel entitled; to give that desire the form of a wolf-whistle is to express that desire in an entitled way, is to express and enact entitlement. To set the wolf-whistle aside simply because it no longer works without looking critically at the ideology of the wolf-whistle is to avoid dealing with the sense of entitlement that makes the wolf-whistle what it is; and that sense of entitlement is not the fact of desiring sex; it is the fact of assuming that it is one’s right–in the sense that the world is obliged to provide what one needs, in this case the bodies of women–to have that desire satisfied.
Richard Jeffry Newman
I wasn’t suggesting anything of the kind. But now that you mention it: Yes, the only good reason for a man planning to wolf-whistle at a woman to refrain from so doing is that, by and large, this is an expression of sexual interest which women dislike.
If women did accept wolf-whistling as a positive expression of male sexual interest, then that would be the end of the matter. If both I and the object of my sexual interest see no problem in the way that sexual interest is expressed, it is nobody’s business but ours. Am I missing something?
Human actions are not inherently good or bad, they are good or bad by the exercise of somebody’s moral scrutiny. If a man believes that it’s ok to approach a woman he’s never seen before at the bus-stop to negotiate a sexual encounter with her, and the woman in question thinks that it’s not ok at all, then clearly their moral evaluation of the situation differs. Two possible ways of eliminating the disparity present themselves: (1) He could bring his opinion into line with hers. (2) She could bring her opinion into line with his.
Which of those two options would you choose? If you sincerely maintain that it’s up to men to decide whether their sexual conduct is correct, then you will pick (1). If you believe that women should be judges of the propriety or otherwise of a man’s sexual conduct, you will pick (2).
If we may, can we set aside the wolf-whistle since most men do not use it to show interest in women? Also, would the following be a fair rephrasing of your position: To feel desire is not to feel entitled; to give that desire form is to express that desire in an entitled way, is to express and enact entitlement. If so, how could anyone — male or female — demonstrate sexual desire without appearing entitled?
If a woman desired to express her sexuality, the notion that she has the right to satisfy that desire (which would most likely occur with the use of men’s bodies) would count as entitlement? It is not possible for her to have the right to satisfy that desire without having the right to force an unwanting party to participate? In other words, if I desire food and assume it is my right to satisfy that desire, i.e. have access to food, that means the world is obliged to provide for me? It could not mean only that I should not be prevented from acquiring food through reasonable moral means?
TS:
Well, one way would be to accept rejection, as Hugo suggested in the original post, gracefully.
And with that, since I think it brings us pretty much full circle, I am bowing out of this conversation.
Which remains a non-answer. “Doing X is a manifestation of entitlement.” isn’t an answer to “How can I be unentitled?” A comprehensive list might be, but that’s obviously impossible.
Thus we’re stuck without any apparent answer to “Is there a positive statement of what makes ethical male heterosxuality?” Negative answers aren’t particularly helpful.
I dunno. It seems like it should be okay in a context women’re voluntarily entering a context where it’s explicitly okay to express interest (set ups, internet dating … maybe others? None come to mind.), but it still makes me feel creepy when I think about it.
Brian that it makes you feel creepy to think about it doesn’t have anything to do with the philosophy or with feminism IMO.
People keeps saying both on this thread and on others that 99% of people and 98% of feminists do not object to non aggressive appropriate expressions of interest from men to women. Some posters even give specific examples. But Hugh and Brian and Sam keep saying how feminists aren’t saying it enough. Look, I know lack of confidence is a problem for many young men – I do not believe that crippling lack of confidence due to feminism is a problem for many young men – all the men I knew who had such a problem were not feminists at all. Plenty of feminist men do not interpret feminist as saying the things Hugh and Brian and Sam heard.
To me all this sounds a lot like:
Women say, I’ve been harassed and made to feel unsafe frequently, I wish men would stop doing that it is not okay. Men reply, tell me how it is okay to ask a women on a date! Women say, well, sure, if you aren’t threatening her in either words or body language. Men say, but that doesn’t make sense, I don’t understand because there is a slight possibility that a woman might interpret my actions as unsafe even though I’m watching my body language and words. Women, uh unlikely, don’t worry about it. Men, but feminists taught me that its a problem, I still think its a problem, I will not believe it is not a problem.
Look, when we are young sometimes something someone says catches at our attention and sinks in hooks and develops meaning all out of proportion. Maybe because it plays on existent insecurities maybe for some other reason. Sometimes we misinterpret sometimes what we hear isn’t what the person speaking thinks they are saying. Sometimes we don’t misinterpret but it was someone who was a bit crazy and wrong. And we grow up and we learn more about everything and make our own moral decisions.
Brian do you have a problem asking male friends to dinner? Isn’t it an expression of entitlement? Should people be free of being imposed on that way? How is it different?
Is there a positive statement of what makes positive female heresexuality?
I can’t think of any honestly.
Victoria,
you make it sound so simple
“Women, uh unlikely, don’t worry about it. Men, but feminists taught me that its a problem, I still think its a problem, I will not believe it is not a problem.”
I’m agreeing with the rest of the paragraph, but here I’d like to say that the I’d really like to read the “uh, unlikely, don’t worry about it”-part of that debate, but where is it? Just here? As I said, I’m willing to believe that much what you’re saying with “uh, unlikely…” is simply not said because it’s believed to be implied (“duh!”). But if not, where is it?
“And we grow up and we learn more about everything and make our own moral decisions.”
Totally. But that doesn’t solve the structural problems of the discourse and that even if you’re willing to not listen to this message anymore it can be seen as “if it’s not about you it’s not about you” or as “women don’t mean what they say.”
It’s a bit like saying “Yeah, but when feminists say men should ask before they move in for a kiss they don’t mean *you* should actually ask before *you* move in for a kiss, silly! They still want *you* to know when to push them against a wall without having to tell *you*. They just want men in general to be aware that they’re breaking the rules by doing what they are silently expecting *you* to do. You just have to know when you’re men and when you’re *you*.”
It’s a bit of a double bind.
It’s a bit like saying “Yeah, but when feminists say men should ask before they move in for a kiss they don’t mean *you* should actually ask before *you* move in for a kiss, silly! They still want *you* to know when to push them against a wall without having to tell *you*. They just want men in general to be aware that they’re breaking the rules by doing what they are silently expecting *you* to do. You just have to know when you’re men and when you’re *you*.â€
You want specifics on kisses? I’d put it that communication of some sort should precede a kiss, but that communication can be flirtatious words and glances, rather than a plainly stated request for a kiss, that asking for a kiss is also OK (maybe even preferable if you know that your own personal ability to read nonverbal signals is lousy), and that, if you didn’t actually ask and most of the flirtation was nonverbal, you should move in slowly (with some meaningful eye communication first), so that there’s sufficient opportunity for the other party to either enthusiastically consent to the kiss or back off. And that people who actually literally want to be pushed against a wall (whoever they are) should probably accept that they’d better negotiate that ahead of time, because actually being pushed against a wall without prior discussion would run the risk of alarming someone who didn’t want that.
And I think that more naked penetrative acts should involve some explicitly verbal agreement on both parts, and well as some significant social interaction before they are proposed. Exactly what kind of words are exchanged depends on the context and the people involved.
And you want my idea of positive images of men’s desire and sexuality? I’ll go with Gregory in Gregory’s Girl and Jason Bourne in The Bourne Identity. All right, the first is an awkward teenager, and the second is a tortured assassin. But when it comes to how they connect with the objects of their desire, both show a nice balance between showing their own interest and being responsive to how the girl or woman in question is reacting, which is more than you can say for the “oh what a sweet stalker he is” moments that a lot of romantic comedies serve up.
Brian do you have a problem asking male friends to dinner? Isn’t it an expression of entitlement? Should people be free of being imposed on that way? How is it different?
Casting it as “male friends” is kind of misleading, since there’s minimal difference between male friends and female friends; there’s a difference between “platonic friends” and “non-platonic friends” that’s much larger. In platonic relationships, you can move along the continuum like a smooth function, rather than a step function. By the time I’m inviting a friend over for dinner (male, female, doesn’t matter), I already have an established relationship with them that makes it appropriate, etc. (In fact, although someone might be busy, or unable to arrange transportation, I don’t think I’ve ever invited a friend over for dinner who didn’t want to go. I’m sure I’ve asked someone on a date who didn’t want to go. Maybe even two someones.)
The transition from a platonic relationship to a non-platonic one is really the tipping point. It’s why while I agreed with what Dan Hicks said, I thought he missed the point, but either saying “This is a no-go” or “put off non-platonic desires for platonic ones”. This transition is really sharp, and introduces a qualitatively different issue.
Strictly speaking, I might agree that it’s also an imposition in platonic cases; but nobody seems to complain about it, so I’m not sure it’s worth worrying about? Maybe, but it’s still a separate problem.
Sam, we’ve had the ‘pushing up against a wall’ discussion before, remember?
You really are a broken record on this “feminists hate the penis and ruin my sex life” routine.
Lynn,
thanks for the specifics
I used the kissing example because it’s my primary thing. But I used it to illustrate the problematic structure of the argument asking individual men to “put generalized feminist arguments through a common sense filter. Duh!”.
Again, thanks for the specifics – “that communication can be flirtatious words and glances” – is not something often heard in discussions about such matters on feminist blogs. Maybe another “Duh!” point, but certainly not something often brought up to balance the demands for explicit asking.
As for asking explicitly – My ability to read non-verbal cues is quite good, but being in my mental position, I’ve made somehow aksing or stating my intent a point of order, as it would be great *for me* to have a positive statement of consent before moving in for the kiss. But it seems to me that adding this explicit element into the usually, at this point, very – also physically – playful interaction, adds a layer of gravity that doesn’t seem to help, in fact, it does seem to hurt. It removes playfulness by suddenly making things seem “seriousâ€.
My guess at this point is that most women don’t want to make their desires explicit at this point, that – for slut shaming or whatever reasons – don’t want to assume the explicit responsibility for what they would still like to happen, or that they actually don’t know if they would like it to happen until they have been confronted with it. Or, as asking in this case is so unusual, that they believe that saying ‘I want’ here would mean ‘ok’ to something else – like sex.
I currently believe that those women who directly and affirmatively reply to such a direct question are the same women who would have initiated the kiss themselves a little later, which means that, for me, being explicit about my desire doesn’t really help a lot for those interactions in which *my* initiation would actually be welcomed *and necessary* for the interaction to move forward, because the women wouldn’t do themselves do what they want … and that’s, sadly, most women.
“if you didn’t actually ask and most of the flirtation was nonverbal, you should move in slowly (with some meaningful eye communication first), so that there’s sufficient opportunity for the other party to either enthusiastically consent to the kiss or back off.”
I like the 80/20 or 90/10 rule (moving in 80/90%, her moving in the other 10/20), eskimo kisses (rubbing the tips of the nose) or the “almost kiss” (looking each other in the eyes closely with lips close to each other while not kissing – this tension seems to be the most conducive tactic to allow women to actually kiss me). But they all require *her* to make the jump, to kiss me, to do what I still fear, being afraid of making a mistake.
“And that people who actually literally want to be pushed against a wall (whoever they are) should probably accept that they’d better negotiate that ahead of time, because actually being pushed against a wall without prior discussion would run the risk of alarming someone who didn’t want that.”
Actually, if I got a Dollar for every woman who ever told me that she wants to be pushed against a wall for kissing I could probably spend a nice evening out. Seriously. One female friend even used the world “walling” for it. But they’re not negotiating that ahead of time, they expect me/us to know when and how they want it.
“And I think that more naked penetrative acts should involve some explicitly verbal agreement on both parts, and well as some significant social interaction before they are proposed. Exactly what kind of words are exchanged depends on the context and the people involved.”
Sure.
“And you want my idea of positive images of men’s desire and sexuality? I’ll go with Gregory in Gregory’s Girl and Jason Bourne in The Bourne Identity.”
Ah, fictional characters. This may be more about masculinity images in general, but – off the top of my mind – Logan Huntzberger from Gilmore Girls, for playfulness, and Justin Quayle from The Constant Gardener for seriousness. Ewan Mc Gregor in Brassed Off. Juan Antonio Gonzalo/Javier Bardem in Vicky Christina Barcelona. And, of course, Sam Seaborn from The West Wing, particularly in that episode with the radical feminist temp giving him a hard time, in which he’s saved by the female Republican lawyer
Mythago,
sure I remember. Nothing has changed since… just got the statement last weekend.
“You really are a broken record on this “feminists hate the penis and ruin my sex life†routine.”
I think that’s a bit unfair. Feminists have also allowed me to gain a much deeper understanding of some of these matters than I ever thought I would have. So that’s a mixed bag. Again, feminists bear a part of the responsibility for my delayed pyscho-sexual development. In percent, I’d probably say about 50% but it’s hard to attribute numbers, these things go hand in hand.
Also, again, I’m doing fine now, disregarding the kissing initiation thing. I’m asked for advice by both women and men and my advice is much more often than not seen as rather helpful. It’s been a hard, long, uphill struggle for me. But I’ve learnt a lot and I am still learning.
I like the wall pushing thing as demonstration of the double bind this discourse is putting men in. The perfect example was a girl with whom I totally hit it off when we met in a club in late March this year. We were dancing, and she said, “wow you totally made my night…” And then she said, she’d have to be careful, you know, being a girl out on her own. To which I replied, no worries, I know how to behave myself. Ten minutes later, on her way out, she tells me how she likes it when boys take her and push her against a wall for kissing. At that point I wanted to bang my head against a wall. I’m not making this stuff up, this is happening, and if you can’t see the double bind, I’m sorry.
I can see how slut shaming is putting women in a harmful double bind, and I’m doing what I can to talk to guys when they’re being hypocritical. I’m really just asking for the same kind of consideration for male double binds created by feminist discourse.
“I like the wall pushing thing as demonstration of the double bind this discourse is putting men in. The perfect example was a girl with whom I totally hit it off when we met in a club in late March this year. We were dancing, and she said, “wow you totally made my night…†And then she said, she’d have to be careful, you know, being a girl out on her own. To which I replied, no worries, I know how to behave myself. Ten minutes later, on her way out, she tells me how she likes it when boys take her and push her against a wall for kissing. At that point I wanted to bang my head against a wall. I’m not making this stuff up, this is happening, and if you can’t see the double bind, I’m sorry.”
Because it’s not one. You told her you know how to wait til you’re asked, she believed you, then she told you she liked to be pushed against a wall and kissed. She didn’t expect you to know that she wanted that and to do it via telepathy; she was telling you, so you’d know what to do next if you wanted to please her. This is so screamingly obvious that it isn’t even funny, it’s sad. I wish you were making it up, because I have to feel sorry for the girl now; she thought when you indicated you weren’t crawling with issues but just ready to please the both of you, she thought you meant it.
Well, actually Lisa, I wouldn’t be so sure. It depends on the situation, which Sam didn’t really go into. Was this woman disappointed or angry? Did she fail to initiate contact after that? If so, and if Sam experiences this type of thing on a regular basis, then yes, he makes a valid point.
Er, yeah Sam. “Walling” is not one of those things–like taking out the garbage–that most women wish men would do, but don’t tell them. Any guy who thinks I want my head slammed up against a wall, but I’m just being coy, so he’s going to take the initiative for me is begging to get seriously hurt if you know what I’m saying.
She had an unusual request, she voiced it and you got weirded out. How is that an example of a feminist double bind screwing up your life?
Ordo, unless Sam is hanging out in BDSM communities and biker bars, he’s NOT experiencing these requests on a regular basis.
With reference to Sam’s little adventure: he would hardly have thought it worth while to publish his comment if the lady’s ‘I like it when boys take me and push me against a wall for kissing’ was intended to encourage him to do just that – after ten minutes of good behaviour on his part had proved him worthy of the honour.
Sam’s account makes it clear that she was leaving without him, and her words were a parting shot to let him know that he had missed his chance by being so timid as to take her at her word. That stuff about ‘a girl having to be careful’ etc. was just a test of his manly resolve.
Suppose Sam had taken her earlier protestations in that spirit – and pushed her against a wall and kissed her. Suppose further that her professed anxiety was sincere, and that after an unwelcome kiss from Sam the lady in question posted a comment to a blog like this complaining about the male entitlement which allows a man simply to override a woman’s express sentiments and steal a kiss from her by main force.
I’m guessing that she would have the unconditional support of Xena and Lisa.
That is the double bind Sam is referring to.
THAT is the worst slippery slope argument I’ve ever heard, TN. Are you a fan of Fox News by any chance?
Xena – there’s no slippery slope fallacy in Tom’s explanation (which is also how I read Sam.) There’s no slope at all, it’s just a dilemma, where incomplete information means either choice might be wrong and there’s no mechanism for figuring out which except to fail.
How about, most girls don’t want to be injured during sex, therefore any girl who asks for that is
a)a submissive: therefore a non-dom should walk away from her.
b)crazy and/or manipulative: therefore the man should assume that the problem is with that particular woman, not her gender as a group, or whoever may have taught her any given ideology, or the ideological bent that TN ASSUMES Lisa and I share with Wall Girl.
I DON’T give my unconditional support to anybody that says “hurt me don’t hurt me, hurt me…you dick you hurt me…” THAT is the slippery slope to which I was referring–one of several that TN used. He makes WAY too many assumptions about Wall Girl, ties them in with more speculations about what might have happened had he pushed her around and kissed her, and then drew the ridiculous conclusion that Lisa and I support that kind of manipulative BS.
That’s like watching a schizophrenic outburst from a stranger who also happens to be black, accusing him of “reverse racism” and calling the decision to take him to a shelter or walk away a “double bind”. And then going on to say that “no matter what you do those NAACP people will call you a whatever”. No matter what you do, you “fail”.
DUH! A psycho is a psycho. Exactly why is it such a “failure” to walk away from a woman who exhibits the sort of (possibly crazy)behaviour you describe? If you can’t help her, you move on.
Or do you have one set of rules for people you want to get with and another set of rules for people you DON’T want to get with? Complete with an entire subset of beliefs about who their allies are and what they might do?
Xena, I confess that I’m disappointed in your answer. You complain that I make assumptions, but I did nothing of the kind.
On the contrary, I was pointing out that it is totally unfair to ask Sam to make assumptions about a woman’s desire for sexual contact, when a nigh universal tenet of feminism is that men shouldn’t make assumptions about women’s desire for sexual contact.
I would greatly appreciate it if you were to answer my question – which needn’t even be hypothetical. Lord knows analagous accounts crop up regularly on feminist blogs and elsewhere. When a woman writes that, having intimated to a man she met at a party her anxieties about embarking on a sexual encounter, she found herself pinned against a wall by that same man and forced to endure his kiss; when she complains that this is a typical example of male entitlement – do you agree with her or not? I’m pretty sure you would consider the guy to be an utter jerk, and that if any other commenter attempted to defend him by saying, ‘well women don’t always mean “no” when they say “no” ‘ you would come down on them like a ton of bricks.
Yet here you are, berating Sam for not behaving like an utter jerk, for not making assumptions about what a woman wants, for not demonstrating male entitlement.
That woman didn’t ask to be injured during sex; I’ve both pushed women against walls while kissing them, and (less often) been pushed against a wall while being kissed by one. In none of these cases was anyone remotely injured, or did they have pain inflicted on them in any way. It’s an aggressive/forward action, but pretty common. While Sam’s “walling” friend may be referring to some specific BDSM practice I’m unaware of, there’s no reason to assume to club woman was (who didn’t use any jargon). It’s far more likely (from just a Bayesian analysis) that she was not.
Beyond that, yes, if Sam was aggressively forward and physical with someone who wasn’t interested, casually disregarding whether she was interested or not, I would expect most, if not all, of the people in this discussion to call him entitled, along the lines suggested by Tom. I’m probably less feminist than the average here, and I’d happily put a “sexual assault” label on that. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?
She was interested in Sam, Sam was interested in her, but he failed to act on it (as did she). Yes, I’d call that a failure. Her actions weren’t crazy, but pretty typical. There’s no reason to think she engaged in manipulative BS; she performed her gender role pretty well, as she think she’s supposed to; it’s hard to fault her for that. Sam didn’t act his gender role, because he felt it was inappropriately sexually assault-y. It’s hard to fault him for that.
TN, you didn’t read what I wrote. Quit putting words in my mouth.
I AM BERATING SAM FOR NOT _WALKING AWAY_ FROM THE WOMAN, WITHOUT HESITATION the same way he should walk away from a man, or anybody else that he DOES NOT WANT TO FUCK when that person says hurt me.. don’t hurt me…hurt me… don’t hurt me.
But yeah, if she were LYING to me about a sexual assault, I’d defend her, if the TRUTH were unavailable.
Brian,that is the problem with EVERY date rape. Men assume that the girl thinks she’s “fulfilling her gender role” when she says no and then he tries to pressure her into a yes.
I’m glad I don’t have these problems. If a guy’s too forward, I cuss him at 40 decibels. If he gets violent I hit back.
Let that be a warning to all of you “no means yes” types. There are a whole lotta women out there who do what I do when they’re cornered. Mind your manners and you’ll keep your privates in one piece.
Xena
I haven’t. I asked you a question, and told you what I imagine your answer would be – but you can make me a liar by declaring me wrong. Please do, by all means, tell me that I was mistaken when I wrote:
I’ll be happy to take your word for it.
That’s odd. How could Sam have done any such thing when the woman told him about the ‘walling’ only as she was leaving him and the party? He couldn’t. You are, then, berating Sam for failing to do something it was out of his power to do.
If Sam is to be believed, the woman he met at the party was counting on him being a ‘no means yes’ type, and he wasn’t.
Xena, you keep laboring under the delusion that this alleged woman was asking Sam to “hurt her”. This isn’t the case- it’s simply an act of aggression, which many women do indeed enjoy. I haven’t experienced this double bind as extensively as Sam has (in my opinion women are, usually, more direct than he gives him credit for). But to deny that the double bind exists at all is to be completely naive.
Damn! How did you know we all sat around and put “Fuck up Sam’s psychosexual development” on the agenda? We even passed it on to feminists yet unborn!
You went to a party once and talked to one mind-fuck of a person who gave you strong signals that she was afraid of physical aggression, then berated you for not being physically aggressive. And rather than saying to yourself “Whew, dodged THAT bullet” or “Was she dropped on her head as a baby or something,” you seized on this as a wonderful example of how Mean Feminists Ruin The Sex Lives Of All Men.
Because, you know, ALL women send out mixed signals and put men in double-binds, and NO men ever do that kind of shit.
You do realize you sound like an MRA, right?
“Not ALL men harass women on the street, stop talking about it!”
“Only a small fraction of men are chauvinists, it’s not an issue!”
mythago,
“Damn! How did you know we all sat around and put “Fuck up Sam’s psychosexual development†on the agenda? We even passed it on to feminists yet unborn!”
frankly, I’m a little disappointed by your comment. You’ve noted before that you’re annoyed by my bringing up what I think is the most important element of feminist-male misunderstandings. You’ve stated that you disagree. Fair. But you were, as far as I remember, always a reasonable discussant. But here I’m getting the impression you’re being unreasonably defensive. You said before that you think it sucks that some women were actually hating the penis. But even so, you still seem to believe that it’s only up to men to see through feminist rethotic, and not evena bit the responsibility of feminists to make that part of the message less misunderstandable.
“Because, you know, ALL women send out mixed signals and put men in double-binds, and NO men ever do that kind of shit.”
I’m not sure what your point is here. Yes, men do that. If so, it’s certainly not better. I already mentioned that with respect to slut shaming above.
Although, Sam, I do have to admit that you’re kind of sounding like a broken record at this point. I believe- and I think most would agree with me- that there are various unfair double standards when it comes to men and dating (yes, the same holds true for women, but we’re not talking about that now). It sucks. And one of these double binds has indeed been partially caused by certain militant feminists and the voice they have managed to carve out for themselves. You make a very valid point, and thus, I think that mythago is being unnecessarily hostile. But at the same time- you’re mostly preaching to the choir. We’ve established that you’re right- but what’s your goal here? If you want to eliminate double binds such as this, speak out against them in the real world. Repeating yourself on this blog isn’t going to do much good.
In platonic relationships, you can move along the continuum like a smooth function, rather than a step function. By the time I’m inviting a friend over for dinner (male, female, doesn’t matter), I already have an established relationship with them that makes it appropriate, etc. (In fact, although someone might be busy, or unable to arrange transportation, I don’t think I’ve ever invited a friend over for dinner who didn’t want to go. I’m sure I’ve asked someone on a date who didn’t want to go. Maybe even two someones.)
I don’t know if this is necessarily true. I think the psychological consequences of inviting a person for the first time is less stressful but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. And depending on the definition of “didn’t want to go” (ambivalence, etc), I’ve definitely had friends who didn’t want to go to other friends’ events. I probably have had friends who didn’t want to go to mine.
So I’m not even sure your example is necessarily different, Brian.
The take away I feel from this conversation seems to be
1) communicate interest openly (even if it’s not as explicit as “I’m interested in going out” – which I have done before)
2) be okay with a “no” answer.
The main problem is how to communicate 2. Well, other than saying “that’s quite alright” when faced with rejection. I think the first step is actually internal – a lot of people say they’re okay with rejection but are absolutely horrible at it.
And it’s a problem since the people who are least likely to be okay with rejection tends to be the people are the least confident or have the least success for whatever reason.
I actually think that being explicitly communicative in these types of situations is okay. There’s a point where boundaries are stepped on, but “I have an interest in you because of xyz” isn’t one of those, at least not normally.
Tom Nolan:
Suppose–and I know this is going way out on a limb here–Sam had said something like, “Is that a hint?” or “Would you like me to do that to you now?” and then made a decision about what or what not to do, what or what not to feel, etc. and so on, based on the woman’s response to that very explicit question?
Ordo,
“But at the same time- you’re mostly preaching to the choir. We’ve established that you’re right- but what’s your goal here?”
Really, who has established that? I certainly don’t get that impression from, say, Xena, or Mythago, above.
“If you want to eliminate double binds such as this, speak out against them in the real world. Repeating yourself on this blog isn’t going to do much good.”
Yeah, well, I do what I can in the “real world”. But I’d like to mention that *this* is the real world of contemporary debates of this kind. And it is *the real world* that there is no real space for such debates except for (reasonable) feminist blogs.
Richard Jeffrey Newman
I’m sorry? A girl tells you at a party that she’s anxious about sexual encounters – and you ask ‘is that a hint that you want some kind of sexual encounter with me?’
What in the name of blue blazes…
Richard, that men should take a woman at her word and not interpret her expressions of anxiety regarding matters sexual as an invitation to importune her with the sort of proposition she has just said would be unhappy about accepting – isn’t that something that all feminists ought to be able to agree on?
Tom,
Unless I have misread this discussion, this is the paragraph that people are talking about:
Seems to me, precisely because she seems to be sending mixed signals, like a perfect situation in which to ask a clarifying question about the wall kissing comment.
On the other hand, if I have totally misread the conversation, then I of course withdraw my previous comment.
Rhichard,
“Seems to me, precisely because she seems to be sending mixed signals, like a perfect situation in which to ask a clarifying question about the wall kissing comment.”
Not really, if she was giving out a hint, that’s all the information she was going to give out. She’s not going to say: yes, I want you to push me against a wall and kiss me. I’ve talked about this with a few female friends, and their (reasonable) take is – Telling me how to deal with her desire at that point kind of cancels out the desire to be kissed by someone *who understand the situation and her signals*. Having to explain that kind of thing is removing what is seemingly arousing about the setup.
That’s the problem. As I said above in my last reply to Lynn -
“As for asking explicitly – My ability to read non-verbal cues is quite good, but being in my mental position [being afraid of accidentally making her uncomfortable], I’ve made somehow aksing or stating my intent a point of order, as it would be great *for me* to have a positive statement of consent before moving in for the kiss [even if she wouldn't care]. But it seems to me that adding this explicit element into the usually, at this point, very – also physically – playful interaction, adds a layer of gravity that doesn’t seem to help, in fact, it does seem to hurt.”
(for more cf above)
It woudln’t be a double bind if weren’t a “do but don’t” setup.
Richard, I wasn’t there when the exchange between Sam and Wall-girl took place, but if we take his word for it, it’s fairly clear that her parting shot was a reproach. She could have come up to him at any time between alleging anxiety about sexual encounters and leaving and said something along the lines of, ‘well, I’m over my trepidation by now. You know what I’d like? Some guy to push me against a wall and kiss me!’ At which point (to be on the safe side) it might be a good idea to ask, ‘well, would I be that guy?’
That isn’t what happened. When, after ten minutes, Sam hadn’t of his own initiative, ignoring her alleged sexual anxiety, pushed her her against the wall for a kiss, she left, making it pretty clear to Sam why she was leaving: because he didn’t shape up as the sexually agressive man she was looking for. She was disappointed that she hadn’t been swept of her feet, apparently against her will, by a real man, and she was making it clear what Sam had missed out on by insisting on taking her earlier misgivings at face value.
Oh, Sam. Next you’ll be telling me I’m shrill or hysterical!
Feminists have not yet invented a time machine, so I can’t actually back a few decades and tell all the overreactors “Hey, look, it’s one thing to speak up against patriarchy, but y’all are still buying into the sexist notion that male sexuality inherently violent, and that’s not only wrong but counterproductive.”
If what you’re suggesting is that feminists now are actually promulgating the view that male sexuality is by its very nature destructive, I’m afraid that “I ran into this weird chick at a party” is well below even anecdata for that.
My point is that you ran into a ‘girl at a club’ who was, in less feminist terminology, a crazy bitch, and you extrapolate from her behavior to women generally and feminists specifically. There’s nothing whatsoever to suggest that she was even a feminist, much less somebody who bought into some ideological notion about the inherent nature of male sexuality.
Really, am I the only one who picked up on the fact that she made the ‘throw me up against a wall’ line on her way out? You know, a parting shot where you wouldn’t have a chance to do much about it but feel like you’d fucked up?
Never mind. She’s probably a regular poster at I Blame the Patriarchy. All those bitches who won’t put out are.
Tom,
“She was disappointed that she hadn’t been swept of her feet, apparently against her will, by a real man, and she was making it clear what Sam had missed out on by insisting on taking her earlier misgivings at face value.”
that’s exactly what it felt like, that’s what I tried to say. Thanks.
Mythago,
no, I don’t think your shrill, or hysterical – just annoyed, apparently, and a bit unfair because of that.
“Feminists have not yet invented a time machine, so I can’t actually back a few decades and tell all the overreactors “Hey, look, it’s one thing to speak up against patriarchy, but y’all are still buying into the sexist notion that male sexuality inherently violent, and that’s not only wrong but counterproductive.—
No need for a time machine. You seem to hear that message all the time – I don’t. I read it here, occasionally, usually after a bit of a debate about framing. Naomi Wolf, maybe. But where else? Feminism is the place where gender is negotiated today, the debate is being held on feminist turf, and I can’t really see the that there is much of an understanding, much less a concern about what you say above. I just don’t. That’s why I’m reiterating that I think it’s important.
“If what you’re suggesting is that feminists now are actually promulgating the view that male sexuality is by its very nature destructive, I’m afraid that “I ran into this weird chick at a party†is well below even anecdata for that. ”
I agree. But it’s not what I tried to illustrate with the story. This story was about pointing out how a discourse can create / exacerbate a preexisting double bind. That concentrating on one side of an equation and changing it requires looking at what needs to be done on the other side to keep the equation right. I think that given the kind of double bind illustrated, I think preserving the progress on the one side of the equation (no-means-no, yes-means-yes instead of no-means-yes) requires changing something on the other side: Either more/most women who actually act according to their own standards instead of just imposing them on men or giving men the ability to deal with the complexities of this kind of communication in a better way by giving them specific advice about how to handle such a sitaution in an ethically acceptable way without suggesting walking away as the a first-best solution, which is usually what happens.
“My point is that you ran into a ‘girl at a club’ who was, in less feminist terminology, a crazy bitch, and you extrapolate from her behavior to women generally and feminists specifically.”
She’s far from crazy. Except for a certain hippiesque streak, she’s totally down to earth (We did meet again, but we’re not really compatible), more so than I am. But yes, the point of an example is to make a more general point, with all applicable caveats.
So I’d really like to emphasize again how common the pushing against the wall scenario is (in my female environment). It’s certainly the *most common* female fantasy I’ve heard. I’m not joking when I’m saying that I could have a nice night out for every woman who ever suggested as much – whether in a similar scenario or during a meta-conversation.
There is a double bind between the requirements of feminist discourse and the things that “real life women” seem to ask of men. Yes, in my experience, that includes feminist women. Yet I do also believe that within the group of modern heterosexual feminists, there would be a higher percentage of women who would be willing and able to do individually what would be required to rebalance the equation. I even believe that it’s totally possible to have a conversation about *this* be a turn on – but only for a specific subset of women, a subset that, in my opinion, is rather small, certainly smaller than the group of feminist identified women who will talk about patriarchy and male violence and then still want you/me to know when to push them against a wall – this is my experience. It’s not representative statistics. But representative statistics trying to demonstrate the opposite would have to be quite conclusive to make me reconsider my experiences.
Tom:
You miss my point. It doesn’t matter to me whether or not the woman meant what she said as a reproach. Had Sam decided to ask her what she meant by her push-me-against-the-wall comment he would have been holding her accountable for the mixed message she was sending. If she answered that he was too late, that he should’ve understood what she wanted from the beginning, she would have confirmed herself as someone who plays games, and Sam–I assume–would have been able to write her off as such, instead of allowing her parting comment to make him feel like banging his head against the wall (which I think is what he said it made him feel like doing). On the other hand, if his asking had led to more conversation, who knows where that conversation might have led.
My point is that the double bind he says the woman’s parting comment left him in is a double bind only because he allowed it to be. Had she revealed herself, clearly, as a woman who plays games, where is the double bind–unless of course he wanted to be with her badly enough that he was willing to be caught in that bind in order to get what he wanted.
mythago, you are really missing the central point that Wall Girl was not a “crazy bitch”, unless you want to call a significant portion of women crazy bitches.
I am reluctant to imply that I’m assuming bad faith here because I really do not think Sam is actually posting in bad faith but I literally do. not. believe. him.
I believe he believes him. But nothing in my experience jibs with there being a large percentage of women who actually want to be pushed against a wall and kissed without clear consent. Every woman I know well enough to have a good idea of what her reaction would be would be freaked out by that.
I do however believe that a large percentage of women share various fantasies the expressions of which can lead someone who has his own preconception to believe that they’re asking for the above.
The only pushing against walls I’ve ever seen or experienced have been when in the midst of making out there is a wall handy and someone pushes someone else gently against it because it makes for a convenient brace. The kissing always comes first or there is already an established relationship.
A fantasy about men who can read your mind and do exactly what you want sexually is neither weird nor rare. I imagine its the same from the other side. And while its less socially accepted I bet there are just as many women who wish guys would magically know when to go all shy and passive and sweet. But, uh, I want a dragon. That doesn’t mean an actual live freaking dragon wouldn’t freak me out you know? And me telling people I want a dragon isn’t a sign that I’m actually crazy enough to want a large dangerous lizard around. It’s not a double bind – these women seem to be able to accept men who aren’t telepaths and I seem to soldier on without a dragon. You seem to be able to find women to date you. So where is the double bind? Women are not a monolith – that no behavior of yours will please 100% of women is not a double bind – it’s the result of us being human beings.
Again I don’t want to call anyone a liar but I feel confident standing by my statement that no rational woman wants men to actually push women against a wall and kiss them without clear prior consent either verbal or nonverbal. What they want hypothetical telepathic men to do… that’s another story.
And Brian, that’s weird because I’ve frequently been nervous that I’ve invited acquaintances that were moving to being friends to do things they might not have wanted to do. But like you say, no one seem to mind – same for the dating IMO.
And if its not clear I agree with mythago, unless Sam is not remembering something crucial and is not telling us the full picture – which is entirely possible – the wall girl was a crazy bitch.
@Sam: I agree with you that “change on one side need change on the other”, and that it takes two to tango in rejecting the “no means yes” model. But I think that change you’re asking for is happening, albeit gradually: like most of the other commenters’, my experience/anecdata back this up. Sure, the message hasn’t gotten through to everybody yet: lots of women still send manipulatively mixed messages, lots of men haven’t worked out when they really ought to stop pushing (and sometimes vice versa too, of course). But there are some pretty entrenched gender rôles we’re trying to displace; Rome wasn’t built in a day. Things improve.
And in the meantime, if I end up missing out a few relationships/encounters that might have happened if I’d been more aggressive? Firstly (mythago’s point) they’re probably people I’m better off away from anyway, though of course there can always be exceptions. But also, any choice I make about my behaviour will change how I come across, make me less attractive to some people, more attractive to others. So the best I can do, I think, is just to act how I feel is right, and accept that that’s not going to maximise my attractiveness to everyone I’m ever interested in, and that that’s OK. (OK, it’s occasionally frustrating! But it’s not anything wrong, either with me or with the world.)
Victoria,
I was just kissed by a lovely woman at a Halloween party so I’m in a particularly good mood right now
Incidentally, she leaned against a bar… anyway.
“The only pushing against walls I’ve ever seen or experienced have been when in the midst of making out there is a wall handy and someone pushes someone else gently against it because it makes for a convenient brace. The kissing always comes first or there is already an established relationship.”
once again, you make a very valid point. I don’t think it applies in the wall girl case I mentioned above, but I think it sounds reasonable that “the kissing (without wall) comes first” was the implicit expected sequencing of a fair number of the girls/women who told me that. Fair point.
Still, when I once asked my best female friend about this particular issue, she showed me what she assumed most women asking for this meant. She explained it like this – “Move her gently, but firmly, backwards against a wall, not too fast, don’t actually *push* her, then put your left arm next to her head to support you (never two arms, so she can move out if she wants to) while leaning in. Two, three seconds of intense eye contact, not too long, then move in for the kiss.”
Where would that scenario be on your scale?
I experience that double bind everytime in such a situation. I’ve devised strategies to deal with it. I’m even able to live with it, but it’s still a double bind. Don’t, but do.
“unless Sam is not remembering something crucial and is not telling us the full picture – which is entirely possible”
Sure, but I don’t think I’ve forgotten anything. But, of course, I can only tell my side of the story. I, for one, do not think that she was a crazy bitch. She just assumed I was playing according to a different script.
I think preserving the progress on the one side of the equation (no-means-no, yes-means-yes instead of no-means-yes) requires changing something on the other side: Either more/most women who actually act according to their own standards instead of just imposing them on men or giving men the ability to deal with the complexities of this kind of communication in a better way by giving them specific advice about how to handle such a sitaution in an ethically acceptable way without suggesting walking away as the a first-best solution, which is usually what happens.
Sam, we can each only be in control of our own actions. As Peter pointed out, every choice we make regarding our actions will make us less attractive to some people. And the fact that a mind-game-playing woman ditched you at a party is a good thing; you escaped her drama.
So yes, sometimes the best thing is just to walk away. You talk as if the world and women owe you lots of dates and lots of sex, and lots of dates and sex with lots of women who behave exactly as you’d like them to behave. But that’s not realistic, and it is an entitled attitude to take. Much better to say, “Her loss, my gain,” when you find that behaving in the way you feel is consistent with your principles turns a woman off. You escaped from a potentially drama-filled relationship, and she missed out on your awesomeness.
You’re hearing here that there are some women who truly do believe and act on the feminist principle of full and clear communication, with verbal negotiation and consent, before sexual acts. Not all women are like this; many women aren’t feminist and many feminists play mind games. And you’ve meet a bunch of them. I get it. I’ve met tons of entitled, boorish jerks. Instead of asking other men “How can I possibly behave in such a way as to please [boorish jerk]” I’ve avoided encounters with people whose values are so different from my own. Why do you keep asking feminists here for dating advice so you can attract mind-game-playing women? And why do you seem to believe that somehow feminism is responsible for mind games? Feminism is not a monolithic entity, nor does it give marching orders to all women. You’ve probably met more unfeminist or anti-feminist women than feminist women.
And finally, all you should really be concerned about is how *you* want to behave towards women. Do you want to treat them with respect? Then you’ll lose out on the women who have been trained by society to find male aggression a turn-on. Their loss, your gain. Do you want to clear, verbal consent for sexual activity? Then you’re going to lose out on women who aren’t comfortable with their own sexuality and aren’t willing to be that clear and explicit. Again, their loss, your gain. It sounds like you feel that you are willing to behave in thousands of different ways to please different women, whatever will get you laid. If you’re that desperate, then I guess every single woman you meet who doesn’t turn into a date is a real loss. But would you really want to become romantically involved with women who don’t want your respect, who are uncomfortable talking about their sexual desires, and who play mind games? Really?
Why can’t you just accept that not all women are going to be a perfect match for you? Clearly based on your anecdote of your Halloween party adventure, you’re not unable to ever have a romantic encounter with a woman. But you’re going to whine and moan for post after post because this one mind-game-playing weirdo at a party got away?
Sheesh. Yes, walk away. Feminism can’t magically intervene and stop all women from playing mind games. Sorry, pal. Be thankful that you didn’t get in any deeper with someone who plays a “don’t but do” game. How would you ever have had a functional relationship with her if that’s her method of communication? Why would you ever want to be with someone like that?
You might wish that no woman behaved in such a way, but again, that’s not something feminism or the feminists here can change.
Am I the only person here who has never heard of the wall fetish?
Sam, I feel for your situation, but it seems to me that the fundamental thing you need to do is this:
Figure out how not to care what women think.
@LaLubu: No, I’ve never heard of it, either.
I’m not surprised such a thing exists, or that there might be some bars somewhere where people who are into it are even prevalent (people like a whole lot of things, and there are plenty of bars that attract people who like things I never hear about in my ordinary life). I’m surprised, though, that anyone would seriously expect a man to read her mind about her specialized taste, particularly if she’s said things that implied the opposite. So I join the rest of the people in this thread who think that, if the encounter went as described, the woman was best avoided as a sexual or romantic prospect.
On a lighter note, I belatedly agree about Ewan McGregor in “Brassed Off.”
Comrade Svilova,
thanks for your reply. I don’t know if you’ve read all my comments above, because I think I’ve already addressed most of youn concerns… I’m not so worried about myself anymore. But I am worried about gender justice abstractly and guys who are now where I was about 15 years ago. The guys that will hear what you say -
“Do you want to treat them with respect? Then you’ll lose out on the women who have been trained by society to find male aggression a turn-on.”
and they will hide their sexuality entirely, attend Hugo’s classes and then ask him privately why this approach doesn’t seem to work for them and why they are forced to either stop being sexual, disregard what they have come to believe in, or hope for the less than likely occasion of finding a woman who realizes their double bind and helps them out *without* finding their lack of assertiveness/aggression sexually unattractive. Do you play the lottery a lot?
Most women seem to enjoy some sort of demonstrations of classical manliness, of playful dominance, assertiveness. Even if only in the way Hugo is referring to when he says “women don’t appreciate it if men (pro-feminists, in the case he talks about) are constantly taking women’s emotional temperatures” instead of just making a call. But a lot of well meaning, often shy men, hear “be respectful”, “don’t objectify” and “always ask” and they interpret it as “only a soft penis is a good penis”, “your sexuality is inherently bad” and “being assertive is bordering on sexual assault”, as all men are potential rapists.
“Why do you keep asking feminists here for dating advice so you can attract mind-game-playing women? And why do you seem to believe that somehow feminism is responsible for mind games?”
Again, you can say “duh! they need to get a grip!” or you can accept the unpleasant truth that this is partly an effect of the feminist discourse (even today!) about male sexuality. So, yes, I’m asking feminists to come up with a better discourse about male sexuality as such (that’s what this post does, to a degree) and I’m asking them to be a bit more specific in their advice about appropriate expressions of male sexual assertion than is usually the case, because advice on the “duh!”-level is not advice. It’s telling people that they are stupid, in a way.
“Again, their loss, your gain. It sounds like you feel that you are willing to behave in thousands of different ways to please different women, whatever will get you laid.”
Again, *personally*, I’m good now. But this is another part a lot of women can’t seem to understand – “their loss, your gain” is a very useful attitude when you have – or even when you believe you have – choice. A lot, most, men certainly don’t really believe (don’t have?) that kind of choice, so yes, their perspective is “whatever will get them laid.”
I mean, why do you think we have to navigate a space in which one group is basically trying to not be affected by unwanted attention, and the other group is trying to create and attention?
Robert,
“Figure out how not to care what women think.”
Yeah, but there are different ways to do this. One I think is not appropriate is to completely disregard valid points about sexual aggression. So, yes, not caring in the way that men cannot outsource moral thinking. But caring to the extent that only women are able to speak about their perspectives, and to take those statements seriously. That’s why figuring out a way to balance female desires for male assertiveness and male confusion about all this is a bit tricky, particularly when it comes to the abstract discourse. But there is also a need for an abstract discourse about this.
Lynn,
“there might be some bars somewhere where people who are into it are even prevalent”
like, almost every bar/club I ever visited?
“So I join the rest of the people in this thread who think that, if the encounter went as described, the woman was best avoided as a sexual or romantic prospect.”
Well, as I said, we later established some bigger incompatibilities. But she certainly wasn’t crazy. She played according to a common script of behavioral expectation. She expected me to deliever something I cannot deliver, maybe something I should not deliver. But that’s still *far* from being crazy. I’m slightly surprised that her behaviour is so quickly dismissed as crazy by people who are particularly aware of gender scripts and gender performances.
like, almost every bar/club I ever visited?
Heck, for all I know, it could be a bar scene thing in general, since I don’t meet people in bars and clubs, nor do people in my social circles. If so, it’s a reason for me to be glad I didn’t find my romantic prospects in bars and clubs, since the way you describe it as playing out is seriously screwed up. I still suspect, though, that it’s not even bar-universal, since I think La Lubu has at least been inside bars and clubs in her area, and she says she hasn’t run into it either.
I mean, my husband has picked me up and carried me off to the bedroom, for instance, on one occasion, but that’s after we were married, and had plenty of communication about what we liked (so there was never any question he’d have stopped right away if I’d given the least indication of not finding that playful). Wanting to be pushed against a wall by someone you’ve just met, in my circles, would be a very specialized taste. Even more so if you want that to be done by someone who basically has to read your mind.
She played according to a common script of behavioral expectation.
Wherever this script may be common, it’s broken, and it’s the responsibility of the women who keep playing by it to stop playing by it, not the responsibility of the women who do speak plainly about what they want to accomodate their expectations for what response they’ll get to men’s expectations that they’ll be playing games.
I don’t really care whether she’s “crazy” or not; I just care that the script you describe is broken and needs to stop. It’s too much of an imposition on the rest of the world.
There’s no real response to how to deal with the double bind, apart from suggesting if you wanted something different, you wouldn’t be in the bind. I think a “ditto” applies to casting someone who’d be particularly concerned about any given potential interaction/relationship as desperate, because it should scare off most people from admitting they’re in that situation.
Well, it’s true that I am, more or less. Historically, if I’m searching with reasonable vigor, I get one, uhm, shot, maybe every six months. So, yeah, while if it won’t/doesn’t work, that’s not the end of the world, I don’t want to throw away opportunities willy-nilly.
I get the objection to Sam’s phrasing, but the need for a positive model is real, and men really can’t do it on our own. And while the “Well, listen to what’s already been said” approach sounds like it ought to make sense, it really seems to inevitably lead to “Never admit any kind of interest” mode of behaviour; I hope it’s understandable why I might be interested in other people’s solutions if they say they can get a different answer. It’s recognised, to some extent, in pairing “Yes means yes” with “No means no”, that just telling someone what not to do doesn’t give them enough to build a set of behaviours on. And to the extent that Hugo’s provided this space to talk about what might make heterosexual male desire ethical, it seems perfectly reasonable to use it, and let whoever wants to use their time/effort to discuss it to do so. I don’t want to say, or mean “Feminists should tell me how to acceptably express interest”, but “If Feminists want to tell me how to acceptably express interest, I’d listen.” Maybe that still has problematic gender connotations, but if everyone’s willing to live with them, so be it. (And it certainly could be male feminists who do it, if it makes everyone feel better; obviously I’m interested in Hugo’s opinion on the subject, or I wouldn’t be here, for instance.)
(I should know better than to get in on this conversation, but…eh.)
Most women seem to enjoy some sort of demonstrations of classical manliness, of playful dominance, assertiveness.
Sam, what do you define those as? Because a good part of the misunderstandings are stemming from the fact that not everyone defines the multiplicities of “mating behavior” in the same way. And after reading your responses every time the subject comes up, I can’t help but think that you are defining “classical manliness”, et. al not only in a way much different than what I (the single, heterosexual woman who is on the lookout for single, heterosexual men for both companionship and sex) am….but that you seem to think any physicality expressed by men is inherently aggressive or dominant….and that isn’t the case.
I mean, I’m thinking about the techniques that men in my world (mostly working-class tradesmen) use…and they actively downplay aggression while still maintaining physicality. They go out of their way to make sure the women they are trying to attract won’t think of them as thugs. How do they do that? Well, they smile a lot. They soften their voices. Big guys tend to hunker down while sitting, so they are more on the eye level of the woman they’re talking to. Lots of eye contact. Absolutely none of the “negging” or aggressive ball-busting type of verbal parrying PUA manuals recommend. Using the manners “mom” taught—please, thank you, walking on the street side, etc. None of the canned questions PUA manuals recommend….mostly questions they really want to know the answers to (the typical “getting to know you” questions). They in turn reveal quite a bit about themselves, too (their full name, where they work, how long they’ve been doing that for a living, how many kids they have, etc.). Mirroring body language. Leaning in to talk. Oh, and they call you too (that’s something I’ve heard universally from the men I know—if they’re interested in you, they call right away. If they aren’t really interested, they do the “wait a couple of days” thing. Not kidding—that code is universally understood by both men and women in my world—real interest means a next-day call; not-that-into-you is a two or three days later call). And there is always, always some action towards an activity that gives both persons a chance to show physicality…..dancing, shooting pool, playing darts….something that gets you moving. Showing interest and showing emotion are recognized as basic necessities.
And you know what? Despite about half of those techniques being marked as “loser” moves by the PUA books, those guys are getting laid. Because around here, that’s what works.
But I am worried about gender justice abstractly and guys who are now where I was about 15 years ago. The guys that will hear what you say -
“Do you want to treat them with respect? Then you’ll lose out on the women who have been trained by society to find male aggression a turn-on.â€
and they will hide their sexuality entirely, attend Hugo’s classes and then ask him privately why this approach doesn’t seem to work for them and why they are forced to either stop being sexual, disregard what they have come to believe in, or hope for the less than likely occasion of finding a woman who realizes their double bind and helps them out *without* finding their lack of assertiveness/aggression sexually unattractive. Do you play the lottery a lot?
I’d rather be alone than be with someone who demands that I play charades in order to be with hir. I believe in respect, open communication, and consideration for one’s partner; if I met someone to whom that is not attractive, then fine, it’s not a relationship I’d like anyway.
Dating tips and tricks are just that — tricks and facades and masks that hide people’s true characters and result in messier breakups in the end. If a guy is pretending to respect women and never gets dates, well, maybe his potential “targets” are seeing through the facade. Or maybe they’re not worth being with in the first place.
Being single and true to oneself has its upsides, and being coupled through pretence, “lines,” and trickery has a lot of downsides.
I don’t see that as the lottery, because unlike the lottery, it seems very logical to me. Why try to be with someone who wants you to jump through hoops in order to qualify for the position? And it’s not feminism’s responsibility to get your hypothetical young man laid. If he’s hearing “respect women” and thinking “I must never show interest in a woman ever,” that seems like a problem on the receiving end rather than the transmitting end.
La Lubu gave some great examples of how to treat women with respect. I’ll just add:
1.) compliment things besides her appearance
2.) acknowledge her expertise in her field/job/area of interest (don’t mansplain her specialty to her)
3.) if you are just meeting, ask not-too-personal questions and hold eye contact — the body language should be open and engaging but the questions shouldn’t be invasive or prying
4.) if you’re just meeting her, be alert for signs that she wants to return to what she was doing before the interaction started
and finally, the most important one, that Hugo mentioned, accept rejection gracefully and move the eff on already.
There’s no real response to how to deal with the double bind, apart from suggesting if you wanted something different, you wouldn’t be in the bind.
I feel as if I’m being put in a double bind here. Either I must, under the terms you seem to be proposing, accept that there’s no ethical way for a man to make an advance, ever, or I need to accept that acceptable ways include shoving a woman against a wall who has explicitly said she doesn’t want the guy to be sexually aggressive. Either I need to argue that nobody is ever influenced by gender roles, or I need to accept your argument that every possible screwed up exercise of her gender role, by a woman, should be defended by feminists.
I’ve given what I consider positive examples of sexual approaches by men, both fictional and real life ones. There are plenty of things I consider OK. Everything La Lubu said. Sam’s example of starting a kiss with an “almost kiss.” (Am I really not allowed to be fine with men moving in for a kiss in ways that allow me to move away if I don’t want the kiss, without also being fine with the kiss coming accompanied by a guy who’s basically a stranger to me grabbing me and pushing me against a wall? The fact that people who are already in a relationship may quite happily kiss and move against a wall for support, or whatever, is irrelevant to my desire not to be shoved against walls by people I’ve barely met.) If we’re friends already, an invitation to go hot tubbing can be a perfectly acceptable way to indicate you’d like to get more physical. Or a back rub. Holding my hand. Kissing my hand. Asking me to dance. Telling me you find me attractive. Any of these are fine for moving platonic friendships toward less platonic ones.
As for the whole argument that, if a woman is acting out her gender role, feminists of all people should understand, that’s nonsense. I disapprove of men playing their gender role if they do so in screwed up ways that wind up hurting people, and I likewise disapprove of women playing their gender role if they do so in screwed up ways that hurt people.
My no means no and my yes means yes, and sometimes my maybe means maybe; it really isn’t that hard for a woman to deal with men honestly, and I expect honesty, rather than game playing, of men and women alike.
Yeah, but there are different ways to do this. One I think is not appropriate is to completely disregard valid points about sexual aggression.
There are no valid points. If you’re being too sexually aggressive, she’ll say no. If she’s not in the mood for any kind of sexual aggression, her body language will indicate it. You don’t need to worry about what women think is or isn’t sexual aggression or is too much or too little sexual aggression or any of these other abstractions that aren’t about you and her.
All you need to worry about is your own little self, and the reaction of the woman involved to it. If positive, yay. If negative, stop, back off, and (if it seems appropriate) apologize.
That’s why figuring out a way to balance female desires for male assertiveness and male confusion about all this is a bit tricky, particularly when it comes to the abstract discourse.
Yeah. Screw it. Let somebody else figure it out.
If you desire someone, show it or tell it. If you don’t, leave ‘em alone. Leave the philosophy to the philosophers.
But there is also a need for an abstract discourse about this.
Maybe. But not in order for you to get laid.
If you desire someone, show it or tell it.
…and back off if it isn’t reciprocated.
Well, that’s fair. There’ve been some attempts at an inductive explanation of what; probably I’m not great at understanding social interactions deductively.
But when I look at what everybody’s actually saying, there’s half a conversation saying “It looks like I should always back off”, and the other half saying “Don’t forget to always be quick to back off”, even as they (maybe) assert that it’s not necessarily always necessary. (Though I’m sure none of us like being grouped with anyone else, the overall conversation flows this way.)
And while Maybe. But not in order for you to get laid. may be a really naked example of it, going back to Dan Hick’s cases, there’s a strong thought that it’s not okay for (heterosexual) men to like sex for it’s own sake, say, or to try and find a sexual relationship, or whatnot. It shouldn’t be surprising that when a small minority of the message is a (seemingly disconnected) “It’s okay”, but even that’s in the framework of “It’s basically all wrong and unethical”, that the little throwaway doesn’t stick.
This was a super interesting post, and I almost commented earlier when there were like 3 comments on here, to engage SamSeaborn on his request for more actionable advice. But I guess I figured, eh, I’m just one person, maybe my experience isn’t typical. But anyway, I’m really enjoying what I’m read from La Lubu, and Lynn Gazis-Sax and Comrade Svilova.
Might I humbly suggest that if you’re meeting women in bars and clubs that is probably not the best place to find honest and sensible people who want to engage with you in a genuine manner? I have not met a single boyfriend under those circumstances, I’ve tended to meet them through mutual friends, in class, even (and I know this is a no-no but it worked out fine) at work. Places where we’re likely to have actual common interests. As, yknow, humans rather than walking gender scripts. Given that common ground, my relationships usually started pretty naturally with one or the other of us saying something like “I’m attracted to you and it’d be cool if we could pursue that, but if it doesn’t happen I’ll live.” (And I’m not patient enough for the passive-lady gender role so really half the time it’s me who says it. Or um, more than half even. But judging from this thread I appear to be a unicorn…. really??)
Most women seem to enjoy some sort of demonstrations of classical manliness, of playful dominance, assertiveness.
Personally, I think dominance displays are kind of gross. That, and being mean to subordinates, are two good ways to ensure I will never call (not even 2-3 days later). There are some surface similarities between aggression and confidence, dominance and competence. (And omg, I LOVE a competent guy.) But they are not the same, and I think reasonably sensible women learn during our 20s how to discern the difference. There are differences in the way people do simple actions that can reveal the different motivations behind them, and I learned to look for things like that.
For example — making a point out of opening a door *for me*? Because I’m female? Kind of weirds me out. I mean, are you then expecting me to act out my side of the script? I’m not even sure how to do that. In contrast, being the first of several to get to the door and then holding it for the handful of people (including males) right behind you? That shows consideration and is really endearing.
People here have been talking a lot about body language and keeping the body language non-threatening — so true. And then there’s positive body language — leaning in, making eye contact, echoing what the other person is doing, that give you some good data on how your advances would be received. We DO look at men that we think are attractive, yknow. Sometimes we let you catch us doing it.
What else? Dancing well is pretty attractive. You actually don’t have to do anything fancy, just look like you’re comfortable doing something physical that isn’t (necessarily) directly sexual. I’ve seen male friends transformed by a dance class or two — is that really cheesy? But if dancing isn’t your cup of tea there are plenty of ways to show off what you can do with your body. Rock climbing? Snowboarding? Lots of things have a real grace to them when done well, and that’s hot.
I’m not framing any of this in a feminist way, but I can say that I am a dyed-in-the-wool feminist. And I am skeptical of gender scripts. And at the same time that I adore the sight of men doing certain traditionally masculine things — carpentry? electronics? kick-boxing? YUM. (And yet true competence in those areas seems negatively correlated with posturing and *displays* of dominance.) I am not looking for someone flaccid, just considerate and civilized. Does that make sense?
SamSeaborn (and some of the other dudes here, but he’s been the most vocal), you sound mostly like pretty nice guys who’ve been around too many game-players. Why do you want to know how to approach “women” anyway, like we’re all one type of creature? What are YOU looking for besides just gender? What do YOU find attractive in a woman? It’s not super-helpful to try to make yourself generically attractive to all people of your preferred gender, when all you need is to be attractive to the smaller subset of people who are attractive to you. (For what it’s worth I know I’m not AT ALL universally attractive to men, so I go for the targeted approach and I’m happier that way.)
Oh! and… Maybe this is not something you wanna try and that’s cool, but I’ve noticed that on online dating services like OKCupid people seem more inclined to be explicit and honest about what they’re looking for before ever meeting, and that kind of gets around the double-bind everyone’s talking about here. All that “are you interested” negotiation happens without much possibility of physical threat or inadvertently unsafe body language, or acute embarrassment with rejection, and people seem pretty direct about “yes” “no” “totally ignoring you” and “you’re hot”. I haven’t spent a ton of time on there, but that’s my impression thus far. I wonder, right? Is that an indicator of how men and women act toward each other in a space where the potential for physical threat/rape is much reduced?
Why do you want to know how to approach “women†anyway, like we’re all one type of creature? What are YOU looking for besides just gender? What do YOU find attractive in a woman? It’s not super-helpful to try to make yourself generically attractive to all people of your preferred gender, when all you need is to be attractive to the smaller subset of people who are attractive to you.
This. You’ve said far more articulately what I was trying to say. And I echo that gender scripts are really irritating for some women; I too have done most of the initiating in relationships, and some guys find that to be uncomfortable. Great! I’ve weeded out anyone who finds strong women unattractive. Dominance displays? I’m bored and off-put by them. I don’t think we are unicorns, Metamanda, and like you said, if guys will focus on the kind of women they find attractive rather than “women” s a monolithic group, they’ll probably have more luck.
It may also be that women who are at clubs and bars are a subset that is more likely to prefer traditional gender scripts, so like Metamanda says, that may not be the best place for guys to meet women who don’t want to stick to those gender scripts. Depending upon the nature of the bar or club, of course.
“Great! I’ve weeded out anyone who finds strong women unattractive. Dominance displays? I’m bored and off-put by them”
You are no unicorns…I too, would get bored waiting…and these are the lines that I thought of when I got turned down… But obviously, men’s problems getting women is much more important because they don’t value their own sexuality…yes, by this discussion I think it is men that don’t value their own sexuality, not that women don’t value it…if you want it valued, take it away and stop whining about it…make the poor women suffer for a while without it…if we’re going to talk about sexuality in terms of value, the more rare, the more value…you have the power out of this double bind, but since sex is your driving force you can’t possibly take it away, this to me reveals the hypocritical nature of your argument.
Women are accused of withholding sex…does that mean we aren’t sexual, or that we are repressing our sexuality? The argument is that our sexuality holds more value, but honestly…why? Is it the rarity of men getting sexual attention that makes it more valuable? (The responses in this argument point very strongly to this), and if this is the answer to that question, then how to raise your own sexual value as a man should be rather simple, but if it’s more important to get your jollies as opposed to raise the sexual value of men then it should be rather clear where the entitlement lies.
kristina:
Hammer. Nail. Head.
I would also like to add that if women genuinely thought that men were just after sex, that we wouldn’t bother flirting…we would assume that because we have a vagina that a man would be attracted to us, and not bother with testing the waters (flirting)…we would just assume that any man would love to be in the presence of a vagina and that any vagina is good enough, and following that logical process we would be forward in our sexuality and honestly be offended if it was turned down (being turned down because of other differences is easier to swallow for me..incompatibility to me is a turn off)…I mean we have a vagina, shouldn’t that be good enough, sex feels good, don’t you want sex?
I really don’t see how if women thought men just wanted sex (which would be the inherently harmful sexuality you think that feminism espouses, as a rapist cares not about what his victim wants, he in his mind cares about the sex which is only a tool to establish his dominance.)that we would even bother with men at all, but to not bother with men and be a separatist could be suppressing sexuality, and to bother with men at all would imply that we do not think their sexuality is inherently violent or harmful…so yes no matter how badly a woman’s message comes across like wall girl, it would be hard for me to believe that women think of all men as rapists…it would either be don’t bother at all, or throw it around to feel like your sexuality is valued, and be upset that it’s not reciprocated…but hey that’s just my view, and it could be biased seeing as how my sexuality is over valued(???) I personally think as a woman my sexuality is over valued, I wish the emphasis of sex with a woman wasn’t like a life or death situation for men…I think as a woman my sexuality is over valued in the wrong aspects, so over valued though, that sometimes I’ve felt it had nothing to do with me…I didn’t feel like a participant, but something to be acted upon or a power that one must achieve.
But when I look at what everybody’s actually saying, there’s half a conversation saying “It looks like I should always back offâ€, and the other half saying “Don’t forget to always be quick to back offâ€, even as they (maybe) assert that it’s not necessarily always necessary. (Though I’m sure none of us like being grouped with anyone else, the overall conversation flows this way.)
I saw the overall conversation as flowing differently.
1) A whole bunch of women jump in saying, no need to always back off, go for it, with one person who might be a troll posing as a feminism saying always back off.
2) Guys continue saying, it looks as if I should always back off.
3) Women keep responding, no, feel free to make advances, we won’t break.
4) Wall girl example is raised, changing the conversation to whether a man should go for it in the specific case where he thinks the woman is following a gender script that involves game playing, and therefore expects him to make aggressive advances while she plays coy.
5) At this point, you get the chorus of “back off,” from women who don’t experience themselves as playing games, and who want to be taken at their word. Meaning, in the specific case where a woman’s words were discouraging your advances, back off, because it’s better that a few game playing women find their game playing doesn’t work and have to learn to be honest than that all the non-game-playing women not be able to opt out of “walling.”
In real life, the ways my relationships have transitioned to physical have included the guy moving in for a kiss, the guy suggesting a hot tub, and me making an outright sexual proposition. And I’ve gotten my share of advances that I needed to say no to, and made my share of advances that the guy needed to say no to, under circumstances where neither of us took offense that the advance was made.
There is a practical way to test this theory. There hundreds of thousands of socially awkward or conventionally unattractive men who have decided not to pursue women because those men do not feel valued. How many of those men do you think have prompted women to rethink their disinterest in them as a result of those men withholding sex?
Actually, that has been my experience. I have turned down quite a few women, and not one of them walked away without insulting me or questioning my sexuality. The assumption seemed to be that as a man I should want to have sex with them and by being completely disinterested in doing so I had offended them, especially since I am not gay, rather short and somewhat geeky. That I am marginally attractive and can pass for a high school senior is likely the only reason I was ever approached in the first place.
I doubt most women think all men are rapists. However, the narrative that comes from feminists is that male sexuality is inherently dangerous and until proven otherwise all men should be treated as such, and so men should be prepared to back off at any moment. That narrative has shown up on this thread and the others like it, and it does put men in a double bind because it is impossible to “feel free to make advances” when advances are scrutinized as sexually exploitative depending on whether the man actually wants to have sex with the woman before he gets to know her.
A lot of conflicting advice has been given, and it has been followed up with a lot statements about how the problems men have described on this thread do not exist or only exist in those men’s heads. I think that is why the same questions keep getting asked.
“There is a practical way to test this theory. There hundreds of thousands of socially awkward or conventionally unattractive men who have decided not to pursue women because those men do not feel valued. How many of those men do you think have prompted women to rethink their disinterest in them as a result of those men withholding sex?”
I’m not talking about individual discourse here, and not for reasons of devaluing themselves like you are asserting here… men are still not acting as “gatekeepers” which is what I was asserting MIGHT change women’s perceptions…Women who are seen as gatekeepers are accused of valuing their own sexuality (as in not giving it up to just anyone)…like it’s something men should jump through hoops for…why not really test it and make women jump through hoops by valuing their sexuality, not because they have low self esteem, but because they place value of themselves above sex…I’ve seen the same thing happen to overweight women who turn down a casual affair with studly mcstudmuffin…they are called all sorts of names, and I’d hardly say it’s because of feminist discourse…but it certainly could be perceived that way by men…My overweight friend had many offers for casual sex but relationships were a rarity she hasn’t had one boyfriend…While she feels sad that she hasn’t had a relationship it hasn’t worn down her resolve to abstain from sex until she feels “safe” (which in her case requires a relationship)…she doesn’t blame men for not valuing her, she puts that effort into valuing herself enough not to be resentful towards her lack of relationships. I could easily say she’s in a double bind…she can either stay undesired and shut up, or take whatever sex she’s given and run the risk of being called a whore, completely ignoring the fact that the third option she has is the one she is currently taking….”While she feels sad that she hasn’t had a relationship it hasn’t worn down her resolve to abstain from sex until she feels “safe” (which in her case requires a relationship)…she doesn’t blame men for not valuing her, she puts that effort into valuing herself enough not to be resentful towards her lack of relationships.”
This goes with your next statement about how women react badly to rejection…and I can agree to an extent that it is about looks, but don’t you think if women’s looks weren’t valued as currency that they wouldn’t project this onto men as currency? This is not something I blame all men for…I really blame the media, but men that are silent about it are complacent and of no use to this discourse.
If you doubt all women think men are rapists but feminist discourse is the cause, wouldn’t that be implying that feminists can’t be in a relationship with a man? Someone must initiate, and apparently women initiating is rare, and feminists see men as inherently dangerous when advances are made…it really doesn’t add up… how are feminists able to have relationships with men?
I’d also like to add that her refusing to have sex with those men has NOTHING to do with thinking of them as rapists or dangerous…she thinks of her most valuable assets as her personality (mainly because she feels her value doesn’t rest in her looks because of narrow beauty standards)and she feels the only way for a man to value her personality is to know her…so no she won’t wait for marriage to have sex, but she would like a relationship based on the values she perceives herself to have…so her refusal of sex has nothing to do with the attractiveness of the man (she’s refused guys she found aesthetically pleasing), nor does it have to do with perceiving a man as dangerous…it has everything to do with the impossible beauty standards and where it forces her to perceive her value as a potential mate.
Wow, too many replies to deal with right now – will reply in detail later – just one right now.
I think the different perception of the thread outlined by Brian and Lynn is interesting and probably indicative to a significant degree of the overall dynamic of the discourse and the lack of mutual understanding.
That said – while I think that Brian accurately captures the overall notion of feminist discourse in this respect, as for *this* conversation in particular, I think Lynn is largely right (although I haven’t seen a lot of explicit 3), more in the form of duh!).
As for Lynn’s 5) – I think here the difference is perception of the world around us. I don’t see much honest explicit communication about sexual attraction and desire from both women and men. You say you do. You say Wall Girl was an extreme case, I say Wall Girl’s attitude is indicative of certainly more than half the women I meet, and that treating her case as a statistical anomaly and attempting to make her see that she has to change will not work because there will always be sufficient men to play along with her script once they realize the other doesn’t work. The only way for actual change in this respect is to devise a strategy that would *allow* those men seeking honest communcation to *still* display the playful dominance that attracted her in the first place when it comes to physical initiation. I think that possibility exists. We just need to work more on conceptionalizing and training.
The question is how to get to the bottom of scripted performance, in the wall girl case – the key would be before the wall thing, how to deal with her “how she needs to be careful as a girl out on her own” statement. She was looking to be lead here, not to lead. So the trick may be to communicate both the willingness to back off *and* continued interest in escalation using body language and verbal communication. We were dancing when she said it, so instead of completely breaking off at that point I could have increased the physical distance while saying something like “and I was totally under the impression you’re looking for adventures… let me know if you change your mind”.
“under circumstances where neither of us took offense that the advance was made.”
Cool. This is 3). And, again, maybe this is a “duh!” point for you – but even though that may be the notion in this thread, I’d still agree with Brian that is is *not* the overall feminist discourse in this respect. The position is not usually as extreme as that of the radfem troll above, but it’s still largely what I experience it to be. And I still maintain that saying “just use your common sense” when extreme arguments are made is the discoursive equivalent of Wall Girl’s desire to have her first remarks ignored. You say yourself – not a good idea.
kristina,
“how are feminists able to have relationships with men?”
that question was the origin of the feminist sex wars (just google it) – there was a rift in feminism, in which one side later became “sex positive”, the alleged third wave, but what didn’t really change was the violent discourse with respect to male sexuality (what Hugo mentions in the original post). Mythago, Lynn, La Lubu, and others seem to perceive that the discourse has changed, while I think it has not really. It probably has changed to the extent that it is now possible to have such a debate. That’s certainly something.
We were dancing when she said it, so instead of completely breaking off at that point I could have increased the physical distance while saying something like “and I was totally under the impression you’re looking for adventures… let me know if you change your mindâ€.
Something similar to that actually is the approach I’d suggest men use, if they’re not sure whether a refusal is serious or not: physically back off, while maintaining a playful verbal approach. That allows clarification of what’s really meant, without pushing in a way that overrides what the woman’s saying.
Sam, are you implying that radical feminists can’t have relationships with men…I’m saying that no the discourse hasn’t necessarily changed…I can read the same things you are reading and not regard men’s sexuality as inherently harmful(that would be a zero-sum game..either all men are “bad” or all men are “good”), and have heard from radfems who are in relationships with men…how do these relationships come about…I’m not questioning the sex positive rift…that’s plain to see that it exists. I feel the only difference between liberal and radfems is that liberals seem more inclined or are perceived to be more “forgiving”. So yes, I agree the discourse is the same, but I can’t pinpoint that as the cause, because there are radfems that aren’t lesbians.
The point I’m trying to make with the example with my friend is this… she has perceived her value as her personality, if she wishes to find a mate with values the same as hers, she will have to be shown that those values are shared…I too would find it hard to believe being approached by a complete stranger (all of whom have propositioned her with sex, although one was a friend who propositioned her under the terms that she not tell anyone)that this person was interested in what she values in herself, and how to communicate your values differs from person to person and should be a note of how compatible you are, and not how one might be reading it wrong, or communicating it wrong…if it doesn’t happen those missed chances aren’t chances at all, but incompatibility…and to imply that either party is communicating it wrong or reading it wrong is a note of entitlement…after all women aren’t monolith…we have been saying this all along haven’t we?
If you value looks over personality, you will have to find someone exchanging the same currency…if you value personality over looks you will have to find a way to exchange that currency… supposedly this brings us to the idea that all men approaching are viewed as dangerous and not able to make a connection to show personality as their currency, and for me when I looked for personality it started before the guy said anything, and it was usually in his body language…for me personally, I preferred a guy who kept to himself (that made it “safe” for me to approach)and when I talked to him or stood around listening to him talk I didn’t want to hear any negative stereotypes of women (no matter how true his experiences may have been in his perception, I was after all only hearing one side of the story..if his story actually sounds like he is conveying both sides of the story, he gets bonus points for being diplomatic). The guys that have approached me have been shy (which was obvious in their body language..sometimes I’ve even witnessed them trying to work up the nerve to talk to me and I thought it was cute and would approach them instead)and gently hinted around their attraction…for instance, I used to go to the skatepark and try to learn skating tricks, and when guys approached me to ask me out (which I didn’t know until they spoke) therefore, until they opened their mouth I assumed their interest was in helping me skate and NOT to ask me out (doesn’t fit into men are dangerous…but if those men were grasping at straws I’d be willing to bet that was their view), but guys who approached me to genuinely help me with my skating (as in didn’t laugh when I messed up, but didn’t necessarily rush to my aid like I was a delicate flower every time I fell…they’d skate over, reach their hand out and encourage me to try it again with some tips)(I’d usually see them watching me, with their focus on my skates as I did a trick)they were able to hint that they were interested without being too forward (after all we shared an interest so sex can’t be the ONLY thing we have in common nor the only reason they are approaching me), and somehow were able to recognize that my personality didn’t call for the delicate treatment (I was trying some dangerous stunts), and showed me by not laughing that they are supportive (it wasn’t that I demanded they read my mind, it was that I was able to determine compatibility based on what they showed me and not what they think I want to be shown)…the fact that we shared the same interest helped, it gave me an insight into what they enjoyed, and the activity was able to take pressure off of what to do or say next (for both parties). I’d say I’ve always grown up with the feminist rhetoric that all men are possible rapists….but more along the lines of men can’t control themselves (heard from other men), but I’ve been able to have relationships with men, not because I rejected these notions, but because I was aware of them…My rejection didn’t stem from men = danger, it stemmed from what I perceived as my currency, and in my experience what displays determine who carries that currency….I make the same distinctions in my women friends (it’s not limited to one sex)…I don’t find them dangerous even though I’ve always grown up with the idea that women are catty and backstabbing….getting over that hump when you value personality over looks is a big deal, and I’ve done quite well…at first I regretted not being popular and missing out on friendships that could have raised my social value or even superficially raised my perceived self worth, but when I heard these girls talk and how mean they were to each other and others I realized they didn’t value the same currency as I did and was ecstatic they rejected me.
I think here the difference is perception of the world around us. I don’t see much honest explicit communication about sexual attraction and desire from both women and men. You say you do. You say Wall Girl was an extreme case, I say Wall Girl’s attitude is indicative of certainly more than half the women I meet, and that treating her case as a statistical anomaly and attempting to make her see that she has to change will not work because there will always be sufficient men to play along with her script once they realize the other doesn’t work.
I don’t think any of the feminist commenters suggested that you should “attempt to make her see that she has to change.” I think a bunch of us said “bullet dodged, thank your stars.”
That’s kind of entitled thinking though, isn’t it? Instead of just giving up the chance at *one* date with this *one* random girl, and forgetting about it, you assume that you should go and make her change herself so that a relationship can work? Basically, she should change so you can get laid? That’s how it sounds, but I may be misreading.
The only way for actual change in this respect is to devise a strategy that would *allow* those men seeking honest communcation to *still* display the playful dominance that attracted her in the first place when it comes to physical initiation. I think that possibility exists. We just need to work more on conceptionalizing and training.
It sounds like too much work to me. Especially the training bit — training whom? But maybe that’s why I’ve only gone on a few dates and had only a couple serious relationships. I wasn’t willing to put up with manipulative BS just to get a date.
And if 50 percent of the women you meet are *not* mind-game playing jerks like Wall Girl, that means 50 percent are people you could interact with more normally and straightforwardly. What’s the problem again?
No, that’s the narrative attributed to feminists. The narrative that men are lust-ridden beasts who can’t be trusted is a distinctly antifeminist one.
SamSeaborn: you say you aren’t using Crazy Wall Chick as an example of anything, and yet you are. (And sorry, while I haven’t met the young lady, anyone who says in essence “you should have gotten physically aggressive with a stranger right after she told you she was afraid for her personal safety, you blew it” as a parting shot is, let’s be gender neutral about this, either in need of serious therapy or is a fucking asshole.)
You also don’t seem to understand that there is a difference between people’s fantasies and reality, between what is comfortable to do with somebody you’d just met and what is comfortable to do with somebody you know well and trust. (And I don’t know what circle of friends you run around with, but “I’d love to have some guy throw me into a wall and kiss me”, seriously, is not something I hear much from other women much when we talk about sex.) Some women do enjoy displays of physical dominance. A lot of women don’t, probably because many men who enjoy putting on displays of physical dominance don’t turn back into Egalitarian Treatment Man once you jump out of bed.
Let me turn this around on you, since we’re playing plausible-deniability anecdata. You’d agree, I think, that it’s a pretty common fantasy among a lot of men to have a hot female stranger throw herself at them. You would nonetheless be astonished, I think, at how few men in reality react to such an offer with “How fast can we find a bed?”
I want to Exactly mythago. Guys can tell me till the cows come home that they would love for more women to approach them – but my practical experience is that it scares and makes uncomfortable a huge number of guys. I don’t think of it as a double bind though.
Victoria, for some it is a double bind, but for most I’m guessing it’s the difference between a fantasy and reality. It may also be that the particular fantasy isn’t really what somebody wants, but the fantasy is the way of expressing a particular feeling or experience they DO want; so, many of the men expressing this fantasy are really saying, on some level “I would like to have a woman openly express that she finds me desirable, and to approach me instead of waiting for me to make the first move”.
The situation Victoria describes has never been a double bind for me; rather, it helps me weed out potential dates who feel the need to stick to traditional gender scripts. It’s a feature, not a bug.
kristina: why not really test it and make women jump through hoops by valuing their sexuality, not because they have low self esteem, but because they place value of themselves above sex
Since no one would know what the person thinks of themselves, why would the effect of a person’s withdrawal be any different? In theory, would not at least some men with low self-esteem better their chances by refusing to have sex with women?
Mythago: And sorry [...] anyone who says in essence “you should have gotten physically aggressive with a stranger right after she told you she was afraid for her personal safety, you blew it†as a parting shot is [...] either in need of serious therapy or is a fucking asshole.
I cannot tell if people genuinely do not understand the concept of pushing someone against the wall for a kiss or if they are intentionally taking it the wrong way. When a woman wants some guy to push her against the wall, she is not asking him to Force push her like he is Darth Vader. She is looking for the same kind of playful push guys give their friends. It is not meant to hurt; it is just enough force to move her against the wall.
The girl’s initial statement to Sam basically meant, “I’m playing demure to see what you will do.” Sam’s response was ironically the correct “Oh, I’m not going to hurt you…much” response, except he actually took her at her word. So the whole time they were together the girl was expecting him to be more assertive as his response implied he would be. He was not, so she left, but not before informing him of what she actually wanted.
What the girl did is not atypical. The women are not looking to be hurt. They are looking for the guy who is going to “take” what he wants, obviously with her permission. In other words, “Hey, don’t wait for me to ask you to do it. Try it, and I’ll let you know if I want to you to keep going.”
The double bind is that feminism caused Sam to completely misread the girl’s cue, and to feel guilty should he not take her initial statement seriously, even though she clearly did not mean it to be taken seriously.
Need to go up and reply to previous replies, but this -
Mythago, Victoria,
“Let me turn this around on you, since we’re playing plausible-deniability anecdata. You’d agree, I think, that it’s a pretty common fantasy among a lot of men to have a hot female stranger throw herself at them. You would nonetheless be astonished, I think, at how few men in reality react to such an offer with “How fast can we find a bed?—
Again – I’m not the best example on such matters. If it weren’t for a woman who initiated I’d probably still be unkissed. By now, I’ve had situations in which (not a lot of, but some) women did indeed suggest a quickie in the bathroom, or at a beach. I cannot act on such offers, I need some more trust and comfort to be sexual. Yet I don’t mind the throwing at me with respect to making out once mutual attraction has been established… that much has changed
Statistically, your question has only one answer. I think it’s like 80/20 and vice versa. I can look it up, but I think the experiment has been done over and over. 80% of men will be happy to instantly go home with an attractive women suggesting sex, 20% won’t. 20% of women would go home with an attractive stranger suggesting sex, 80% wouldn’t.
So, how does this square with our – I think common – experience that many guys are scared by a woman coming on to them in, say, a club. I think their being scared is not related to the woman coming on per se, but to the fact that they’re uncomfortable in a new social setup, one they have no experience with. Being the pursued is not something guys have a lot of experience with. So my best guess would be that they’re on high alert because a woman coming on to them may indicate that “there’s something wrong here”. I’d say it’s uncertainty with respect to the social setup more than lack of interest as such. Of course, this varies with their exposure to places where women are more making more overt advances, which, thankfully, are getting a bit more common.
Maybe the 80/20 difference will eventually change, who knows.
Pingback: The obnoxiousness of the entitlement myth. | emporiasexus
La Lubu,
“And after reading your responses every time the subject comes up, I can’t help but think that you are defining “classical manlinessâ€, et. al not only in a way much different than what I (the single, heterosexual woman who is on the lookout for single, heterosexual men for both companionship and sex) am….but that you seem to think any physicality expressed by men is inherently aggressive or dominant….and that isn’t the case.”
Not exactly. I’ve grown up with the narrative that physicality expressed by men is at least latently violent. While that is an old narrative – one that precedes feminism by far – prior to feminism this was seen as a problem of human nature that required joint social management (“men are like that”). Feminism removed the theoretical “men are like that” by claiming social causes but did not change the violent rethoric towards masculinity/male sexuality. Again, you, and Mythago, and others seem to perceive this differently from me, Brian, and a lot of other guys.
“I mean, I’m thinking about the techniques that men in my world (mostly working-class tradesmen) use…and they actively downplay aggression while still maintaining physicality. They go out of their way to make sure the women they are trying to attract won’t think of them as thugs.”
Well, yes, of course. Making her feel safe to relax and let herself be attracted requires that, no doubt. Size may actually be an issue here. Of course, larger men have an easier time being perceived as masculine without actually performing masculinity – and they’re almost automatically more attractive. It’s different for smaller men – just think of the French President standing on his toe tips for the picture with Obama.
“How do they do that? Well, they smile a lot. They soften their voices. Big guys tend to hunker down while sitting, so they are more on the eye level of the woman they’re talking to. Lots of eye contact.”
I’d also recommend that.
“Absolutely none of the “negging†or aggressive ball-busting type of verbal parrying PUA manuals recommend.”
I think there is a general misunderstanding between feminists and the Seduction community about this kind of thing, and I’m fairly certain most of disagreement is about language, not content.
“None of the canned questions PUA manuals recommend….mostly questions they really want to know the answers to (the typical “getting to know you†questions). They in turn reveal quite a bit about themselves, too (their full name, where they work, how long they’ve been doing that for a living, how many kids they have, etc.).”
I think those recommendations are useful for guys who need help to say something at all, and I think dating self-help books can be useful to develop a feeling for the whole setup. I spent a long time with various sources, academic research on dating and mating, feminist literature, self-help books by women and men, the game and it took even longer to learn how to put this into practice and eventually even become independent *and* confident.
“Mirroring body language.”
That’s expert level stuff.
“Leaning in to talk.”
Depends, in my experience.
“And you know what? Despite about half of those techniques being marked as “loser†moves by the PUA books, those guys are getting laid. Because around here, that’s what works.”
Well, humans did have sex before the rules and the game
Metamanda,
“Might I humbly suggest that if you’re meeting women in bars and clubs that is probably not the best place to find honest and sensible people who want to engage with you in a genuine manner?”
I think people in clubs are the same people one tends to find everywhere. But I agree that the “club” as mating venue is bascially a broken concept. There’s just nothing better available yet. Of course behaviour in clubs will be marginally different from other loactions but I’d would say that the basic problem discussed here is the same in and outside of clubs.
“What else? Dancing well is pretty attractive. … But if dancing isn’t your cup of tea there are plenty of ways to show off what you can do with your body. …”
I’m actually quite good at it. But even though I’m not mainly talking about myself, dancing is another example of the express yourself physically but don’t express yourself physically double bind. Women tend to enjoy dancing with me, but my fear of doing something inappropriate is still keeping me from initiating any contact on the dance floor. It is such a fine line between wanted sensual touch and unwanted touch in that situation. And there’s really not much good advice anywhere of how to balance physicality on a club’s dance floor. At least I haven’t seen any.
“I am not looking for someone flaccid, just considerate and civilized. Does that make sense?”
Sure, but I’m asking you to consider how the feminist discourse is often perceived by men. Most of the time the difference isn’t spelt out like you do it here, it’s an afterthought (if that) of sexual violence discourse (in my – and apparently a lot of other guys’ perception)…
kristina,
“if it’s more important to get your jollies as opposed to raise the sexual value of men then it should be rather clear where the entitlement lies.”
I don’t understand that argument (at all…). Richard seems to get it. I really don’t. Where is the entitlement here? I agree that if men could play Lysistrata the value of their sexuality would increase. But there’s a reason they can’t.
Lynn,
“Something similar to that actually is the approach I’d suggest men use,”
see, there *is* a more specific level of advice and we may even be able to agree on the content
kristina,
“are you implying that radical feminists can’t have relationships with men”
no, I think radical feminists had relationships with men and felt seriously bad about “sleeping with the enemy”. There once was an article in the Guardian by a British feminist called Julie Bindel about how heterosexual feminists were discriminated against because of their desire for the bepenised. I think radical feminism depends on an indefensible set of axioms, but I also think that if you actually believe in that matrix, sleeping with the enemy is sort of hypocritical.
Comrade,
“I don’t think any of the feminist commenters suggested that you should “attempt to make her see that she has to change.†I think a bunch of us said “bullet dodged, thank your stars.—
Lynn said that the use of such scripts has to stop for the benefit of everyone.
“And if 50 percent of the women you meet are *not* mind-game playing jerks like Wall Girl, that means 50 percent are people you could interact with more normally and straightforwardly. What’s the problem again?”
Again, I am in the unusual position of being familiar with both the perspective of someone who was unable to talk to women and someone who has worked hard on a lot of my issues to now be able to *have choice*. I feel the double bind, but I have managed to work around it. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or that it doesn’t deserve attention.
Mythago,
“You also don’t seem to understand that there is a difference between people’s fantasies and reality, between what is comfortable to do with somebody you’d just met and what is comfortable to do with somebody you know well and trust. (And I don’t know what circle of friends you run around with, but “I’d love to have some guy throw me into a wall and kiss meâ€, seriously, is not something I hear much from other women much when we talk about sex.)”
I *totally* understand that difference. That’s what makes this kind of communication so difficult, particularly between people who are *not* really familiar with the other person’s idiosyncrasies.
I’m really fascinated by the fact that you don’t seem to get the wall thing at all, because, I mean, really, this *IS* the most common thing I hear from women. And, even adjusted for the sequencing aspect I think Lynn brought up, that still leaves a lot of women who do appear to desire/demand the wall thing (I’ve explained in a reply to Lynn above the specifics thereof, as I imagine them after a longer talk about this with my best female friend – we even rehearsed the move, except for the actual kiss). So, well, I’d say most women I meet these days, and that includes the clubs, are graduate students and early carreer professionals, a lot of them in media related professions, a lot of young female doctors). Wall girl is a social worker.
They only thing I’d say they have in common is above average education.
Toysoldier – I hope you are catching the irony that you are explaining to actual women what women are really thinking. That aside, force that isn’t painful is still force. If I tell a guy “I’m going home now” and he blocks the doorway, he’s not causing me pain, but would you agree with me that it’s an act of aggression?
What I’m getting from you and Sam that if a woman acts badly, somehow, feminism is responsible – as if being a decent person and taking others at their word and respecting their stated choices (as Sam did) is a feminist value, and a dumb one at that. What the young lady did is called ‘playing mind games’.
Sam, I remember the 80/20 study. It doesn’t tell us much about men as a whole as opposed to a particular subset of college students, and it doesn’t tell us whether if the researcher had gone farther, those men would in fact have gone on to have sex with her. Just as you claim that all the women you know have fantasies about having brick prints on their asses, I’ve met a tiny handful of men whose walk matched the “I’d totally go for that” talk. Perhaps that’s because admitting to wanting a more serious emotional connection before sex is seen as unmanly.
Something I find interesting is that in many of the discussions that are “pingbacks” to this one, men say things along the lines of “Specific women don’t owe me sex, but some woman, sometime, somewhere does. I deserve to get laid.” That’s the kind of entitlement that leads to the kind of behavior that is truly off-putting for (some) women. Not shy guys, nervous guys, or inexperienced guys … but guys who believe that the universe owes them sex and that women’s bodies are the objects through which this debt must be paid.
I would hope that everyone has a fulfilling sex life. But no one — no one at all — is owed a sex life. I keep talking about the importance of accepting rejection because what I’ve seen in my own life and the lives of my friends are far too many instances in which men believed that they were owed sex — and stalking, harassment, and other frightening situations ensued.
As Hugo said, communicating that you are interested but not possessive, that you find a woman attractive but you don’t think you are “owed” a night with her, mostly communicating that you see her as a human being first and a sex partner second … that’s the only thing that is necessary (in my opinion) for a good feminist pick-up. And the ability to walk away from the encounter and forget about it if she is not interested is key. For me and many women like me, sensing that a man has the self-confidence and comfort with himself to handle rejection without becoming Crazy Stalker of the Week makes rejection far less likely.
And to echo Mythago:
If you do treat a woman with respect and she dumps you for that … don’t blame feminism. Blame her for not seeing what a catch you were, or blame society for training her to desire some silly script rather than respect … but don’t blame feminism.
as if being a decent person and taking others at their word and respecting their stated choices (as Sam did) is a feminist value, and a dumb one at that
That’s what I’m hearing in many of Sam’s responses as well as responses of those who see this “double bind.” And it’s depressing, to say the least. When did feminism have a monopoly on treating others decently and with respect?
I remember reading something about that 80/20 study also, and I remember thinking it was a load of horseshit, because we don’t live in vacuums where our sexuality exists apart from the rest of our lives. Whatever choice a woman makes in regards to expressing her sexuality, it’s going to come with a lot of baggage that male (cis) heterosexual expression does not come with. Who knows what my sexual decisions would look like in a perfect world, where sexism and its baggage (rape, assault, body dysmorphia, body commodification, shaming, etc.) didn’t exist. In the meantime, I have to negotiate my whole self around those obstacles, and thus don’t and can’t enjoy the relative freedoms that het cis men do. Period.
Sam, I believe you about the wall thing. You come from a culture and background dissimilar to mine. I also believe that you are attracted to the type of woman who is represented by “wall girl”—someone who enjoys the games of performative femininity, and expects a man who also enjoys playing by those rules—and who in fact, knows the rules of that game. Thing is, you can’t have it both ways. Feminists are the least likely women to enjoy those games, and indeed, many of us don’t know the rules.
Which is probably worth a mention, because you seem to be interested in rules. (that stands out to me in these conversations, mostly because I…don’t. That probably sounds snotty; I don’t mean it to. I tend to think of “rules” as inherenty fluid and amorphous—ever shifting, not easy to pin down.) I didn’t come to feminism via women’s studies classes or reading theory (not that there’s anything wrong with that); I came to feminism from “jump”—I literally cannot remember a time when I didn’t call myself by that name. It was natural, organic. Plain as the sun in the sky. I wasn’t inferior, yet I lived in a world that sought to convince me I was. So, feminism—it’s the solution! Equal pay, equal rights, full humanity, that sort of thing. Union hall feminism. And there aren’t any “rules” to it. My expression of feminism is just like everything else in my life—it reflects not just me as an individual, but the community I come from. My history. My lineage. And so it is for everyone.
I will say I’m mystified that you seem to be ignoring the many feminist voices here who are uniform in their description of your description of the scene—everyone, to a woman, has used some version of the phrase, “dodged a bullet.” Think on that. Why would we say that? Why would women from many backgrounds, ages and locations all land on that particular phrase? Hint: it’s not because we’re armchair psychologists. Go back to the preceding paragraph and sit with that concept of “contradictions”.
Ultimately with communication, you have to realize you have a target audience. You can change your methods of communication. You can change your target audience. But you are going to have a damn difficult time convincing your target audience to adopt different preferences or styles of communication for themselves. If you ever get that nailed down, immediately, run, don’t walk, to Madison Avenue. You’ll make a killing.
Last but not least: masculinity and femininity are in the eye of the beholder. I’ve said this about a hundred thousand places on the internet—working class men see me as feminine. Middle class men see me as butch. Who is correct? The working class men, or the middle class men? Because I’m not playing different characters to different audiences (I have no talent nor interest in that. And I think I suck at acting).
Whenever it’s convenient to use that as a stick to beat feminists: see, feminists, you’re just denying women’s true sexual urges! Admittedly, I haven’t heard that one for a long time before now; everything old is new again.
Toysoldier – where I think you and I are crossing here is that in the second half of your post, you’re positing a different woman, one who explicitly suggests that she’d like a man to be physically assertive with her. A woman like the one Sam met who explicitly says that she’s afraid of aggression is not signaling “Hey, try pushing me up against a wall and kissing me, and see how I react.” She’s not saying “If you ‘take’ me it’s really with my permission.” She’s also not saying “You may have gotten the wrong impression about how to treat me.” This particular example offered by Sam is a woman who explicitly told him one thing, and then on her way out the door – you know, as an exit line – told him “You actually listened to and respected what I said. Boy, are you a fuckup and you just lost out on getting laid! Bye.”
Feminists are the least likely women to enjoy those games, and indeed, many of us don’t know the rules.
Haha, exactly. Those games that make up the “double bind” Sam describes are totally opaque to me.
That’s probably why we can’t be much help in determining a good policy for guys on How To Approach Women, since it’s really a particular kind of woman you’re talking about. For insight into picking up mind-game playing females, you should probably ask some of those women you know for tips on how to negotiate the double-bind they’re setting up.
Man, what La Lubu said.
There’s nothing wrong, at all, with having a preference for women who enjoys those roles and knows and plays by the rules (or The Rules, if you prefere). If you’re happy and she’s happy, mazel tov. But you’re going to have a hard time getting sympathy when you complain about the downside of that package.
The woman from Sam’s example did not act badly. She just used a social script Sam failed to respond correctly to. According to him, the reason he missed the cue was because of feminist concepts. It is certainly possible that something else caused him to miss the cue, but if he says it was because of feminist concepts that harmed him should we not take him at his word?
According to Sam, the woman said that she would have to be careful being a girl out on her own. That is a little different from “I’m afraid of aggression.” It sounds a lot like the cue I mentioned above, i.e. she presented herself as demure and waited for Sam’s the appropriate “take charge” response.
I say this to my Catholic friend often: anyone who adheres to an ideology will eventually encounter people who have been harmed it. Such encounters should be taken as learning experiences, not only to understand the impact of one’s ideology, but also to learn how to react to those with different life experiences.
On feminists never saying nice things about men and sexuality.
From Running with the Wolves, a pretty old feminist book on the importance of female bonds and strong women.
Had this line:
“Male energy is nice. It is more than nice; it is sumptuous, it is grand.”
This is just something I’ve randomly come across recently. If Sam, Brian, etc. do not hear these comments it doesn’t mean they aren’t being made.
Agree very much that Sam seems pretty exclusively attracted to/interact with a certain type of women.
“no, I think radical feminists had relationships with men and felt seriously bad about “sleeping with the enemyâ€. There once was an article in the Guardian by a British feminist called Julie Bindel about how heterosexual feminists were discriminated against because of their desire for the bepenised. I think radical feminism depends on an indefensible set of axioms, but I also think that if you actually believe in that matrix, sleeping with the enemy is sort of hypocritical.”
OOOOH…I get it now… radical feminists were formerly straight…. or so it seems you imply, and any REAL radical feminist wouldn’t or shouldn’t be caught dead with a guy. Let’s see… straw feminists, and no true scotsman fallacies abound… interesting…
“According to Sam, the woman said that she would have to be careful being a girl out on her own. That is a little different from “I’m afraid of aggression.†It sounds a lot like the cue I mentioned above, i.e. she presented herself as demure and waited for Sam’s the appropriate “take charge†response.”
And we are saying that your interpretation could be wrong…and so could ours…we seem to be able to accept that fact (by saying she may be the type of girl who plays mind games)…you on the other hand do not want to believe your interpretation is wrong in the slightest…entitlement????
““Mirroring body language.â€
That’s expert level stuff.”
Jesus, you sound like a PUA…if so, that would explain a lot…
La Lubu,
“In the meantime, I have to negotiate my whole self around those obstacles, and thus don’t and can’t enjoy the relative freedoms that het cis men do. Period.”
Check this comment about the relative freedoms and absence thereof of cis het males – http://realadultsex.com/comment/reply/2631/17675
“Sam, I believe you about the wall thing. You come from a culture and background dissimilar to mine. I also believe that you are attracted to the type of woman who is represented by “wall girlâ€â€”someone who enjoys the games of performative femininity, and expects a man who also enjoys playing by those rules—and who in fact, knows the rules of that game. Thing is, you can’t have it both ways. Feminists are the least likely women to enjoy those games, and indeed, many of us don’t know the rules.”
I’m not asking to have it both ways. I’m asking for feminist consideration of the fact that communication of any kind may result in mistakes, because communication is difficult. Particularly for those guys who are listening to feminist arguments about “taking women at their word” who are faced with women who are assuming a different masculinity script. You disagree about the prevalence of such women and such expectations, but I can only tell you about my (and some other guy’s) experience in this respect. So these guys usually only have two options: a) not play the game (which may mean withdrawing themselves sexually) or b) play the game while thinking that it’s wrong to play the game because of the discourse they have accepted and be afraid of making any kind of mistakes because a mistake would, in turn, certainly in their perception, probably considered sexually violent by the feminist discourse, which would then, in turn, validate the fears about their latently violent own sexuality that they have come to believe.
As for my attraction. I can’t really say that I’m more attracted to some kind of behavioural pattern. I have a certain visual type, and I tend to be more successful with women who don’t mind helping me initiate. So, no, I don’t think I’m particularly attracted to playing these games. I’m just also *not* thinking that acting on such scripts means the women are psychos who need to get a grip, and I do believe that there is a double bind for men when it comes to ethically initiating with these women.
“Which is probably worth a mention, because you seem to be interested in rules. (that stands out to me in these conversations, mostly because I…don’t. That probably sounds snotty;”
No worries. I appreciate your comments. Yes, I am interested in rules – I think that is indeed rather apparent. Specific advice about appropriate behaviour in specific cases is a kind of rule. This is, indeed, mostly a male thing to worry about, because women can get away with so much more inappropriate behaviour, because they’re not inherently seen as latently dangerous. You believe a woman pushing a man against a wall to kiss him would be considered potentially dangerous? Crazy, maybe, inappropriate, possibly, but not potentially dangerous. I understand that rules cannot cover all contingencies. But as already said above, in a reply to Lynn, I think we can do much better than we are doing now.
As for your feminism story – great! Well, I was forced to feminism by telling me how my sexual desire and its potential expressions are latently violent. I had to read a lot of theory to finally debunk much of it. What was liberating to you told me I am bad (again, in *my* case, there was also a Catholic education to deal with, and a certain overthinking personality). I believe now that the practical feminism exposed by a lot of women – possibly like you, the kind of feminism I support and believe is helpful not only for women – is actually contradicting much of the theory that is still dominating its own discourse. Feminist concepts like “entitlement”, “objectification” or “oppression” are often useful concepts in practice, while they contain a lot of theoretically/ philosophically untenable axiomatic assumptions. But that’s a different topic.
“I will say I’m mystified that you seem to be ignoring the many feminist voices here who are uniform in their description of your description of the scene—everyone, to a woman, has used some version of the phrase, “dodged a bullet.—
I will say I was surprised by the willingness to assign problematic labels to her behaviour. Maybe that’s really a matter of not being able to see who common this behaviour is in my (other guy’s) perception.
“Last but not least: masculinity and femininity are in the eye of the beholder.”
True, although to different extents – masculinity is the weaker construct as it’s more artificial than femininity, in my opinion (women have more connection to their womanhood through their ability to give birth, in my opinion). It is thus much easier to destroy “masculinity” than femininity, it also exposes why the lack of rules seems to be a more disconcerting aspect for men than for women.
Comrade,
“That’s probably why we can’t be much help in determining a good policy for guys on How To Approach Women, since it’s really a particular kind of woman you’re talking about. For insight into picking up mind-game playing females, you should probably ask some of those women you know for tips on how to negotiate the double-bind they’re setting up.”
quite possible. And as I mentioned in detail in a reply to Lynn above, I have gone through and rehearsed the wall thing with my best female friend (except for the actuall kissing…). She’s very direct about her desires in a conversation, so she wouldn’t say “dont’t” when she expects someone to “do”, but she also wants a guy to be a confident initiator. So, well, I have. But the feminist discourse doesn’t really say “look, be reasonably sure she’s into what you’re going to attempt and back off if she makes it clear that you misunderstood her signals”, at least not in the version that I’m reading/hearing and have been reading/hearing for the most part of my life. If that *were* the feminist discourse as I perceive it, I’d say that’s completely reasonable and appropriate and doesn’t lump misreading signals together with sexual violence.
Victoria,
“If Sam, Brian, etc. do not hear these comments it doesn’t mean they aren’t being made.”
Fair point. I try to make it clear whereever possible that, although I believe that my perception is shared by a lot of men, it is still *my* perception. I think I ususally say that *I don’t hear it* not that it doesn’t exist anywhere. The point is that I believe the positive is drowned out by the negative, not that feminists cannot ever say anything positive about a man, male sexuality.
“Agree very much that Sam seems pretty exclusively attracted to/interact with a certain type of women.”
Really. Not. See my reply to La Lubu above.
kristina,
actually, that particular bit I read about in a dating self-help book written by a woman as advice for women. I’ve also read it in a few other more academic papers on body language. I’ve always considered it difficult to do consciously (hence “expert level”), but it’s something I keep in mind to pay attention to and consider a positive sign should I see it.
Pingback: Expecting one’s needs to be met by others. | emporiasexus
Well, then I’m sorry about that accusation… I read a dating book for women that said the same things…but I believe it should be something that happens naturally because when these observations are made by experts it is more often than not something done subconsciously by both parties…and making it artificial to me is defeating the purpose and a little deceptive… this isn’t people making a conscious effort to connect, these are people who are showing subconscious cues that they DO connect… I really got kind of sickened by the female pickup books when I read them, they seem to imply trapping…like a man needs to be captured by using the traditional female role of taking an inactive role in attracting a mate…yes body language is important, but using something that is subconscious(and received subconsciously) consciously to me, is deceptive…
kristina,
“using something that is subconscious(and received subconsciously) consciously to me, is deceptive…”
well, that’s actually a big philosophical question – is emulation of natural behaviour something potentially morally different from actual natural behaviour? I don’t think it’s as clear cut as you seem to believe it is. We don’t really *know* what natural behaviour is – feminism is explicitly built on the notion of *socialized* patterns of behaviour (patriarchy). Most kinds of social interaction require some kind of learned behaviour, learned assumptions about the other’s intentions and means of communication. It’s not as easy to draw a line as you make it seem when it comes to body language. What about posturing? Women who like a man will subconsciously sit up straighter, engage in some sort of preening emulation, possibly start dangling a shoe if the cross their legs… so if they *know* all this, and they want to *show* they like someoen in particular, what’s wrong with playing with the knowledge. I think the all knowledge can be used for unethical purposes and the same is true for knowledge about human behaviour. I think a real and discernable problem starts when, say, companies use chemical agents like Oxytocin to induce trust, or if a woman afraid of a cheating husband would blend his nasal humidifyey with oxytocin so he’d feel more attached…
This thread’s really grown since I got busy with RL. I’ll have to spend an hour or 2 tomorrow and see if anybody above sounds like they’re dying for a response from me. I don’t have much time right now.
Thanks for clarifying that, Sam. The way you described ‘walling’ the first time, it sounded more violent to me than I think you meant it to sound. I’ve actually done that, except I was the one doing the pushing. I’m slightly dominant, in case you haven’t noticed. I’ll second Mythago’s “what LaLubu said.” I never learned the rules to that waiting wallflower femininity game. “Yes No” games do sound crazy to me. Maybe it’s a product of my SES, but I’m rewarded more often for being decisive and assertive–except, as LaLubu said, when the middle/upper middle class are handing out the rewards.
I agree with the other commenters. You can’t have a woman who’s both submissive AND consistent. Consistency comes from being decisive and setting one’s own boundaries within appropriate social frameworks. Women who are waiting for you to tell them what to do aren’t going to be able to give you a consistent framework for pleasing them. The interaction will be completely one-sided.
So you have to decide. Do you want to be a lady’s partner or do you want to be her daddy? There’s nothing wrong with either, as long as nobody gets hurt. But you can’t have it both ways.
Like I said in the either (a) option days ago (NOT the or/b option–manipulative/crazy), the girl is submissive. Accept it, and be her Daddy, or find somebody who will set the kind of boundaries you seem to be asking for.
I can’t tell much from a bunch of words on a blog, so I may be wrong, but I get the impression that you’re a little submissive yourself. So feminism is NOT at the heart of your problems. Submissive feminists are a minority of us. Most feminists are pretty direct, in my experience. If you lean naturally toward sub, you might want to try a more assertive woman. You can usually find them on or near women’s sports teams. Watch the body language until you’re familiar with it, and then look for self assured women in the other places you frequent.
Let me try to clarify my position…after I hit post I saw the deficiencies but chose to leave it for now, I surely must be getting annoying with my multiple posts… anyway…
I don’t think being conscious of them is wrong…but if I was to expect that these methods would work on the mate of my choosing simply by following a formula, then my intentions were deluded at best, and dubious at worst. I would much prefer reading signals than consciously giving them out…and by this I mean in a subtle manner, I prefer giving out signals by being direct…I don’t cause confusion to the man, and I don’t get frustrated by the lack of him being able to “read” me…because let’s face it, we aren’t mind readers, and while knowing body language is helpful it’s obviously not a universal language when we are thinking consciously. There are limits to explaining the subconscious with the conscious mind, some say the dream world is a way of reconciling the two in an effective way…I guess I’m saying, I feel like the waters are even more muddled when we try to consciously read signals that are performed subconsciously…we see what we want to see because our conscious mind is, well… biased, I guess… Women will sometimes fool themselves into thinking a man likes them based on signals because they want so bad for it to happen, and possibly ignore the bigger signals that he’s not interested…signals conflict in the conscious mind, but it’s awfully hard to see a conflict when things just…happen, as I’ve heard quoted from many happy couples…that it just happened, and they tend to have the strongest bond in body language.
Really, Kristina? I’ve NEVER had mixed signals from a man’s body language. I must be getting old. I think I’m closer to the age where I prefer that men don’t notice me. I think it’s kinda funny when I share a smoke or chat about homework with some young classmate and then he starts hugging random teenyboppers whenever I get within 50 feet of him, forever after. Like he has to work that hard to “let me down easy”, when I was never interested in him to begin with.
I’m usually more surprised when good looking men DO flirt with me. Either I’m unlucky, or I’m hopelessly snotty. For the most part, I find the men who approach me to be somewhere between icky and creepy. Who knows? Maybe it’s just because somewhere around 70% of my waking thoughts are about sex. Maybe men pick up on that and assume that a real person should be the focus of that desire, and that person should be him (them)? Maybe a much larger percentage of men than any of us want to admit really are creeps?
For real. Somewhere between 5&10 men check me out every week. In the last year I’ve met 3 that I would consider dating, except for a minor personality clash, and ONE that I would date. He ran away before I could say yes, your nose in my armpit gets me HOT!!! Poor sweet young cub… I must have scared him.
Yeah Xena…in my younger years I’ve been guilty of pining for a guy who I fooled myself into thinking liked me, and I’ve seen my friends misread signals as well…the only link I’ve seen in the women who’s signal reading skills are low, are women who are insecure…I assume the possibility exists for men too judging by what’s been said…however if esteem is the issue, it’s obviously not that the other party has to change…I’ve made it very known that before I worked on my self-esteem I was as hopeless as these guys…but it’s just brushed off as I’m a woman I MUST get more attention because I have a vagina. When I improved myself, guys flocked in droves…
Ok Kristina. I probably missed some of what you were saying because I only skimmed over the original comments you were clarifying. Did I mention that this comment wall is huge? Self esteem does make a difference. It’s good that you realized that.
Some of this stuff about radfems is starting to look like a good debate. I’m not a fan of that ideology, personally. But I don’t want to pick a fight before I know what I’m squabbling about. I’ll have to jump in again tomorrow when I read some more.
“Women who like a man will subconsciously sit up straighter, engage in some sort of preening emulation, possibly start dangling a shoe if the cross their legs…
WOW…I have never done ANY of that to signal I liked a guy…possibly sit up straighter…but I’ve always had my hair short and spiked and my spikes were never ruined, so no hair preening, I certainly didn’t rub my face which I guess could count as preening, I never wore shoes that slipped off so dangling a shoe would’ve been impossible, not to mention stupid looking, I’ve never been the type to cross my legs, it’s awfully uncomfortable when you have muscular thighs…and even though I’ve done maybe one of these things subconsciously I’ve never had any shortage of guys approach me based on signals I was sending out, the kind that did approach me though, were not the guys looking for a submissive girl…they knew I was “strong” and they admired it…never regretted the guys that didn’t approach me…I wouldn’t want someone who would expect me to act like that…next thing they’d be asking me to change, and while I’m not opposed to change, if it’s something superficial or you’re worried about what your guy friends will think, then you can go to hell…if it’s something that will be mutually beneficial then yeah… In my experience there is a shortage of guys who are submissive, that want a dominant girl…they all want another sub…I’ve tried the sub position, and it’s not good for me to switch it leads to a lot of resentment…very unhealthy for me to do to someone else and myself.
I’m not sure where I stand on the rad-fem ideology myself… I honestly think I don’t understand it fully…I take issue with their stance on PIV, but I’ve been coming to realize I don’t understand what’s being said…it’s not about condemning women who practice PIV or even enjoy PIV, it’s about letting women know there is a choice that can still be mutually sexually satisfying that doesn’t include PIV. I agree in a lot of aspects, but some leave me scratching my head…it seems it’s a lot about venting..you know what you tell your trusted girlfriends, but wouldn’t dare tell your male friends for fear of hurting their feelings…except well radfems don’t care if they hurt men’s feelings.
*blink*
Sam, the feminists here are the ones who are saying communication should be clear precisely because it’s difficult, and clarity minimizes mistakes. What you’re repeatedly doing is pointing to women who aren’t feminists, who enjoy traditional performative feminine roles, and blaming feminism when those women’s communication is opaque.
So, perhaps you’re not trying to have it both ways, you’re just sitting there snarling “goddamn feminists!” because it’s easier than being angry than the women you want to fuck, even if those women are the ones actually playing head games with you.
Toysoldier – no, the woman acted badly, because her criticism of Sam was a parting shot. Telling somebody ‘by the way, you fucked up’ as you leave is not what we call good-faith behavior, even from a traditionally feminine role perspective.
And I’ll note that it was Sam who took her ‘girl on her own’ comment as a signal.
Sam, I read the link, but had a hard time understanding it. Perhaps I missed something, but I didn’t see any reference to male fears of rape, sexual assault, or beatdowns by female sexual partners (or potential partners). Nor did I see any reference to men losing out on employment opportunities because they were perceived to be too sexual or slutty. I didn’t see any reference to men being treated shabbily by the police when calling for assistance, because “what’s a nice guy like you doing out this late” or such. Nothing in there about how men are afraid to walk by groups of women because of ass-grabbing or disparaging remarks made about their physique. Nothing about the effect on the male psyche of having their intellect disregarded; how men are reduced to their penises. Nothing about the incessant use of the male body to sell objects. Nothing about the hypersexualization of the male body; how men are defined primarily or even solely in terms of their sexuality. Nothing about how men are anxious about having sex because of that “last ten pounds” they have to lose, or whatever. (P.S.: how large are the men’s makeup sections in your drugstores?)
Ahem. Anyway, I encourage you to worry less about “rules”, and recognize “flow” instead. You’re not taking apart a car engine, you’re interacting with human beings. Human beings are complex, changing and don’t come with a mental parts manual. (and I still think you dodged a bullet. granted, people can be contradictory, but when those contradictions center around game-playing with scenes of…the imagery of violence and/or danger, even if not necessarily the reality….just…nahh. That stuff requires a lot more direct communication and boundaries, and unless you want to be on the receiving end of some handcuffs while saying, “but Officer! I thought she just wanted some ‘walling’!!”…)
And I do think you go for that “type” of communication style—the hard-to-read, “playing hard to get”, whatever you want to call it. I mean, I’ve been around the damn block, and have scores of female friends, and yeah—we talk about sex!—and I’ve never heard of the wall fetish thing. When you first mentioned it last year, I thought that must be a one-off, and the woman in question was merely trying to say (however imperfectly), that she didn’t want to have to do all the work as far as demonstrating sexual attraction. But from your insistence on this being a hip, in-crowd thing in L.A. (and maybe it is; what do I know?!), eh.
Look. I’m not interested in any type of man that expects or requires me to play by coyness rules. Sorry, but I can’t be of help to you there. I didn’t come to that through theory, either. It just isn’t who I am, has never been who I am, and the only way I can negotiate around that obstacle is to identify such men early on and avoid them like the bubonic plague. I approach sexual or potentially sexual relationships the same way I approach friendship relationships—by clear, up-front communication and interest. By mutuality. Does that mean I’m cutting myself off from potential relationships? It sure does. I’m cutting myself off from the type of partner that would be inappropriate for me. I don’t experience that as a loss, but a gain. A gain of time, and a loss of trouble.
Frankly, I don’t know what you want. Only you do. You’ve been commenting on these threads and referencing the specific type of clubs and women that you meet there—and there’s nothing wrong with that. But “everything ain’t for everybody.” If you want crystal-clear communication, you’re probably not going to find that in a chance meeting at a dance club. That scene comes with a script attached. How deep you want to get into that script is up to you. Personally—I don’t like it. I can enjoy dancing and having a good time with a group of friends at a club, but that’s about it. When I go to a bar to hear a good band, if I’m by myself I have the Defcon 5 shields up, because it’s such a miserable experience to walk the gauntlet as a woman alone. If I’m with friends, the shields go down to about Defcon 3 or 4 (depending on the place).
So how do I meet anyone? Well, I prefer the non-alcohol soaked meeting places (coffeeshops, the gym, the park, etc.) where I can just be myself without having a “bad girl/good girl” script attached. Where there isn’t any liquid courage or “negging” or any of the other tired, faux, time-wasting, distancing techniques. (yeah, I’m revealing my biases….but really, life is too short!)
My experience is that women (including myself) are overly polite and accommodating to men who show genuine interest, and that we have a well-rounded repertoire of letting the guys we aren’t interested in “down easy”. Being kind and thinking of others’ emotional needs has been drilled into women of just about every background. So…the thought that we have to try even harder to facilitate communication is going to be a non-starter on a feminist blog, of all places. We are already doing that, all the time.
If you aren’t experiencing that, you need a change of venue.
“And I’ll note that it was Sam who took her ‘girl on her own’ comment as a signal.”
White knight syndrome?
The most vicious criticism of men that I’ve heard come from those traditionally feminine women… Things I’ve heard:
“Oh, honey men are never right, but if you let them think they are, you win…”
“You’re supposed to act helpless sweetheart, that way a man feels like he is needed, even though we all know he’s not.”
“Women are really stronger, men are babies, but if you baby them they’ll give you the world.” and my all time favorite:
“Behind every good man is a strong woman.” That line is particularly ambiguous, but to me it denotes a man willing to steal credit for something he didn’t do, or something he is incapable of achieving on his own…and somehow feminists are the enemy.
These are NOT from feminists, these are from the traditionally feminine women I’ve been around most of my life…I would speak up and say, no I don’t believe men are that weak, and was usually met with laughter and told I have a lot to learn…apparently I still do.
I’d agree with this. There’ve been some positive messages here, but I think they’ve been overwhelmed by negative ones too. In the context of “I don’t see how I could ever ethically justify not pre-emptively backing off”, being re-reminded several times about the importance of being willing to back off gives a worldview where pre-emptively backing off is insufficient backing off. It drowns out whatever else there is.
Brian, I genuinely cannot figure out what you’re saying there.
Being willing to take no for an answer doesn’t mean ‘pre-emptive’ anything. It just means being willing to take no for an answer.
“I think I ususally say that *I don’t hear it* not that it doesn’t exist anywhere. The point is that I believe the positive is drowned out by the negative, not that feminists cannot ever say anything positive about a man, male sexuality.”
I think this is true…but I hear a sea of negative comments about women…EVERYDAY…we do believe that women are considered the lesser class right??? we at least agree on that??? If so…how is it women are able to maintain a positive image of themselves with some faltering and stumbling to believe the negative that they too are pelted with everyday? I do believe the positive aspects of female sexuality were still never defined by Sam…For every positive you find of female sexuality we can find a negative to that EXACT positive…still want to talk about double binds?
Mythago,
“What you’re repeatedly doing is pointing to women who aren’t feminists, who enjoy traditional performative feminine roles, and blaming feminism when those women’s communication is opaque.”
No, again. I’m saying, I’d like to hear feminists say something like – look, yeah, sucks that we can’t all be communicating on one level. So, yeah, don’t rape people, but apart from that, (quoting myself from above) “look, be reasonably sure she’s into what you’re going to attempt and back off if she makes it clear that you misunderstood her signalsâ€. That’s not sexual violence, really, no need to feel like a potential rapist in that case, that’s just flirting gone wrong. Sucks, but happends. If that *were* the feminist discourse as I perceive it, I’d say that’s completely reasonable and appropriate and doesn’t lump misreading signals together with sexual violence. But apart from here, I’m not hearing that.
I’m *usually* hearing what Brian said above – “don’t risk making her feel uncomfortable, whatever game she may be playing. Don’t ever take chances with her comfort level, even if you assume that’s what she’s going for. You’ll never positively know, so don’t. [And btw, you wouldn't like her anyway if she does that stuff.]”
Here it is, including acutal legal threats… right from La Lubu’s reply -
“… unless you want to be on the receiving end of some handcuffs while saying, “but Officer! I thought she just wanted some ‘walling’!!â€â€¦)”
Really?
“Move her gently, but firmly, backwards against a wall, not too fast, don’t actually *push* her, then put your left arm next to her head to support you (never two arms, so she can move out if she wants to) while leaning in. Two, three seconds of intense eye contact, not too long, then move in for the kiss.”
In that case, don’t forget to lock up Xena…
“Thanks for clarifying that, Sam. The way you described ‘walling’ the first time, it sounded more violent to me than I think you meant it to sound. I’ve actually done that, except I was the one doing the pushing.”
And, again, you can say, “duh!” or you can accept that it could actually also be a collateral effect of feminist discourse, particularly for the men who are listening… and then maybe wonder how to incorporate that thought within that discourse.
Apparently, just judging from Hugo’s latest post, all Clarisse needed to get that point across to him was a lunch. As impressed as I am by that, and the latest post, I’m also starting to wonder about what that apparently says about my ability to articulate myself in an understandable and compelling fashion…
Mythago – when I’m already pre-emptively taking no for an answer, being reminded several times that it’s important to be willing to take no for an answer strongly suggests that pre-emptively taking no for an answer isn’t back-y off-y enough. You don’t remind people repeated to do something if they’re already doing it well enough. And yet when I was talking about pre-emptively backing off, I was constantly being reminded to be quick to back off.
kristina,
“For every positive you find of female sexuality we can find a negative to that EXACT positive…still want to talk about double binds?”
I am totally with you on female double binds. Tons of them. But different ones. I’m not trying to play oppression olympics or the grass is greener on the other side. I’m trying to get one point about male suffering across, and about how that suffering is *also* linked to feminist discourse, judging from the comments on this thread and others, inadvertendly so. So trying to change that discourse is going to help remove *that* double bind a little instead of exacerbating it.
“Being willing to take no for an answer doesn’t mean ‘pre-emptive’ anything. It just means being willing to take no for an answer.”
The premise (I’m guessing) is that feminism has been so invasive that it has women in fear of their life from men, unjustly…in other words men want us to believe what feminism preaches about the falsely constructed gender roles of men (always wanting sex) but not willing to do the work to show it…because if everyone talked about the positive we could work on the negative…I mean who cares about the women that lose their life believing this guy isn’t going to rape them, when ten minutes later they are proven wrong…(I’m not saying all men rape..I’m saying it’s impossible to tell the difference until it’s happening…which is what feminism asserts)
kristina,
“And I’ll note that it was Sam who took her ‘girl on her own’ comment as a signal.”
White knight syndrome?”
I don’t think you’re trying to add insult to injury? What are you trying to say?
I’m asking if that is what she is insinuating…sorry
Sam, I’m not playing oppression Olympics either, I’m saying if we are in agreement that women are the lesser class, how is it we are able to find something positive about ourselves and not have men preach our positive sexuality to us? The mere desire men have alone for us, does not negate that those same men (some) think of us as lesser creatures.
kristina,
“The mere desire men have alone for us, does not negate that those same men (some) think of us as lesser creatures.”
no, it doesn’t. But not desiring doesn’t do that either – yet that is often what is perceived as the message: If you respect women, you cannot desire them. That’s a different level of discourse, though – that’s the one Hugo actually already addressed with this post, in my opinion.
Does that mean I’m cutting myself off from potential relationships? It sure does. I’m cutting myself off from the type of partner that would be inappropriate for me. I don’t experience that as a loss, but a gain. A gain of time, and a loss of trouble.
If you want a partner who will follow traditional gender scripts, the last group you should ask for advice about relationships are feminists. Feminism is *about* changing gender scripts. If you behave in a feminist manner (respecting women as people) and the women reject you (because they are not feminists and want a Real Man TM) it’s not feminism that has to change. You either have to do without dating women who want you to follow traditional scripts or you have to decide to follow those scripts. For feminism to endorse traditional gender roles or even say “Sure, it never hurts anyone to behave in a stereotypically masculine or feminine manner” would be fundamentally contrary to the purpose of a movement that seeks *change*.
If change isn’t what you want, or if you don’t feel like pursuing non-traditional gender roles since they won’t get you laid, then fine. But to ask feminism to stop criticizing gender roles, problematizing sexual violence, and seeking change in society so that you can get a date? There are plenty of resources out there in the world that can teach you gender scripts and reaffirm that traditional masculinity is the best thing ever. Feminism is one of the very few, small spaces where there is more emphasis on changing society instead of learning its screwed up rules.
Here it is, including acutal legal threats… right from La Lubu’s reply -
“… unless you want to be on the receiving end of some handcuffs while saying, “but Officer! I thought she just wanted some ‘walling’!!â€â€¦)â€
The reason I said that is because my impression of your description of the scene was that you met a woman who wanted to engage in quasi-S/M or rape fantasy stuff, with you (a stranger), without engaging in any of the very-necessary beforehand conversations about who is going to do what, when and where it’s going to happen, how intense it’s going to be, and what the safewords are.
Look Sam, every feminist on here has repeatedly said that the best communication is direct communication. Be up-front and honest, with no game-playing, role-playing or subterfuge. And as soon as we say that, men pop up in the thread saying….”but that won’t get me laid.”
Yes, it will. Perhaps not from the specific woman you would like to get laid by that night, but you know what? There isn’t any magic key to getting laid. There really isn’t. It’s a great big wide world out there, with all kinds of people in it. Some of them are going to say no and some of them are going to say yes. The long-term best success strategy is open, frank, honest communication. It’s a lot harder to screw that up than it is all the intricate dancelike moves of various PUA scripts that the other person may or may not be familiar with, or may or may not enjoy.
“Look Sam, every feminist on here has repeatedly said that the best communication is direct communication. Be up-front and honest, with no game-playing, role-playing or subterfuge. And as soon as we say that, men pop up in the thread saying….â€but that won’t get me laid.†Yes, it will. Perhaps not from the specific woman you would like to get laid ”
“but that won’t get me laid.” That right there…that is the entitlement…it seems as though you are asking for a specific woman to find you attractive to have a relationship with, to get laid by, or whatever it is you are pursuing…it’s so blindingly obvious that it’s smacking you in the face, and I can’t believe some of the feminists here aren’t even arguing that right now..
Again Sam, you miss addressing my main point…some women seem to be fine with not being desired…yeah it bothers them that they are single, but so far I haven’t heard any of my friends who are single saying men should find them attractive, let alone pout when their desired man doesn’t want them back…they usually shrug their shoulders, dust themselves off and try again…maybe it’s a lack of numbers of being turned down…but I doubt it…Ever see the girl who never gets told no, get told no…I believe toysoldier has…it’s not pretty, why is that??? My belief is it breeds entitlement..people who aren’t used to disappointment take it much worse than people who realize it’s a fact of life, a byproduct of the complexities of being human and messy human interactions…is this why men seem to take it worse than women? I mean if men are used to getting what they want, wouldn’t they focus in on an area where they don’t and dwell on it? Is this why some women believe their sexuality has power, and use it to play games with men? I personally find that appalling to use sex as leverage, but maybe if some men didn’t focus on it it couldn’t be used against them? When toysoldier has had a woman call him gay for turning her down do you know what she was doing…she was taking back her “power”…see if she fools herself into thinking the problem is him and not her it avoids cleaning up the mess that is her attitude…sound familiar?
kristina: we seem to be able to accept that fact (by saying she may be the type of girl who plays mind games)…
That is not accepting that your interpretation that the woman is crazy could be wrong; it is an explanation of how she expresses her craziness.
However, the interpretation issue is irrelevant. The issue is that feminist arguments about “taking women at their word†make communication difficult for some men who encounter women who operate under different scripts. Most women do not follow feminist concepts, so it will be a very big problem for those men because they have to choose between violating the feminist arguments they have accepted or being sexually inactive in order to avoid making mistakes.
It seems that men like Sam want a viable workaround for when they encounter situations like the one he described. In other words, they are looking for a third approach. The responses suggest there is no third approach or if there is one, no one wants men to use it. I am not sure how helpful that is.
I’m not saying all men rape..I’m saying it’s impossible to tell the difference until it’s happening…which is what feminism asserts
That is essentially the double bind Sam and Brian are talking about. The above assertion certainly comes across as “pre-emptively taking no for an answer isn’t back-y off-y enough” to a lot of men. Essentially, you are not giving them an out. They have no way to accommodate feminist positions and their own need for positive male sexuality (and one can get no more negative than asserting that male sexuality inherently gives off a rapist-y vibe).
“If you respect women, you cannot desire them.”
No, if you respect women you can not EXPECT them to desire you…that is the message I receive, and yeah it’s a hard pill to swallow… Men can easily expect not to have A-list hollywood actresses desire them, yet most still fantasize about them with no undertones of bitterness for those women not returning those feelings…but the second it’s a woman whom they think is attainable (which to me would denote an intimacy of some sort..after all, you never met the hollywood actress and have no reason to think you would meet her so the fear of intimacy isn’t there)they throw a fit when the feelings aren’t returned. It’s not that men feel women are unattainable…that’s too easy… I feel they fear intimate rejection…that is hard…for anyone.
Particularly for those guys who are listening to feminist arguments about “taking women at their word†who are faced with women who are assuming a different masculinity script. You disagree about the prevalence of such women and such expectations, but I can only tell you about my (and some other guy’s) experience in this respect.
I do definitely disagree with you about the prevalence of “wall girl”; I think that kind of behavior is a rare enough outlier in the general population of women that, if you’re really finding it to be over 50% of the women you deal with in bars and clubs, I suspect there’s either a) something about the venues you’re picking, or b) something about the women you’re picking, that is pulling you into contact with an unusual group.
Having said that, though, I want to clarify what I think is rare.
A) Women who are willing to initiate as well as waiting for initiation, and don’t demand that men take the lead: I think this is most women, some of the time, and that a significant minority of women do this often. It’s probably not a majority of women, unless I define “initiate” to include traditionally feminine styles of initiation (the ones where you may in fact be making the first move with your eyes and positioning or whatever, if some social scientist were studying the interaction, but you only make the more subtle, ambiguous moves, and wait for the guy to do things like actually initiating the first kiss).
B) Women who tend toward more subtle, feminine approaches, and leaving the more overt sexual advances to men, but whose explicit words generally are an indication of what they actually want: Really common, probably the most common set of women.
C) Women who explicitly say one thing, as some sort of test or demonstration of coyness, while meaning another: Rare outliers.
I also think that women in category C may appear more common to men than they actually are, for a couple of reasons:
1) Many, many people, men and women alike, are ambivalent, and the kinds of mixed signals that come out with ambivalence can wind up looking, from the outside, as if someone set up a “no” that she didn’t mean you to take seriously. kristina mentioned getting mixed signals from men. Like kristina, I often found signals from men hard to interpret when I was younger, and I think part of that was me, but another part is that some of the men I was dealing really were ambivalent about how far they actually wanted sexual or romantic attention from me, rather than clear one way or the other what they wanted.
2) Often people just aren’t very clear about communicating, or about reading other people’s communications.
This is why I agreed with you, earlier in the thread, that physically backing off while maintaining a playful verbal approach might be a good way of responding to what seems like a “no” that you’re not sure is serious. (I’m less convinced than you that straightforwardly asking about such things pours cold water on the proceeding, but there are ways to clarify that keep things playful that also work.) It’s reasonable to be concerned that you may lose opportunities if you back off all the way to China every time you see a possible rebuff; you might be misreading how strong that rebuff actually is. (And yes, women who are both playing a more passive, feminine role and ambivalent may send out “slow down” messages while still expecting you to lead, difficult of a bind though that puts you in; in that case, the desired behavior is “lead, but do so a little more slowly.” I wouldn’t expect those women to deliver parting shots about how you should have just overridden their “slow down” messages, though.) But I think that framing the situation as clarifying, and dealing with ambivalence and ambiguity, is less likely to lead to pressure tactics than framing the situation as showing your alphaness to women who are playing coy to get you to show how dominant you are.
On the other hand, “wall girl,” as described, actually does sound like someone in category C, and I’m with mythago in thinking that the “parting shot” nature of her words, and what she was saying, mean that she was behaving badly; however nice she might be in other ways, this woman really does sound like a bullet dodged.
As for being “taken,” for me, personally, my most satisfying experience of being “taken” came when I was most sexually aggressive and explicit in saying what I wanted, so the whole “take me but it will ruin the encounter if I have to tell you what I want” approach is alien to me.
Well, it’s certainly convenient to perceive the message that way, if your goal is to cling to the traditional battle-of-the-sexes model of interaction and you don’t want to hear any feminist claptrap; simply pretend that it’s impossible to have a healthy, male sexuality and treat women respectfully.
And you and Brian have, over and over again, brushed aside any positive advice given and fixated on “you guys keeping saying don’t rape and that’s not helping!”. You keep demanding that feminists provide you with simple, one-size-fits all advice that can be applied in every situation to every woman, and when the answer is that such advice doesn’t exist, you complain that the advice is too vague. When you get specific tips you complain that some of them are negative or not universal.
Here’s some advice: People are complicated, and all the wishing in the world is not going to turn human behavior (male or female) into a simple engineering problem to be solved.
“you guys keeping saying don’t rape and that’s not helping!â€
You know…going back to wall girl…it was good that Sam took her at her word…yeah being verbally playful would’ve cleared up the situation, but really…if the rhetoric of don’t rape hadn’t been in place what may have played out? Would wall girl enjoy it, do we really know that? Does wall girl have any inkling as to what she does enjoy (I find that hard to imagine seeing as she doesn’t have set boundaries that are clearly marked)? Would it have stopped at kissing, if the first message received was a mixed message would subsequent no’s have any effect if it were to progress from kissing? What if Sam hadn’t backed off…would it have played out as nicely as Brian and Sam make it out to be…really???
And as soon as we say that, men pop up in the thread saying….â€but that won’t get me laid.â€
I don’t think anyone’s said that. It seems that Sam and I are the villains of this piece, and we’ve both been irritating braggarts trying to make the point that when we engage we’re both pretty successful. Men’re popping up more or less to say “I’m having trouble reconcilling this with my understanding of harassment.”
There’s sort of a usual counter to men asking too much about the details of the line between harassment/not harassment (or rape/not rape, whatnot) that if you’re anywhere near the line, you should err on the side of caution. And yet everything’s plausibly near the line, certainly in the unknown situation, and everybody’s suggest it’s unthinkably bizarre that I’m saying “It looks like I should always err on the side of caution.” This I don’t get.
Partly, there’s some complaints that Sam and I are here to complain about the feminist discourse/ethics. I’m not, and I don’t think Sam is. We’re trying to participate in the discourse, apply the ethics to our own lives. I want a feminist/feminist-compatible ethic. Yeah, it seems I’m not good at applying the theory. Obviously I’m not the brightest student in the class. What can I say?
The men asking for advice from you are not men clinging to traditional models of interaction. They agree with feminists. They are simply asking for a positive discourse about male sexuality and a way to navigate their interactions with women that does not require them to be sexless or think of themselves as predators. Why take swats at them for asking reasonable questions? As for them pretending that it is impossible to have a healthy male sexuality and treat women respectfully, again, they are telling you that is how they are made to feel. Why take swats at them for that? Why not take them at their word and find a way to modify the discourse to prevent any men from feeling that way?
Mythago,
“Well, it’s certainly convenient to perceive the message that way, if your goal is to cling to the traditional battle-of-the-sexes model of interaction and you don’t want to hear any feminist claptrap; simply pretend that it’s impossible to have a healthy, male sexuality and treat women respectfully.”
why do we seem to be talking past each other. I *DO DO DO* believe that’s possible. Why do you think I’m here? It’s certainly convenient to imply that I want to misunderstand if you want to cling to the traditional battle-of-the-sexes model of communication (much more than interaction). Why is it so hard to believe that a message that you perceive as positive and liberating can be perceived as partly violent and unfair by others? You don’t think that message can be improved to reduce collateral damage without losing impact. If so, we *are* in a traditional battle-of-the-sexes model, however sad that may be.
kristina,
“Would wall girl enjoy it, do we really know that? Does wall girl have any inkling as to what she does enjoy (I find that hard to imagine seeing as she doesn’t have set boundaries that are clearly marked)? Would it have stopped at kissing, if the first message received was a mixed message would subsequent no’s have any effect if it were to progress from kissing? What if Sam hadn’t backed off…would it have played out as nicely as Brian and Sam make it out to be…really???”
White knight *and* rapist? At the same time? Wow. Thanks. I think you’re making my point about the double binds in feminist discourse better I can.
“simply pretend that it’s impossible to have a healthy, male sexuality and treat women respectfully”
Sam, mythago is implying that your assertion of “yet that is often what is perceived as the message: If you respect women, you cannot desire them” is…wrong? misinterpreted? This is talking past each other and I’m not sure where it’s happening…I really don’t see anyone directly saying men who respect women don’t desire them…I see a lot of people saying men who respect women can accept that some women may not return that desire…So either you’re being intellectually dishonest, or you’re assuming women are being intellectually dishonest and aren’t saying what they really mean to say…which fits into the model you’ve presented here in your arguments. It’s like you just expect women to come out and say the only good penis is a soft one, and any woman who isn’t directly saying that isn’t communicating effectively. Even clear and concise communication is hard to pick up for some of the commentators here, which would lead me to believe the ones having trouble picking up the clear and concise communication are expecting to hear ONE thing, and when they don’t they complain that the other party isn’t communicating effectively, when it’s relatively obvious that the bias is showing…
“Why is it so hard to believe that a message that you perceive as positive and liberating can be perceived as partly violent and unfair by others?”
It’s not hard to believe at all…it’s been pointed out effectively by mythago and lalabulu…we can’t change your perception…that much is clear..but what sways perception? I’d say bias..as in those things you don’t want to see or can’t see…so while mythago and lalabulu can effectively see what you’re saying and are trying to communicate that without giving up their perception, you seem to want to assert that their perception…or life experiences(which influences bias) need to be changed in order to effectively suit your mode of communication which is your life experience…almost implying that your life experiences are more important….There must be a middle ground somewhere, but I’m not sure if we’ll ever get there.
@metamanda
Oh! and… Maybe this is not something you wanna try and that’s cool, but I’ve noticed that on online dating services like OKCupid people seem more inclined to be explicit and honest about what they’re looking for before ever meeting, and that kind of gets around the double-bind everyone’s talking about here.
If who people like to date in terms of race on OKCupid is any indication, I’d have to say no. http://www.racialicious.com/2009/10/09/of-okcupid-and-denials-of-racism/
@La Lubu
They go out of their way to make sure the women they are trying to attract won’t think of them as thugs. How do they do that? Well, they smile a lot. They soften their voices. Big guys tend to hunker down while sitting, so they are more on the eye level of the woman they’re talking to. Lots of eye contact.
Most of the “big guys” I know don’t have any problems getting noticed, so I’m not sure that this will work for anyone other than big guys. Most environments aren’t the sterile “one man one woman” style encounters, they’re more of a mixed type environment where there’s groups of people interacting with each other, and there are guys will try to talk over you/overshadow your presence/etc. Which has nothing to do with women, but it needs to be defended against.
None of which means that nonthreatening is not good. I’m not sure it’s _enough_.
@mythago
a simple engineering problem to be solved.
Er, as an engineer I’m a little offended at the implication that engineering problems are simple. Most design type decisions especially in the real world are rather complicated and don’t have a single solution.
Anyways, the basic premise I think is easy enough to understand – in order for yes to mean anything, a no has to mean something as well. You don’t get to override nos because you don’t like it and still have the yeses mean anything. And that _counts for outside parties as well as the speaker_. If you say no when you actually mean yes, are you surprised when people do take you at your word?
“Obviously I’m not the brightest student in the class. What can I say?”
It has nothing to do with smarts…don’t be silly…nobody has attacked your intelligence why would you assume such? It’s easier to get annoyed with an intelligent conversation than some moron you can dismiss as an idiot. That comment alone leads me to think: 1) you don’t have much of a self esteem 2) You think women don’t see you as intelligent…or perhaps feminist women more specifically. 3) (which I doubt…but you never know) It’s a silencing tactic…attack the woman’s character by saying she’s implying you aren’t intelligent, or is secretly ruthlessly pointing it out and mocking you…
“If you say no when you actually mean yes, are you surprised when people do take you at your word?”
This comment made me realize something that could explain the games some women play…A commenter before said that there was a guy that expressed interest in her but she knew up front he only wanted a physical relationship and it wasn’t what was right for her at the time, so she said no…but when it became clear that her no meant no, she briefly considered yes…so while she absolutely meant no (and didn’t pursue her yes later)she still felt that change of heart, but realized it would be best if she didn’t express it…going on this line of thinking…if all men were able to gracefully accept no, and stick it out…more women would realize their no means no and might be more inclined at the next encounter to say yes…this is what feminism preaches…
“White knight *and* rapist? At the same time? Wow. Thanks. I think you’re making my point about the double binds in feminist discourse better I can.”
OMG…first the white knight thing was what I was asking mythago if that was what she was implying…and I never implied rapist, or didn’t mean to…I was genuinely asking if we could assume that had you not had the discourse of backing off when messages were mixed if it would turn out the way you want it to…like Hugo had made in a previous post about playing out the fantasy all the way through…you aren’t playing the whole scenario through…it is indeed a fantasy that you are asserting Sam..one that you assume without taking feminist discourse to heart that you would be free to effectively communicate with women you desire in a sexual manner… What if’s are important, and if you really can’t see that…then that is NOT my problem.
They are simply asking for a positive discourse about male sexuality and a way to navigate their interactions with women that does not require them to be sexless or think of themselves as predators.
But in the meantime, they are attributing their perception of sexlessness-as-a-requirement, to feminism, a movement that holds a microscopic fraction of the power that say, right-wing Christianity does in the United States. Feminism is a hell of a lot more sex-positive than right-wing Christianity….yet we catch all the blame while the larger cultural tropes are whistling Dixie? Uhh uh. Not having it.
Every.single.feminist here has advocated honest, open, non-game-playing communication, while admitting that such communication is not going to be effective when communicating with people who really prefer the game playing. We think of that as a feature, not a bug—it allows us to weed out the game-players, who are mostly people who are anti-feminist and thus inappropriate.
So at the risk of repeating myself, it seems like many of the men present on this thread are looking for advice from feminists on how to successfully communicate sexual interest to both feminists and non-feminists (some of whom are actively hostile to feminism). It doesn’t work that way. I can tell you how to maximize your success in communicating sexual interest to feminist women; but I can’t guarantee that method will be successful with every feminist woman (each of whom has her own preferences), nor can I guarantee that open, frank communication is going to be effective for (mainly nonfeminist) women who prefer a gender-essentialist script.
We’re talking past eaach other. As a feminist woman, I am only interested in being involved (sexually or otherwise) with pro-feminist men. Sam and Brian seem comfortable choosing either feminist or non-feminist women. So my advice is designed for weeding out the “problem children”, while neither Sam nor Brian seem to consider nonfeminists as “problem children”—and why would they? As men, they benefit either way. Nonfeminists aren’t a disaster for them as they are for feminist women.
That “open, honest communication” is the crux of the matter in the “nice guy (TM)” trope—what gives someone that title is the unwillingness to communicate honestly about what type of relationship he wants, while expecting the woman to either (a)be a mind-reader, or (b)date him even if she doesn’t feel sexual attraction, because she should feel sexual attraction (in his eyes).
“Say what you mean, and mean what you say.” It is that simple.
By the way Sam…that post you are saying I’m implying you are a rapist…my main thought when writing that was how it wouldn’t necessarily be your fault if you didn’t take her no’s as no…hence the emphasis on mixed signals, not MISREAD signals…I would honestly feel bad if something had happened to you because one woman can’t communicate in a clear and precise manner and almost inevitably would wish to blame it on you if something were to go wrong.
Kristina – People don’t just make individual statements without context that can’t be joined with each other. That someone hasn’t said something explicitly and literally doesn’t mean it isn’t part of what they’re saying. It’s not intellectually dishonest to suggest things go together in certain ways, that they have contexts that influences what they mean, etc.
Beyond that, placing blame on not understanding on myself is a reconciliation tactic. I’m offering to take the blame for misunderstanding so that we can move on towards understanding, rather than sniping back and forth. Beyond that, none of those really apply to me. I think of myself as pretty average and other people think of me as pretty smart. That it doesn’t translate into everything I try to understand isn’t surprising; I usually like equations and diagrammes.
Brian…that is exactly my point…it doesn’t need to be said explicitly, but when it isn’t it leaves it open to interpretation based on biases and perception…
I was explicitly stating my perceptions on the matter, not as an attack but as encouragement to set my perceptions straight..and I will have to take you on your word as we have established my perceptions and you have added yours to the mix..so thank you. I’m not trying to snip back and forth…but I’m honestly feeling like I’m not being heard…yes I understand how feminist discourse can be perceived as harmful to men…but as a feminist that is NOT the message I’m trying to get across…it’s hard to bridge the gap because as a feminist while I’m trying to tell women you need to communicate effectively, there are women out there who have communicated effectively and have been rather unlucky in who was on the receiving end of those no’s, and have suffered physical and emotional consequences…how can I be sympathetic to women who have communicated effectively, much to the chagrin of their abusive partners, and still be able to tell men who aren’t abusive that they shouldn’t have to suffer the consequences of men who are? Women need to be able to say no, and men who aren’t abusive need to hear yes…I understand that..but really there is no reliable way of determining who is and isn’t abusive until abuse happens….Most abusive relationships have honeymoon periods, the beginning of an abusive relationship is usually very sweet and loving, and it fools the woman even after the first sign of abuse that this is just a one time deal…later it forms into her accepting it is her fault that he did this to her…men can be in abusive relationships too, mostly mental abuse, but also physical…I wouldn’t dare tell men that have been in an abusive relationship that they need to accept that there are women out there who aren’t abusive…they have earned the right to their suspicion and if they wish to tell even the most caring woman no, they have that right, and they sure damn well earned it.
“And yet everything’s plausibly near the line”
No one agrees with this. Everyone says that this is not true. Brian seems to have a complete lack of interest in believing this or even in engaging in conversation about this. Not everything is plausibly near the line.
And if you interpret “don’t rape or threaten!” as = “everything is near the line” even though the next adjasent comment says “not everything is near the line!”… I don’t think anyone can help you.
kristina,
“What if’s are important, and if you really can’t see that…then that is NOT my problem.”
but the whole point is that Brian and *everyone* here agrees, in my opinion, that “what ifs” are important. See, I am (logically) a potential rapist. Just like you are. What if. Sure that’s an important consideration. If I/we didn’t think it were, why would we be talking about how it’s also a limiting discourse, because in that *negative what if* discouse there’s no built-in contingencies that *allow* moving forward, this “negative what if” discourse is the “always better to back off” discourse Brian has mentioned over and over.
Often opportunities outweigh the risks associated. And the opportunity aspect is not given appropriate thought in the negative what if discourse. In fact, that’s explicitly denying a positive what if discourse. What if she said, cool you managed to pass my test, and instead of later discovering more incompatibilities, we had discovered a soulmate. What if?
“By the way Sam…that post you are saying I’m implying you are a rapist…my main thought when writing that was how it wouldn’t necessarily be your fault if you didn’t take her no’s as no…hence the emphasis on mixed signals, not MISREAD signals…I would honestly feel bad if something had happened to you because one woman can’t communicate in a clear and precise manner and almost inevitably would wish to blame it on you if something were to go wrong.”
But really, “going wrong” implies one of two things. It’s either sexual violence (rape being its most extreme form) or it’s simply awkward when it turns out there was a misunderstanding. So what could have happened to me if you agree that moving in and kissing her would not have been sexual violence. You think she would have made something up? That’s usually the kind of insinuation that gets guys the patriarch of the month or worse badge in such threads. Sure she may have dreamed up something. Like every woman can, and, apparently, few women do.
Would I have risked kissing her absent the feminist narrative. Not sure, of course, but possible. Check my reply to Lynn above for the elaborate techniques I had to learn *because* I’m too scared to risk making her uncomfortable at that moment. Because I almost always value the *negative what if* as more important than the *positive what if*, even if that *negative* only is about possibly making her uncomfotable, because there is a feeling – and *that* feeling is reinforced by feminist discourse – that making a woman uncomfortable in any way linked remotely to sexuality equals sexual violence.
I do understand that some feminists here and elsewhere say “that’s not what we mean, you should listen more carefully” but I’m saying I do listen and that’s what I hear in most cases, just like you mention the negative, not the positive what if. I can see the importance of the negative what if. But I’m hoping you can also see the importance of the positive one – and why it needs emphasizing.
Victoria,
“Not everything is plausibly near the line.”
no, it’s not. But the belief that it is seems to be a consequence of the negative What If discourse (like the term). Particularly since the positive What If is given, if that, as a version of “duh!”. This thread has been more openly acknowledging that, but still somewhat hesitantly, and this thread is *far* more civil and reasonable from the average feminist discussion about male sexuality. Just look at the Pandagon reaction to Clarisse Thorn’s Creep article.
Victoria…could you clarify what you mean by the adjacent comment that says not everything is near the line..what comment was that? If this is a problem on perception like I’m thinking it is…then this isn’t all that useful…
I think Brian is going under the premise that feminists think or are partly responsible for the idea that male sexuality is dangerous in the perception of men…meaning men perceive feminists to say they are all potential rapists…which yes is said…but the way I perceive it is to err on the side of caution (being a woman) and for men to be accepting that women must err on the side of caution and to have respect for that situation by not being pushy and essentially saying..”but I’m not like that.” when in a woman’s reality women really don’t have a reliable way of telling who is and isn’t a rapist…even a lot of rapists don’t consider themselves rapists, so it’s not like they’ll lay the plans of the evening out as we’re going to have coffee then I’m going to rape you…or even saying we’re having sex whether you like it or not…rape just happens guys…unless the guy is a sociopath he doesn’t plan to rape, even though he may plan a sexual encounter, or hope for one…sometimes it’s the guy’s perception that is off in the heat of the moment, and sometimes it’s the girl not communicating at all, sometimes it’s the girl avoiding a conflict by just doing it, sometimes it’s misread signals based on a bias that some men hold based on the way a woman is dressed, acts, talks, looks…so in order to actually make it easier for men women are told to say no if that’s what they mean and that they have a right to say no and have their no taken seriously…then we have women who gunk up the gears by playing traditional feminine roles…most of which men are attracted to, even if they believe in equality, but equality is not found in those traditional roles..equality is not saying no don’t rape me, but be sure you can read my mind so you don’t rape me, then we have men expressing frustration that some women want to play games and some women don’t…but the type they seem most attracted to are ones that do play games…I honestly can’t help who you are attracted to, and I guess you can’t either…although for me I know I’m instantly turned off by someone who doesn’t say what they mean, no matter how “hot”. Not all women are feminists and honestly it’s saddening because it has caused a riff in communication…If the answer is to abolish crappy communication then those traditional feminine gender roles need to be adjusted..not feminist discourse…I never was into playing games…but I have to suffer and see men suffer because traditionally feminine females prefer to play games, and men prefer them because they tend to appeal to men physically….*sigh*
I am shocked, SHOCKED to learn you are an engineer, Sam.
But as a liberal arts major, I should note that you not only appear to have confused ‘imply’ and ‘infer’, but you don’t seem to understand the function of adjectives here. The phrase “a simple engineering problem” means that the problem is both simple AND related to engineering; not that engineering problems, as a whole, are all simple.
In any case, you’re dodging the issue: people are complicated, and it’s more than a little silly to demand on the one hand that feminists give you advice more specific than ‘be a mensch’, and on the other hand that a lengthy, covers-all-likely-possibilities list is both inaccurate and too unwieldy to be realistic.
Which is precisely what you might have said to Wall Girl, who gave you ‘no’ signals and then pouted that you didn’t read her mind and assume a ‘yes’.
The nice thing about this problem is that it largely solves itself. Somebody who says “no” and has others treat that as “no” will either have to learn to say what they want, or will find out the unfortunate way that the majority of the people who ignore “no” aren’t doing so to gracefully cater to your erotic preferences.
Oh, and missed this:
Why is it so hard to believe that a message that you perceive as positive and liberating can be perceived as partly violent and unfair by others?
What are you talking about? That’s not hard to believe at all. You don’t spend very much time as a feminist without learning that there are plenty of people so wedded to patriarchy that they perceive the slightest criticism of traditional sex roles as “Hi, I want to cut your balls off and turn every human being on the planet into androgynes.” It’s also not hard at all to believe that there are people who (for whatever reason) hear only certain parts of what you’re saying and ignore the rest, like the dog in the Far Side cartoon – such that you can present a bullet-point list of ‘ways to meet women’ and the person you’re talking to will seize on the one that says ‘take no for an answer’ to wail that they already DO that and you’re NOT HELPING THEM GET LAID WTF DUDE.
Not everything is plausibly near the line.
This is entirely the result of how you’re gauging “near”. Which’ll depend, mostly, on how certain you’re able to be about where you are. (And really, I guess, your tolerance for accidentally assaulting someone.) Even if we have the same landscape, and the same line (neither of which is assured, obviously), there’s no reason we should automatically agree on what’s “near”.
Beyond that, I’m not sure why Kristina wants to put Sam and I in the “attracted to traditionally feminine women” bin (and I don’t think she’s been the only one.) Yes, behaviourally I’m interested in a wider group than “Makes unsolicted first moves towards me” (since extrapolating from the current rate, that’ll be a grand total of zero women between now and my life expectancy of ~80) but “reasonably straightforward” isn’t “flawlessly straightforward”. Nevermind guessing at what’s physically appealing.
Mythago,
JAY is an engineer. I am an economist, which is likely to shock you even more, I suppose. Anyway, I guess, it wasn’t me who mixed things up here
“But really, “going wrong†implies one of two things. It’s either sexual violence (rape being its most extreme form) or it’s simply awkward when it turns out there was a misunderstanding. So what could have happened to me if you agree that moving in and kissing her would not have been sexual violence. You think she would have made something up?”
I wouldn’t say that she would’ve made something up…I’m saying what if it didn’t stop at kissing and moving along the continuum of the possibility of misreading or mis-communication lead to what one party would think is consensual sex, while the other doesn’t. Which is why enthusiastic consent is important..her yes to that kiss may not mean yes to anything else, even if it is her that takes the step past the kissing…she may go past kissing and ideally it would still be consensual to you, but that does not mean she will consent to sex later down the line…as a woman I’ve felt trapped if I ever initiated anything past a kiss (I wouldn’t dare call rape unless I explicitly said no…but I’m a direct communicator not the case of wall girl it seems)
“I do understand that some feminists here and elsewhere say “that’s not what we mean, you should listen more carefullyâ€
I never said listen more carefully..I’m sure there are women out there who have, but as someone who tries to understand even feminist discourse at times I find that approach very unhelpful. I often try to clear up what I mean, and maybe you missed my posts on it, or maybe I completely missed your point at times…
“What if she said, cool you managed to pass my test, and instead of later discovering more incompatibilities, we had discovered a soulmate. What if?”
I think that’s fantasizing at best…there is no ONE test with women who like to test men…you will always be tested, and always be frustrated…I’ve lived with and observed women like that all my life and was completely baffled by the men who chose to stay with them, and the women’s distressing behavior…
I guess it’s possible that you wouldn’t discover more incompatibilities but highly unlikely…it’s not a test but a pattern of communication, and a poor one at that…Most of these women like drama, and love to keep a man guessing…mainly because they don’t want the traditional male role to get bored, and leave…then are baffled when the guy who can’t take anymore leaves because he could no longer stand the games…he fell in love, she was still playing games…the games is to avoid intimacy yeah sure you can get physically intimate, but emotional intimacy will scare off a macho guy who hasn’t fallen in love with you, and not saying what you mean and being ambiguous means you aren’t the problem because it can swing either way, and many more people would rather blame someone else than themselves.
Indeed, I scrolled a little too fast for my own good there.
But I don’t think that changes the point, which the xkcd makes in a much funnier way than I did (and let’s face it, engineers are NOT the only ones who fall prey to this fallacy). People are complicated. Women are people. Asking for a one-size-fits-all solution that fits on a bumper sticker is at best unrealistic, and at worst a rhetorical ploy: aha, feminists, all you can tell me is don’t be a rapist so you’re all wrongity wrong wrong!
“Beyond that, I’m not sure why Kristina wants to put Sam and I in the “attracted to traditionally feminine women†bin (and I don’t think she’s been the only one.) Yes, behaviourally I’m interested in a wider group than “Makes unsolicted first moves towards me†(since extrapolating from the current rate, that’ll be a grand total of zero women between now and my life expectancy of ~80) but “reasonably straightforward†isn’t “flawlessly straightforwardâ€. Nevermind guessing at what’s physically appealing.”
If you are attracted to women who you tend to have to chase after…which I will agree is the majority of women, and just so happens to overlap nicely with women who aren’t feminists…as for physically appealing I’m gesturing more towards posture than physical attributes…I’m sure that varies, as it varies for me what I find physically appealing… as for making unsolicited moves…I don’t know if I’ve ever really even done that…I’ve usually gone off of eye contact that a guy has given me before I approach…so it stands to reason that you are not getting hit on because you never even make eye contact with those women…meaning you probably don’t find them physically attractive, or at least not to the point that you would notice them in a crowd of traditionally feminine women…so yeah when we assert that there are women out there that make the approach and guys say there aren’t…it isn’t that there aren’t women that approach, it’s that men don’t notice those women that are would be initiators to make the initial “eye contact with a smile”…maybe this is why outgoing guys tend to get approached by women…they make eye contact with everyone…I have approached maybe one guy in my lifetime without any signals he was interested, but it started with hi, what’s your name…and not hey want to go out sometime? He wasn’t an outgoing guy either..he was very shy and baffled at why I would be interested in him…in the end that relationship didn’t work out…I didn’t feel like it was an equal partnership…it ended amicably, and with tears…
On the other side, the guys I used to find the most irritating are the ones who approached me without prior eye contact…If I didn’t see you I don’t want you to silently swoop in, pop up in my face and say HI!…yeah I’ve had that happen..I’d be minding my own business at work, you know doing my job..and guys would silently approach, get right behind me, then ask very loudly where they would find some item..I mean they barely gave me enough room to turn around without me coming awfully close to brushing up against them…Then I’ve had other guys who would ask me where something is…from a decent arm’s length, and make conversation on the way to the item…then at the end of the conversation ask me for my phone number.
mythago,
you do realize that the cartoon makes my point equally well?
I don’t know if I’m really, completely utterly unable to get my point across or if our interpretation schemes are so fundamentally different that communication is bound to fail. I’m not asking for a one-size-fits-all solution, I’m asking for a feminist acceptance (beyond this thread…) of the fact that initiation implies the possibility of errors however well planned and well intentioned. I’m asking for a feminist recognition that, say, attempting a kiss (and similar activity) based on reasonable assumptions of mutual interest is not sexual violence. It starts being harrassment if a “no” after the initiation is not accepted, but everything before the no is a misunderstanding. Initiation logically requires the possibility of a “no”. And the point for me is that I am – and I think Brian as well – living with the perception that if something occurred that made a woman say “no” to a physical advance, that advance *was already sexually violent”.
Am I making myself clearer? I’m not sure anymore. I’m trying, and I appreciate that you are, too, but I’m not sure anymore that I can get my point across…
kristina,
“I never said listen more carefully…”
Well, that’s basically what I’m hearing from all the female commenters here: “Your perception is your perception, but it’s not what we’re saying. You need to listen more carefully, Feminism doesn’t tell you to always back off, even though you may hear that.”
Er, feminists are the ones who argue that women should be equally free to initiate and that ‘who does what’ should not be linked to gender, so…I’m not sure why you are convinced that feminists are ready to pounce on you for well-intentioned mistakes.
I’m also genuinely not following how you’re inferring that ‘no’ means ‘you probably did something bad’.
As for a kiss, remember we weren’t talking about a kiss based on a reasonable assumption of mutual interest; we were talking about your offering Wall Girl as an example of what women really want, where she’s really just an example of somebody behaving unreasonably. Your assumption that she didn’t want you to throw your manly weight around and kiss her was reasonable. Her actions in telling you, in essence, that you should have a) read her mind or b) assumed that since was she was female she was so obviously into being dominated, were unreasonable.
“Well, that’s basically what I’m hearing from all the female commenters here: “Your perception is your perception, but it’s not what we’re saying. You need to listen more carefully, Feminism doesn’t tell you to always back off, even though you may hear that.—
I guess that leaves us at that then…I know you agree that perceptions are different on your side of the fence and on my side of the fence…
What if I was to say, as a woman that a man can’t be happy unless he’s in a relationship with a woman…would that not be considered sexist?
What I’m hearing when some of you are speaking is that men can’t be happy unless they have a relationship with a woman. (I know this isn’t the main issue you’re trying to address, but I also believe the main issue isn’t the cause of the confusion…but hey I could be wrong)
I’m not denying that for some people single life is not preferable but to imply that one can’t be happy at all without another is sexist no matter which party is saying it.
Yes, I agree with this, though I think I extend it to nonphysical advances coupled to nonviolent harassment as well. Maybe you haven’t.
“I’m asking for a feminist recognition that, say, attempting a kiss (and similar activity) based on reasonable assumptions of mutual interest is not sexual violence.”
If we can’t even communicate the exact same points in the same interpretation schemes as you asserted above…then how the hell would we decide what a reasonable assumption of mutual interest is? Our interpretations are based on assumptions…so if there is any conflict in interpretation it should follow that there would be conflict in assumptions…it’s been illustrated rather well throughout this long conversation….if our assumptions don’t line up it would be awfully difficult to decide if anything was mutual…obviously until after the fact…and maybe that’s what you’re getting at…but if sex isn’t mutual until after the fact because of the screwed up communication, then what? One party is left clueless as to why the other party didn’t communicate while the other party thought they were saying no all along…
“living with the perception that if something occurred that made a woman say “no†to a physical advance, that advance *was already sexually violentâ€.”
I’m assuming that this is what you hear when feminists say whatever it is you are referring to…so…in order to make it easier for most men to understand, we are to say something along the lines of what?
the only thing I can think of goes like this:
ok…I’m drawing a blank…I have no idea what a feminist article would look like that would articulate men’s sexuality in a positive light. I can’t even fathom it…but is that because feminists don’t view men’s sexuality as positive…again… I find that leading more to the idea that feminists can’t have relationships with men…why would a woman who sees no value in a man’s sexual energy want anything to do with him? I know you aren’t implying that…but really, help me out here…what would a positive discourse look like…what would make men less confused, or feel desired, or not be in fear of accidentally crossing the line into sexual violence? I can’t come up with the solutions because I have no idea what it’s like to think I’m a possible predator, or what I would want to hear if I was assumed to be one…
Sam, wrt your 2:05 pm comment, attempting to initiate a kiss without asking for AND being granted permission is sexually pushy. Many consider that a type of assault. Some might even press charges.
I’m a strapping lass, so when a guy tries that on me, I simply spread the palm of my hand across his chin and mouth, wrap my fingers around the top of his nose, and give him a forceful shove with a stern “BACK OFF.” But this act is horribly intimidating to smaller women who can’t fight back. And technically it’s illegal, at least where I am.
ANY unwanted physical contact is invasive, but touching any part of a woman’s body that would be covered by a modest tankini swimsuit is particularly demeaning. If you don’t want to get arrested or beat up, stick to light touches from the elbows down to the fingertips. ALWAYS ask if you want to touch her anywhere else.
The ONLY safe places to kiss a woman without permission are her hands and (sometimes) her feet. That way you don’t have to worry about “misunderstandings”.
kristina,
I’m too busy for a more detailed reply right now, but – at least mental – stickers may be a start… I walk around with one that says “Stop Slutshaming” in clubs and you wear one that says “Kissing is not rape” when you’re commenting in the feminist blogosphere…
? Deal?
Again, more later or tomorrow…
Brian – you really seem to have decided on the passive-aggressive strategy here. If women won’t agree that you can try whatever you want, whenever you wan’t, why then, you won’t ever even TRY anything. See how you like it THEN, confusing, perfidious females!
It’s been explained, over and over again, that there’s nothing wrong with a socially-appropriate* approach coupled with acceptance if the approach is rejected. For whatever reason, you’re too angry to hear that.
*and by ‘socially appropriate’ I mean that there is such a thing as context. “Would you like to go get a drink?” is perfectly appropriate at a dance bar when said to a woman you just finished dancing with; not so appropriate when said to the Comcast technician who’s installing your cable box.
Xena,
arrgh. I really don’t have time – and now that?
Are we back to square one? You say -
“Thanks for clarifying that, Sam. The way you described ‘walling’ the first time, it sounded more violent to me than I think you meant it to sound. I’ve actually done that, except I was the one doing the pushing.”
so, you think you should be sued for that?
“attempting to initiate a kiss without asking for AND being granted permission is sexually pushy. Many consider that a type of assault. Some might even press charges.”
So, the woman who attempted to kiss me last Sunday was in fact sexually assaulting me? Had I not reciprocated, I should have sued her instead of being nice to someone who has been rejected? I’m not saying that it’s not harassment if you walk down a street and kiss a stranger. But if you’ve spent half an hour with someone and you’ve been dancing closely, moving in for a kiss is *pushy*? And what is the line between pushy and initiation? The response, apparently.
As for asking directly, I’ll just link to my comment from above with respect to this matter -
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2010/10/21/of-the-validation-of-desire-and-the-graceful-acceptance-of-rejection-on-male-wanting/#comment-563268
I have initiated the kiss with exactly *ONE* woman in my life. It’s just something I cannot seem to do because of the fear of reading her wrong. I may even consider pressing charges. I guess that’s good to know..
I’ve practiced “walling” with my closest female friend (and seriously, practicing stuff like that as a phd student makes you sort of feel like you’re actually the dumbest person on the planet) yet I’ve always “forced” women to do to me (initiate the kiss) what you tell me I should not do to them because merely assuming mutual interest is not sufficient, and positive knowledge usually isn’t available until *after the initiation*..
So, yeah, basically, what you’re saying is that attempting to express emotions with a kiss is an interpersonal risk that may well be also a legal one. Sexually pushy, or sexual assault. Isn’t that what you’re saying? Again, I’m not talking about about sticking my tongue into random strangers mouths, but about a reasonable assumption of mutuality – absent positive knowledge.
“Kissing is not rape.”
Yeah I’d be happy to say that on feminist blogospheres…but I think I’d be met with some obvious wtf?!?! moments. If I see someone on a feminist blogosphere implying that kissing = rape, then absolutely I would think it’s totally appropriate to say…but to say that in a conversation about sexual assault would be very demeaning to a victim of sexual assault by basically implying that all the rapist did was kiss her…see where the problems arise?
I’ve honestly never seen one post that equates kissing to rape…I will wait until you elaborate though before I go assuming anything.
I’m asking for a feminist recognition that, say, attempting a kiss (and similar activity) based on reasonable assumptions of mutual interest is not sexual violence.
Yes.
but everything before the no is a misunderstanding.
No.
The first statement is perfectly reasonable the second is inaccurate, do you not see the difference between the two?
The seCond does not specify either the implied interest or that it’s only a kiss we’re talking about.
I hear you Sam that you’d like the universal feminist discourse to echo the message that many of us have said in this thread — that straightforward communication is great and that as long as men take no for an answer, and respect women’s boundaries, things are peachy. As a married woman, I think that many men are truly wonderful, and most of all, my husband is great, a pro-feminist guy, and his sexuality is fantastic, non-threatening, and many more positive things. No one besides the trolls here has said that male sexuality is evil.
But the thing is, there *is* no universal feminist discourse. Just like there’s no one single source of the discourse of misogyny. So if wishes were cheap, then yeah, you could have all women think and talk positively about male sexuality, and we feminists could eradicate sexual assault. In a perfect world both would be possible.
So what are you trying to accomplish in this thread? If you’re really seeking specific advice, then as La Lubu said, you’re in the wrong place. We can’t give you advice about how to approach non-feminist women.
Sam, I’m saying ASK FIRST. I initiated the walling move with somebody who’d already gone down on me on several occasions. I KNEW enthusiastic consent was forthcoming.
I’m also saying, if you’re working on a first time sexual encounter and you MUST break the ice by putting your mouth on something, go for the hands or (possibly) the feet. Just be prepared to lick clittie if you suck toes. Most women expect that more good lickie will be the end result of such a submissive gesture.
Oh, and Sam, you may still get rejected and/or gossipped about if you misread the signals and start inappropriately kissing whatever digits, but a guy on his knees is just a little weird to an uninterested woman. She’s also in a better position to kick his teeth in, and therefore much less likely to panic and call the cops/bouncers/frat boys.
So I guess I’m saying, if you want to initiate sexual contact without being seen as a big hairy stalker, just kneel. Women think the top of a guy’s head is pretty sexy, too.
Ok, Sam. I just linked that other comment. That was over the top. If you’re worried about “ruining the mood” with a direct request, after a half hour or more of “playful interaction”, DON’T. She’ll either say yes, or the “mood” was all in your imagination.
If you want to keep the tone playful, tell her that her lipstick (or cocktail, or food, or whatever she’s just had on or near her mouth) smells delicious. And say, softly, so she has to lean closer “Mind if I have a taste? I’d love to kiss you right now.”
If she’s not into it, she’s not into it. At least you won’t get arrested for asking.
Xena, I have to disagree with you somewhat. There is such a thing as nonverbal communication, and there is a difference between touching, staring into one another eyes, etc, and then slowly leaning in to kiss the other person – which gives them the opportunity to back up and go whoa – which is not at all in the same category as “She’s wearing short skirt so she totally wants it” or the ever popular “it’s better to ask forgiveness than permission.”
Of course there’s also nothing wrong with talking, e.g. “I just want to put you up against that wall and kiss you” in a playful (rather than threatening) tone.
One more thing, this is coming from a woman who’s had experience with women. You think YOUR flirting adventures and attempts at “mind reading” indecisive women are nerve-wracking! If I make one wrong move, my KIDS could get beat down at school, I could get lynched, fired from my job, the list goes on and on.
I’ve never been in a situation with a man OR a woman who wrongfully assumed that my consenting to a kiss meant instant consent to some sex act that would leave me in tears. If I’ve already said yes to a kiss, I’ve seen enough demonstration of trustworthiness on the part of the kisser that I’m confident that s/he will proceed gently and respectfully to mutual orgasms.
I don’t know if this fear you have about being given consent at each step of the lovemaking process comes from, but you might want to re- examine some of your beliefs about women, or step out of whatever bible belt you’re finding them in. Healthy women who enjoy healthy vanilla sex don’t behave like that.
I almost slept with a woman once who later exhibited the kind of indecisiveness you’re describing here. I say ‘almost’ because I changed my mind after we stepped into the shower and she got weird. No means no at every stage of the journey to orgasm, whether the lady who’s saying no realizes it or not. I don’t play rough unless I’m defending myself against severe and imminent danger. If a lady likes abuse, I’ll let somebody else exploit her, thank you.
Yes, Mythago. I get what you’re saying. People use non-verbal cues to interact successfully all the time. But Sam sounds like he needs a guarantee. The only guarantee that no faulty assumptions leading to embarassing situations or criminal charges will take place is a direct request, and a direct response granting permission for physical contact.
I’ve even heard of people designing sexual consent contracts. But I’m not a fan of those. Signing a contract WOULD kill the mood, imo.
Oops. The first line of paragraph 3 of my 6:18 response to Sam should read: I don’t know where this fear you have…comes from…
Mythago – if you’re reading me as amgry, it’s no wonder we’re talking past each other. If you want to tell me off, I think whiny or lazy are much more plausible fits. (Though if you’re feeling charitable, go for dense.
)
Yes, I have trouble with assertions that don’t fit into everything else, and repeating the assertion in respond to my “I don’t understand how this fits” doesn’t cause any progress. Maybe it is best left as an exercise for the reader, and my “I’m really stuck on this one” is whiny, or not having spent enough time on the problem is lazy (though I’ve certainly thought it was a lot.)
Well, maybe that’s not fair. Maybe I would be angry at myself for having been fucking up something so important all these years. I dunno, I’ll have to think about it.
Oh, shit. I just read some more of this excessively long and absurdly detailed discussion, Sam. You’re talking theory and loopholes and objections and counterobjections, not asking for specific examples of how to initiate sexual contact.
Man that’s annoying. Do what you wanna do with my advice. I live in the real world. I still say homophobia is way more damaging to sexual development than feminists (or anti-feminists who call themselves feminists or anti-feminists that men mistake for feminists) could ever be to male sexuality.
Comrade Svilova said:
That’s becoming increasingly clear from reading this thread. I’m seeing a lot of views from feminists that are a lot more nuanced than what I grew up hearing.
Now we just have to get feminists to actually talk about these views in contexts other than defending feminism.
Furthermore, it’s also clear that there are some disagreements between feminists. For instance, Xena and mythago seem to disagree on how useful nonverbal cues are for negotiating kissing in the absence of explicitly asking for permission.
Is it any wonder that some men hear certain feminist messages more often than others, or get confused?
This is almost certainly true, but given that homophobia is undesirable, and feminism is desirable, figuring out what you should be doing about your homophobia is much more obvious.
I’m glad that there’s some clarity now about the fact that there is no one “feminism,” just as women are not monolithic. Something that I think probably leads to some of the confusion you talk about, Hugh, is that feminism is ultimately not about men. It might seem to be about men, but often when the subject is “men” and “masculinity,” it’s a particular type of man and masculine performance that is under discussion. It’s the type that most women encounter most frequently … the men who harass us on the street, stalk us, corner us and feel us up, etc. … and I think women have every right to critique that kind of behavior. I assume you agree. I feel that feminism needs to remain about women’s needs not men’s needs, but this discussion has opened my eyes to the fact that when I talk about men behaving badly, I should always qualify that it’s “some” men behaving badly.
A blog to check out would be Shakesville. There are a bunch of male moderators, and any slur against any group is forbidden there. That’s a brand of feminism that is not exclusionary, nor is it based on disparaging all men. Just some men; the ones who make women’s lives less safe, less enjoyable, and less free.
Hugh, did you expect that feminism would be the one group of like-minded people who agree on everything?
Within the MRA movement, there’s a range of men from those who genuinely believe in equal rights to those who want the bitches to shut up and get back in the kitchen where they belong. Should I profess confusion about whether to support, say, gender-neutral custody laws because MRAs can’t agree with one another?
Brian, passive-aggressive behavior is generally driven by anger. And “I don’t know what to do and you won’t give me a bulletproof guide so I’ll take my balls and go home” is anger, even if it’s not of the foot-stomping variety.
People are complicated. If you treat them with decency rather than as props or targets, expect the same in return, and listen, you’re 99% of the way there. That will, btw, also screen out a lot of the problem players like Wall Girl and Xena’s ambivalent shower lady.
“That will, btw, also screen out a lot of the problem players like Wall Girl and Xena’s ambivalent shower lady.”
That is the argument though mythago…they don’t want to screen out what we as feminists would call problem players because the subset of women that they are attracted to are the problem players and happen to also be the majority of women they come in contact with…. To them, they are not problem players…they are potential dates… they also seem to think that if they could just pass that ONE test in the beginning that they have the possibility of finding true love or soulmates…I don’t think they recognize that the test is a poor pattern of communication, and not a test at all…
Sam you have also hinted that you can’t seem to find that one woman who will make you want to settle down, or at least the one that has captured your heart…why do you think that is, or why haven’t these relationships worked out?
“I feel that feminism needs to remain about women’s needs not men’s needs, but this discussion has opened my eyes to the fact that when I talk about men behaving badly, I should always qualify that it’s “some†men behaving badly.”
Unfortunately I don’t really think that this would help with THEIR particular problem..which is getting dates with the majority of women most of which probably don’t ascribe to throwing off the notion of traditional gender roles….they are not actively seeking out feminists as they realize it would diminish their dating pool…which yes I would say I agree with the concept…but I have a problem with the principal…it still leads me to think they have a problem with themselves and not women feminist or otherwise…yeah it’s great that you want to extend respect to all women and especially noble that you want to extend it to women who in my opinion don’t respect themselves (poor communication on boundaries is not what I would call respecting one’s self, no matter how misguided it is.)but really….(again in my opinion) to ask for women who do respect themselves to disrespect themselves and disrespect someone else is VERY questionable.
“feminism is desirable”
Really???? To whom may I ask is feminism desirable…definitely to feminists…maybe to men actively seeking out feminist women…but to the general dating pool???? This conversation proves otherwise.
I think you missed Hugh’s point. The presentation of feminism by feminists is that feminism is coherent, unified idea. However, when asked for advice, clarifications or explanations, the feminist response implies that there is no real coherent, unified idea (personally I do not believe this is actually the case; I think it is just a defensive response meant to dissuade discussion). There is just bunch of concepts being bandied about, with certain ones taking precedence depending on the context and content of the discussion.
Not to nitpick, but the statement that preceded the above one was “It might seem to be about men, but often when the subject is “men†and “masculinity,†it’s a particular type of man and masculine performance that is under discussion. It’s the type that most women encounter most frequently … the men who harass us on the street, stalk us, corner us and feel us up, etc.” Such a statement implies that most men, not some men, behave badly. When one reads such discussions, one rarely finds anything about it being about a type of man, just men in general (which is what occurred on this thread).
“Such a statement implies that most men, not some men, behave badly.”
The disagreement is based upon what standards behaving badly falls upon…I’m sure what you and feminists consider behaving badly intersect at some points…by widely differ at others…
*but not by…
I think you missed Hugh’s point. The presentation of feminism by feminists is that feminism is coherent, unified idea.
No. The presentation of feminism by white, middle-class, straight feminists is that feminism is one, unified theory. Meanwhile, every other feminist is insisting on feminisms, because our realities are left out of that version of feminist discourse. Example: getting more women into the boardrooms is going to do nothing to liberate more women, because example after example has shown that….just as prior to feminism….upper class women do not view women lower on the socioeconomic spectrum as “sisters”.
Trust me, toysoldier….there are multiple identities encompassed under the word “feminism”. It’s not a diversionary tactic. There are feminists, legitimate feminists, who are just as effective as male chauvinists when it comes to standing against my interests—including, feminist interests. The word has no copyright.
Well – maybe. Though I do date, and am trying to figure out what to do (here, for instance). Even if I’m literally at home, I don’t think I’m figurately at home.
I made that as an absolute moral statement without regard for audience; probably any comprehensive answer I could give is just a tautology. But I had the participants here in mind; in the context of what I was responding to, the point is that even though homophobia is incredibly damaging, the solution to that is to get rid of it, which is conceptually easy (even if the practice may be difficult); meanwhile, whereever feminism is damagiing, the solution is … something else, which is typically conceptually much harder.
I think you missed Hugh’s point. The presentation of feminism by feminists is that feminism is coherent, unified idea.
Well, it looks like you skipped Feminism 101 in your studies of feminism. Why don’t you start out with this (and with what Lynn said):
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/12/faq-why-do-some-people-talk-of-feminisms/
And yes, Kristina, I realize that part of the issue is that they’d like feminists to change, stop being so critical of things like domestic and sexual violence, and start being more “what about the men” and looking after their dating needs. I’m sorry, it is clear that I’m not talking about all men when I say “I love my husband, my brother, my father, my grandfathers, my uncles, cousins, and my guy friends, but I’m tired of the assholes who stalk me, harass me, treat me like I’m invisible at work unless someone wants cookies, and I’m tired of a society that pays my less than men, where professors can sexual harass me without suffering consequences, and where I have to constantly walk an invisible line between slut and prude in order to be considered professional.”
I’m not sure what else I can say to help your bruised egos deal with the fact that some men have and do treat me and other women very badly and we would like a space to discuss that. Feminism is that space. It is not about men’s needs. Pretty much every other space in our society is about men’s needs, so deal.
I am very familiar with feminism, having been exposed to it starting as a toddler by my aunt. Given the way she did it, I will never forget any of it. I can still recite parts of Gyn/Ecology off the top of my head.
The irony is that you are saying that about men who consider themselves your allies. Is it any wonder that they are confused about what they should do when just asking for advice leads to the above comment?
Bit late, will reply to all direct replies, but it will take a bit.
As per kristina’s request in the pickup thread -
Spent some time on Friday night with the woman who kissed me last Sunday. We had fun. But when it came to the kissing or not kissing moment, all I could get myself to do were Eskimo kisses. She didn’t initiate actual kissing after that… since she did last week, I’m starting to think she may believe that I’m seeing her as a friend rather than as a (potential) lover given my apparent unwillingness (since she knows it’s more an inability) to initiate. Just so you know where I’m coming from. I’m really good at meeting women, even getting them attracted to me, yet I’m unable to follow up on that attraction and kiss them unless they do it (as explained numerous times by now). As I’ve mentioned, I’ve tried asking directly, but it’s got problems. I guess *asking confidently*, without implying unattractive needyness is just something I need to work on even more. And yeah, yesterday, I know I could have, no, I should have asked.
Xena,
thanks for all your comments. I appreciate them, even though you’re right and I was mostly talking about theory here.
“So I guess I’m saying, if you want to initiate sexual contact without being seen as a big hairy stalker, just kneel.”
Seriously, that would probably make me be seen as the creepiest guy in the whole town. Well, not the whole town, but you know what I mean. Maybe this is like the walling thing turned around, but really, that would be an excellent way to make sure no woman who hears about that would ever speak to me again.
“If you’re worried about “ruining the mood†with a direct request, after a half hour or more of “playful interactionâ€, DON’T. She’ll either say yes, or the “mood†was all in your imagination.”
Obviously seconding Mythago here, and again, not my experience. Because sometimes women talk (to my friends) and then I learn afterwards what they actually expected.
“I don’t know where this fear you have about being given consent at each step of the lovemaking process comes from, but you might want to re- examine some of your beliefs about women, or step out of whatever bible belt you’re finding them in. Healthy women who enjoy healthy vanilla sex don’t behave like that.”
It’s a complicated blend *part* of which is rooted in my “feminist” indoctrination. I can *rationally* deal with it, but this is stuff that goes far beneath the rational surface. I’ve been working on it for years, and it’s a lot better, but not entirely. I’m not blaming women for anything, by the way. But I do believe, as I think I’ve expressed abundantly above, that feminist discourse is causing collateral damage.
“If I make one wrong move, my KIDS could get beat down at school, I could get lynched, fired from my job, the list goes on and on.”
I’m not sure what you’re talking about here, but that sounds horrible. Where do you live – Saudi Arabia?
“Do what you wanna do with my advice.”
Again, it’s very much appreciated.
“it’s better to ask forgiveness than permission.â€
“Better” probably depends on the category of analysis. If all you want to do is “score” then asking for forgiveness is certainly more *effective* than ask for permission.
Because sometimes women talk (to my friends) and then I learn afterwards what they actually expected.
And yet, you still prefer to seek women who are unable or unwilling to communicate what they actually want. Seriously, Sam….this has been a pattern of yours for at least the what—year or so?—you’ve been posting here. It. is. a. pattern. Only you can break that pattern.
“Feminism” isn’t going to magically jump in and help you. Feminists can and do regularly disagree on all kinds of topics, and one that is this varied by other (arguably more important) identity variables is even more likely to result in disagreement. Look at the other thread—I believe the other posters when they give their definitions and recognitions of what constitutes “alpha male” behavior….yet sometimes those attributes are at direct odds with what passes for “alpha male” behavior where I’m from. (ex.: bragging and chest-puffing are seen as signs of insecurity; fighting for non-necessary reasons gets a man pegged as a thug.)
Also: I’m not Xena, but as she was referring specifically to her sexual experiences with women—yes, she really is putting herself out there in terms of being endangered if an encounter goes wrong. The United States is a very hostile place for non-heterosexual people. Surely, you’ve heard of “the closet”? Well, it exists for a reason. Two women in my Unitarian Universalist congregation went to Iowa to get married a few weeks ago; after their wedding picture appeared in the paper, their children have been targets for bigots—and not just bigots their own age, either.
La Lubu,
I would like to thank you for all your replies and I truly appreciate the effort everyone here undertook to get my point. I am apparently not able to communicate it effectively, or maybe I’m unable to see the glaring holes in it that make it so “duh!” for everyone else.
“It. is. a. pattern.”
Maybe. But if so, I really wouldn’t know what to change about my selection process – which is basically – people I meet, randomly, in cafes, through friends. That’s it. The girl I met last night probably qualifies as feminist, but I bet you whatever your preferred drink is that should we ever get to that point she will *not* communicate clearly. I may be wrong, but my best bet at this point is that she’s intellectually fed up with gender roles, but emotionally she’s still looking to be swept off her feet (that’s her double bind) – I doubt *she* would like the wall thing, but I’m less certain about that than about the assumption that she would never initiate anything physical. Of course, that’s based on a 30 minute chat, so I may be wrong. I’ll let you know, if there is anything to report.
““Feminism†isn’t going to magically jump in and help you.”
I know that rationally. I’m better than ever to not let it affect me emotionally. I know I cannot outsource my moral judgment to anyone, and yet, just as I quoted above, with respect to sexual matters, especially with initiaion, there is always that feeling, some sort of mental look back over the shoulder asking the imaginary feminist – is it ok to kiss her? Is my erection ok? I can’t explain it any better. Just think of feminism as saying “oh jeffrey” in this clip from the BBC’s “Coupling” (yes, it’s a dream sequence, and it’s hilarious, but maybe it’s also helpful in explaining). I removed the http:// in case Hugo has auto embed turned on.
Coupling: “Jeff kissed someone!”
youtube.com/watch?v=J0dV0_qOliQ
Sorry to hear that bigot story. Makes me sad.
La Lubu said:
Sam said:
La Lubu’s comment sounds like there is some untapped plethora of women who engage in honest, explicit communication around sexuality that Sam is ignoring. If so, then Sam seems a bit silly for focusing on women who engage on poor sexual communication, doesn’t he?
On the other hand, if the percentage of women who prefer honest, verbal communication around sexuality is small, and the vast majority of women prefer nonverbal gendered scripts, then Sam is going to be stuck dating such women most of the time.
Is it possible to find women who prefer honest, verbal communication around sexuality? (And before sex has occurred, rather than after the first time.) Yes, I’m dating one right now.
But finding women like this isn’t something men could do just by opening up their search, like La Lubu’s comment implies. Women like this are so rare that you probably won’t find them if you aren’t searching, but you probably won’t find them even if you are searching for them. In some subcultures, you might find more of them, but even then, they are rare (and you have to be lucky enough to be in an area like a city where you can actually find such a subculture).
Women I’ve encountered who prefer verbal communication around sexual advances and activity are always unusual in several other ways. They always have at least the following characteristics:
- They are intelligent, to probably gifted/genius levels (such a level of IQ is 130+ as I’ve mentioned, which is already merely 2% of the population).
- They are nerdy, and enjoy analysis of various subjects, including sexuality. They enjoy computer games.
- They are gender-atypical, and not like other women. Their voices sound a bit masculine or boyish, and they have trouble relating to most women (often to the point of having primarily male friends and calling other women annoying).
- They are into some combination of feminism or BDSM.
However, I’ve also met women with these traits who don’t prefer honest communication about sexuality and like Walling, so these traits don’t seem sufficient as markers.
Even though I’ve been able to find a couple women who prefer communication around sexuality, meeting them only underscores how radically different they are from the vast majority of women, in multiple ways. They are practically unicorns.
My suspicion is that Sam is merely doing the best he can with what is available to him.
Women like this are so rare that you probably won’t find them if you aren’t searching, but you probably won’t find them even if you are searching for them.
Hugh. Welcome to the midwest! We are all over (as we say) “hell’s half acre” here. Women here are more than happy to tell you exactly what kind of relationship we want, and what kind of man we’re attracted to. We are frank. We are blunt. We’re not to everybody’s taste, but…eh. Everything’s not for everybody.
We are also…the vast, overwhelming majority of us….”gender atypical.” If you asked twenty-thousand midwestern women if we’d prefer a new Harley Davidson or a fancy-schmancy spa trip, I’d bet the Harley takers would be at least 75%. More if you restricted your asking to working class women. So. If that many women, in “subcultures” as wide as “midwestern” or “working class” could be called “gender atypical”—the term loses all meaning. Have you ever been to the midwest? Anywhere? Chicago, even? Notice how few women wear makeup? Notice how popular flats, sneakers, or low heels are? Do I need to go on? And you’re seriously telling me that all these women I’ve been surrounded by my entire life are statistical outliers, nerdy to the bone, and rank in the top 2% of intelligence? Gimme a break. That’s beyond ludicrous.
Earlier on in this thread I gave my breakdown of what works around here. Mostly, good old-fashioned common sense talking and listening. Approaches to strangers are usually situational—for example, in the blues bar, asking about the band (before they start playing)…”have you heard them before? what type of blues do they play? covers or originals?”—that sort of thing. People give information about one another….where they live (what part of town), how long they’ve lived there, where they work, if they have kids….all basic getting-to-know-you questions. Questions like “if you could have one superpower, what would it be?” wouldn’t be received well at the approaching stage. During an actual date, even a first date…yeah. But before then? It would leave the impression of….really weird. Is he right-in-the-head kind of weird. Too “new agey.”
I don’t know what to tell you. People really are frank here in the midwest. Love us or hate us, you’ll at least know where we stand. No guessing games. That’s probably the strongest point of commonality between midwesterners—no matter what race, gender, socioeconomic group, religious or ethnic background, age…..that characteristic bluntness travels all walks of life here. “Shit or get off the pot” is a common phrase.
And yet….we’re still getting laid here. All us midwestern rubes, we’re getting it on. (why wouldn’t we be? what the hell else are we gonna do? it’s not like we have mountains or beaches, or Broadway, or whatever.)
Next you’re gonna tell me we’re doing it wrong.
Their voices sound a bit masculine or boyish
Ok, this is really ridiculous. Do you have a cite for this? You inherit your voice from your parents. Voice teachers will tell you that the voice you were given is the voice you’ll have….you can’t increase your vocal range by much. Tenors are not going to become basses. Altos are not going to become sopranos. It is what it is, and it doesn’t have any relation to one’s approach to masculinity or femininity.
(would you describe Ron Isley or Aaron Neville as effeminate?!! Etta James or Koko Taylor as manly?!)
La Lubu,
Holly Pervocracy, a consistent mocker of PUA, likes to counter with the Ordinary Guy with a Girlfriend. Since (as a sex blogger) she lived/lives in cities analogous to the rust belt (Seattle, a re-made re-gentrifying industrial/logging/port town) and Boston, and works as an EMT, her position is similar to yours and she relentlessly mocks a set of social cues and procedures designed to win the favors of gender-typical femininity-performing 21-25 year-olds in the Los Angeles (and mainly Hollywood) club scene. So I think Sam is certainly doing Pick-Up in a social circle much closer to its origins, and he is telling the truth about what works in his social circles, including potentially plowing through mixed messages, in a way that Ordinary Guy With A Girlfriend doesn’t encounter. The more transparent I am about my non-alpha characteristics (ability issues, sharing my living space, no car) the faster I get the brush-off, although my and self-presentation get me access to the hottest night-spots, if only as a paying customer among others and not a VIP. So yet again, De Becker, but I think that real predators tend to try to abduct the paralytically drunk rather than press buttons for compliance. Certainly the double-bind I mentioned above is no more persuasive even to the under-21 than a female con artist’s play-acted persuasion/insistence I pay for her drink by credit card rather than cash. Having no little field experience, I would say “trust women to pick their partners” a bit more.
Eurosabra?!?
The LA pick up scene?!?
As in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang starring Val Kilmer and Robert Downey Jr.?!?
Forget everything I said, Sam. Toe sucking would get you chased outta town. I’m closer to LaLubu’s scene. (Funny–I’m everything Hugh was just on about–except the mannish voice. I’m a karaoke geek too. I do Killer Grace Slick, 4 Non-Blondes and any 80′s cock rock–Bon Jovi, etc. I can hit Steve Perry and Geddy Lee’s high notes no problem.) Northern dudes in toques and lumberjack coats look way better when they’re kneeling by the fire doing kinky things to my feet with Irish coffee
But that approach SO doesn’t work with the Hollywood thing. Keep doing whatever works, I guess.
Hugh, you find women like that at SCA and other geek conventions. Why do you think I picked this online name? Lucy Lawless and Renee O Connor and the rest were epic role playing fantasy for girls.
I have no idea what makes Eurosabra think I’m anywhere close to LA… I’m not. But I loved KissKissBangBang, including, particularly, Michelle Monaghan. I don’t really look like Robert Downey Jr., though…
LOVED!! ROFLMAO! I have yet to see anything as funny as that movie. The actor commentary was hysterical too. I didn’t have time to go up&down google to verify, but somebody told me VK studied law and/or political something or other at an Ivy League university. It shows in his humour.
(He was also the object of many of my empty bottles of baby oil back in his day
)
I’m lost lost lost. I don’t know a single woman, including the non feminists ones that drive me to distraction, that wouldn’t kiss the guy giving her eskimo kisses (if she wanted to get into kissing). I mean… it doesn’t get much more transparent than that does it? I also feel pretty strongly that if she’s allowing you eskimo kisses real kisses are totally okay, really.
The only possibility I can think of is, kisses = sex, she’s not ready for sex and so is hesitant to intiate kisses even though she’d allow/want them if he intitated. But even in this situation, a couple more dates and she’s sure to initiate. If she seems cool a couple more dates not a hardship.
I’m lost lost lost. I don’t know a single woman, including the non feminists ones that drive me to distraction, that wouldn’t kiss the guy giving her eskimo kisses (if she wanted to get into kissing).
Victoria, you are not the only one. I’m not getting it either.
Hugh, I assume you know what ‘confirmation bias’ means.
Sam, this isn’t directed at you, but really, this is so middle school. They don’t tell you what they want, but they’ll tell your friends long after it’s too late for you to do anything about it? Dodged a bullet, again.
Mythago- What I can’t wrap my head around is that he really can’t find that unattractive and prefers to blame himself…Those girls are POWER TRIPPING..in their head the only one to blame is Sam…that is seriously screwed up!!! It takes two to tango… I mean HOLY SHIT…this really pisses me off Sam, and not at you…I want to feel sorry for you, but really that’s not what you need…nobody got self esteem by people throwing pity parties.
Sam, I have a friend who isn’t particularly feminine in the ways of how she dresses and partly of how she acts, but she does do one thing that is very feminine…she expects this guy she’s crushing on to KNOW that she likes him…Yes she flirts with him and he flirts with her (or what she perceives is flirting on both ends), and she has other reasons for not approaching him (like he currently has a girlfriend..but one that seems to show indifference to who he IS), but one reason is she is scared he won’t like her (she’s not the beauty ideal, and would be perceived as below average according to “standards”, being that she is obese)…As her friend, I try to keep her grounded and out of fantasy land…and one part of that is being outspoken about your wants and needs..if he doesn’t like you, yeah that sucks, but currently you’re being dishonest..to yourself and to him… He deserves to know, and you deserve to know what he feels…you don’t want to be wondering what if all your life, and he doesn’t want to be wondering if you ever got the hint.
Point is, if you’re feeling unsure of yourself, chances are she is too…
“Notice how popular flats, sneakers, or low heels are? Do I need to go on? And you’re seriously telling me that all these women I’ve been surrounded by my entire life are statistical outliers, nerdy to the bone, and rank in the top 2% of intelligence? Gimme a break. That’s beyond ludicrous.”
I’d have to say, that they probably wouldn’t notice those characteristics at all then they’d say the mid-west has unattractive women…but then again…if the mid-west was so full of those women, they’d have to find SOME of them attractive because it would be a matter of comparing the less attractive ones to the more attractive ones based on whatever they find desirable in physical characteristics…in other words the prettier women in the mid-west may have little in the way of check marks on the list of attraction of sought out attributes as compared to an area with a plethora of desirable women, but the more average women in the mid-west would still be less desirable than the prettier women in that area (thus deemed unattractive), and would be slaughtered by the women in more “attractive” areas.
Xena, my nephew’s girlfriend…or not girlfriend (they are on and off all the time) is in a movie with VK…She said he’s pretty down to earth…but she’s not so down to earth…so I’m not sure what she means by that..LOL!
That sounds like fun, Kristina. The days when I used to pull out the baby oil and drool all over VK posters ended shortly after Willow, around the time he got married (I don’t think his wife would appreciate my slimy daydreams about her husband) but he still looks like fun to work with.
I wonder what your cousin meant too
Victoria,
yeah, you may be right.
“If she seems cool a couple more dates not a hardship.”
Dates are rarely a hardship…
Mythago,
“but really, this is so middle school.”
nah, this is graduate school.
kristina,
“I want to feel sorry for you, but really that’s not what you need…nobody got self esteem by people throwing pity parties.”
don’t worry about my self esteem. I’m fine in that respect.
“Point is, if you’re feeling unsure of yourself, chances are she is too…”
Yes, but that is part of the “lead the dance” aspect. Again, I’m *GOOD* at that up to the point where it’s about actual initiation. And that must be confusing, I totally get that.
As for your friend, I totally understand her insecurity. I’m a guy and I worry about being to big. That was never the biggest issue for me, but I can totally understand if it is for a woman. My biggest issue was being a male virgin when I got a graduate degree. When I had theoretically begun to be able to deal with a lot of issues with respect to feminism/religion, “the thing” was still there. It became bigger and bigger in my mind, and everything that didn’t work was because of that, and thus reinforced the problem. I overattributed problems to that aspect of my personality and wasn’t able to see any other possible factors. I think that is a tendency among all people who have one main psychological insecurity. So, if that is, as it sounds, the case for your friend, from my experience with overattribution I would suggest to your friend to mentally rehearse prior to telling him that there *ARE* a lot of other reasons why he may not reciprocate that are completely unrelated to her bodyshape. Repeat. Again. That a possible rejection is not necessarily a confirmation of her (assumed) fears. Repeat. Again.
I managed to help myself that way.
Good luck!
“Yes, but that is part of the “lead the dance†aspect. Again, I’m *GOOD* at that up to the point where it’s about actual initiation.”
So you are fine self-esteem wise until a girl is brought into the picture, is that what you’re saying?
I have to say the one thing about PUA is the idea that you have to project confidence..I think their definition of confidence needs some MAJOR revisions though… So how does one gain confidence? It’s not in finding someone who wants a relationship with you (at least it wasn’t for me)…While I didn’t have confidence I was able to snag boyfriends…probably because I was a female, and not unattractive (at least that’s what some of these discussions seem to assert) (though those were not the relationships I wanted…they were focused on looks and only partly personality, the guys didn’t give a crap what I had to say)…but anyway…relationship after relationship I was highly insecure…wondering if he would leave me for someone better looking, more confident, etc etc…after so many self-fulfilled prophecies by pushing them away with accusations or withdrawing, I started caring less about relationships and started to focus on me in relation to myself…in other words I didn’t participate in group activities, not because I was suicidal or anything, but because I wanted to spend time with me, have fun with me, challenge JUST me…I took my fun activities and made it about competing with myself (as long as the activities didn’t involve the interaction with another person) with nobody around to “judge me”…when I looked back at how far I had come, I stopped competing with everyone else and gained more confidence…I put to rest my insecurities that I wasn’t the best that I could be.
La Lubu said:
I’m not sure we are talking about the same thing. Plenty of women will talk about their relationships and preferences, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about women who prefer to engage in verbal negotiation over sexuality and consent. While there are plenty of women who will tolerate such communication, the subset of women who seek out such communication is pretty small and unusual, in my experience.
I said:
I’m not sure why you are asking me for citations for that claim, because I was simply stating my experience. Basically, my experience is that women who prefer explicit verbal sexual negotiation prior to sex are less like other women in many ways.
Your observations may be different. I have no idea whether the women I’ve observed who prefer verbal sexual negotiation are representative or not. Heck, there could be all sorts of women who prefer such communication, but do it out of my sight, so I never notice. (Similarly, I can’t prove that frat boys don’t secretly watch Battlestar Galactica out of my sight, even though my observation is that they don’t seem to be very into the show.)
Still, as I can tell, explicit verbal communication over consent is something that androgynous smart people (of either gender) are more likely to prefer than other sorts of people. I find that idea interesting, and I thought it would be worth discussing in this thread.
kristina,
“So you are fine self-esteem wise until a girl is brought into the picture, is that what you’re saying?”
no, I’m fine with / confident / good at leading the dance with girls until it becomes *physically intimate*/actually sexual – usually this means when it’s time to initiate a kiss, as I mentioned before, for all the reasons, and possibly others I haven’t yet understood, I mentioned above. Did you watch the Coupling clip I linked to ( BBC Coupling: “Jeff kissed someone!â€
youtube.com/watch?v=J0dV0_qOliQ )? Think of me as someone who had a great interaction with the woman in the clip, who was playfully leading the dance up to that point, who suddenly can’t move on (or resorts to Eskimo kisses) at that point and thus at this point usually hopes that she won’t be turned off by his inability or think he’s not interested, because if she doesn’t do it, he usually won’t. But I don’t actually believe in a feminist miniature guillotine…
“I put to rest my insecurities that I wasn’t the best that I could be.”
I’m glad to hear it worked out for you
.
I would think eskimo kisses are SOOOO cute, and playful…I would’ve moved in to a kiss at that point…*rolls eyes at girls that just can’t get a clue*
Hugh, I understand that you’re talking about your experience, but you do realize this is a tautology? Women who don’t rigorously follow the feminine ‘standard rules’, are women who don’t rigorously follow the feminine ‘standard rules’. Well okay then!
Sam – are you telling me that, socially speaking, grad school and middle school are all that different?
Just watched that clip…sheesh…I sure hope you don’t actually THINK like that..I’ve had guys that I didn’t “like” kiss me, or rather that I didn’t expect to kiss me…I was at a deli one time and I left my money across the street at the place I worked, but didn’t realize until it was time to pay..so the guy behind the counter said don’t worry about it..then he motioned for me to come behind the counter, so me being the typically friendly person I am, I did…well, since I tend to be shy I leaned against a wall while he helped other customers (I don’t know why that has to do with being shy..but I do it when I feel anxious)anyway, once he was done with the other customers he did the bracing arm thing against the wall and leaned in for a kiss..I tried to turn my head but he pulled my face to turn towards him (maybe because of the shy signals I was giving off, but didn’t mean to give off)and he kissed me…since I wasn’t going to freak out and slap him or go off on him I felt a little pressured to kiss back (see I didn’t want him to think I thought he was the plague, but I didn’t want him to think the relationship was going to go any further, and I’m not talking about physically…I just didn’t want that emotional bond)…but that wasn’t the part that bugged me really…the part that bugged me was when he tried to drag me all the way to the back in the kitchen, but got scared when more customers came in and let me go…he was dragging me as I was saying no…it was weird and a little unnerving…but the kiss even though not intentional and therefore not wanted didn’t get me upset..he didn’t try to cop a feel when he was kissing me and that was good enough for me.
kristina,
“Just watched that clip…sheesh…I sure hope you don’t actually THINK like that.”
Hmm, given your story I’m not sure what you mean with the quote above. No, I don’t think there is a feminist or religious miniature guillotine, but whenever I’m in a similar situation I imagine the “Oh Sam… what makes you think any woman alive would want your hideous, disgusting tongue…”
To be fair, there’s also a dream sequence in the episode where she imagines the situation and when she kisses him, she believes he’d reject her because she’d still taste like the Lasagna she had for lunch…
My story was meant as comfort…that even though you may think she’s perceiving you as a transgressor that there is a myriad of thoughts and layers upon layers in which anxiety about what is happening in the moment doesn’t exist…My fear at the time of him kissing me wasn’t that he was going to rape me or thinking about raping me…that never occurred until after the actual kiss when he started to push further and did so against my clear no’s, and even those didn’t solidify until I was out of my perceived danger…it happens in stages…first was the anxiety of do I kiss him back or not, then the decision of do I want to take this further (which was a solid no once he established he was only going to hear what he wanted to hear, which again was when he physically tried to drag me after I said explicitly no.)He could have responded to my no with an okay, but will you come back and see me later, and I probably would have, even though it wasn’t what I was looking for.
Even rape victims Sam, don’t know they were raped until they are out of the “danger” because the word danger does not have meaning until harm has already been done…when it is happening the only thought in their mind is how do I please him so I can escape…which to a rational mind not in immediate danger does sound like OMG he’s raping me…but that is NOT what goes on in the mind of a victim…or at least not when it was happening to me (which was not this incident).
I’m just trying to establish the mechanisms of what goes on in the mind of someone who has perceived a threat, and how that threat isn’t really threatening until after the harm has been done, and considering PTSD and the time of onset of symptoms it should be clear that a kiss is NOT going to have that effect. A kiss does not cause bodily harm therefore it is not rape…(that is unless you hold someone down and force them to kiss you..but that situation would never exist to you because you are not like that..and the person doing that KNOWS they are in the wrong anyway)
“A kiss does not cause bodily harm therefore it is not rape…”
gah…this may come off totally wrong…but I should hope most would have the decency to assume I’m not saying that rape must have bodily harm in order to be rape…I tend to count mental harm as bodily harm… yikes…this should start something interesting..
mythago said:
Looks like we agree, except that I don’t think it’s a tautology: women who don’t follow standard feminine rules one way (e.g. by being a feminist) might not follow standard feminine rules another way (by flouting passive and non-communicative scripts).
I’m not sure we are talking about the same thing. Plenty of women will talk about their relationships and preferences, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about women who prefer to engage in verbal negotiation over sexuality and consent.
Exactly what do you mean by “verbal negotiation over sexuality and consent” that’s different from talking about your preferences? Are we talking stuff like careful discussion of checklists and safe words? Or sex where people are carefully silent about what they like and want because saying it aloud would somehow spoil the mood? Because, honestly, it’s hard for me to imagine what it would be like to have a sex life that doesn’t include talking about what you want to do.
mythago said:
Nope… just given the diversity of feminism, don’t be surprised if some of us got different messages from feminism than your version of feminism. And we don’t know all the cool aspects of your form of feminism if it merely rattles around in your head without us knowing about it. For instance, I think some of your views on consent make a lot more sense than the feminist views on consent that trickled down to me while growing up. But all I had to go on was what I was supposed to.
It’s comforting to know that many feminists seem to have cooler ideas rattling around in their heads than some of the more widespread feminist memes I’ve run into. It’s awesome. But it’s, well… 10+ years too late.
I got screwed up in similar ways to Sam and Brian, broke with feminism, figured out my own ideas about sexual ethics and masculinity, studied seduction, adapted it to my ethical needs, and I now date successfully. So I’m doing just fine, but there’s still something broken about the system, and I’m still mad about it. Certain double-binds over efforts to communicate about consent still exist.
Like Sam, my strategy has been to avoid these double-binds, though I think I’m a little farther along at this point. I screen for non-mainstream women, and set things up so that they are motivated to either do some of the initiating themselves, or make it very obvious that they want me to. It’s a more equal division of sexual and moral labor.
However, the way I do things is so idiosyncratic that I’m not sure whether or not it could be a “method” that other guys could apply. And it only “works” with certain types of women that there is a short supply of. Even though I’ve found a solution that works for me individually, there is still a wider problem for other guys.
But it’s, well… 10+ years too late.
I’m not sure what this means other than “go fuck yourself”.
It’s one thing to talk about a toxic view of feminism that you got growing up (and IRL I also know men who were presented with a similar toxic worldview); but it’s another thing, as you do, to talk as if you are knowledgeable about what feminism might have to say today about male sexuality, retreating into “well I didn’t hear that growing up” and “too late” when it’s pointed out that, you know, things have gotten a little less freaky over the last couple of decades.
But you’ve got a mission, and I don’t expect to let much get in the way of it.
mythago said:
Is that how I sound to you? Hmmm. It means that I like some of the things you are saying, but feminists with less sophisticated views got to me first. What does that say? I’m not sure. For now, I’m jut trying to explain why what I’ve heard from feminism might be different from your views.
For instance, you suggested the possibility of consent for kisses being negotiated nonverbally in some circumstances. That’s a massively different view from feminist anti-rape programs, which universally seem to crap on the usefulness of body language for sexual negotiation.
As someone who took anti-rape programs seriously, it’s weird to run into feminists who say “of course consent for some actions can be negotiated nonverbally!” or “of course verbal consent doesn’t always have to be absolutely explicit!” There is such a big disconnect between the views of many feminists about consent, and the ideas that actually get taught in anti-rape programs. I’m trying to get feminists with those views to talk about them more.
Maybe some things have changed, but they haven’t changed very much. I’m still running into unsophisticated feminist messages about consent, or hearing them from friends. For example, a college sex ed seminar role-played a date rape scenario, and then role-played the “right” way for a man to ask for a kiss. Him: could I give you a kiss? Her: Yes. Him: Are you sure? As if “yes” didn’t mean “yes.”
I’m curious, what would you have me say and do instead? After predominantly running into certain feminist messages when I was younger, and now finding out that some feminists have more sophisticated ideas and more positive views of male sexuality (though they don’t always talk about these much unless feminism is challenged), how do you think I should conceptualize and relate to feminism?
It could also mean “the damage is already done,” which is how I understood Hugh’s comment.
What mainstream feminism says today is not much different than what it said ten years ago. That might not reflect your personal feminism, but as Hugh wrote, “we don’t know all the cool aspects of your form of feminism if it merely rattles around in your head without us knowing about it.” I think that is why these kinds of discussions keep happening. Whatever positive messages feminists personally hold about male sexuality are not getting to the men.
I am not sure what this means other than “shut up and get over it”. The damage has been done and it is not something a person is just going to forget. And keep in mind, “a little less freaky” is not the same as “not at all freaky”.
For example, a college sex ed seminar role-played a date rape scenario, and then role-played the “right†way for a man to ask for a kiss. Him: could I give you a kiss? Her: Yes. Him: Are you sure? As if “yes†didn’t mean “yes.â€
Ah, is that what you meant by “verbal negotiation over sexuality and consent”? I’d agree that I’d expect wanting this degree of verbal negotiation to be a minority taste. To me it sounds like a level more appropriate to a BDSM session than to a kiss. Count me in the “consent can be nonverbal” camp (though I don’t think an initial “shall we kiss?” is a turn off – just that either that or the slow “almost kiss” approach before kissing work equally well for me).
I think sometimes these scenarios wind up including a level of verbal explicitness that strikes me as overkill because, perhaps, the people setting them up are thinking, not of active and mutually enthusiastic nonverbal consent, but of one of two other things:
1) Woman passively submits; she’s neither actively saying yes nor actively engaging in a nonverbal way. In this case, something’s likely wrong.
or
2) The woman is, in the eyes of the man, saying no while her nonverbal signals are saying yes. In that case, unless the two know each other very well and already have a shared understanding of what the woman would do to really say no, the man needs to stop whatever he’s doing. Maybe stop and clarify, but stop. And “clarify” shouldn’t be an angry argument about how she’s leading him on or can’t really mean what she says. (A lot of us have had the experience, at one time or another, of being told that our bodies were saying something they sure weren’t saying to us.)
But if nobody’s saying no and both people are actively showing signs of eagerness, it is, to my mind, perfectly OK if some of the understanding is reached in nonverbal ways.
The damage is already done, by who and to whom? The passive voice is useful for rhetoric, but not terribly informative.
Are you now arguing that what Hugh was exposed to is “mainstream feminism”? That “mainstream feminism” circa 2000 was all about how inherently toxic male sexuality is?
And not, it’s not “get over it”. It’s “why are you characterizing that as all feminism can or ever will be from your perspective?” Presumably, if I said that I was raised by male-supremacist relatives with a toxic view of how men treat women, and that therefore as far as I’m concerned it is far too late for me to ever believe that the MRA movement is about anything other than patriarchy, would it be reasonable for you to point out a) that’s not mainstream MRA and b) perhaps I should consider whether there’s more to men’s rights than what was shown to me by those toxic people? And do you think that if you did so, I should assume that you’re actually telling me to STFU and deal?
Hugh, I’m not going to defend poorly-developed anti-rape programs, but understand that the POV of most of those programs is to offer very simple guidelines, in large part because they’re dealing with inexperienced, immature young people who in many cases are living without their parents for the first time. “Ask, don’t assume” is actually a good rule, because it avoids the better-to-ask-forgiveness-than-permission problem, as well as giving a straightforward guideline to people who aren’t experienced at giving or receiving signals.
Lynn, your post makes a lot of sense, and I’m going to chalk it up as another example of a feminist who’s private views about sexuality are much more reasonable than the feminist messages that I was exposed to. Your views are significantly different from the hardline feminist views I’ve run into during sex-ed or anti-violence seminars.
mythago said:
Yes, the feminist messages I ran into in schools and the media were about the toxicity of male sexuality, and the lengths of explicit verbal consent that men must go through when initiating sexually.
When I started to become more engaged with feminism, even as a critic, I found that those views were not universal within feminism. But they were the loudest feminist views I was exposed to.
I don’t want you to have the impression that I think feminism is defined the messages I’m complaining about. I know quite well that many feminists have more positive views of male sexuality, and more nuanced views about consent. We can see some of these views in this very discussion, including from you. I’m trying to get those feminists to speak up more about their perspectives. That’s why I’m constantly bugging feminists to discuss how they think men should initiate sexually, and promote positive views of male sexuality. (And if someone says “but feminism isn’t about men!” I have to wonder: who do straight women date, aliens? Men’s dating behavior and sexual expression impacts women.)
Some feminists are already doing this, which is appreciated. But so far, it’s merely a drop in the ocean of negativity from other feminists towards male sexuality.
I fully believe that feminism has more potential than might be obvious from the behavior of some feminists toting bullhorns in the public sphere, but it’s the job of other feminists to take those bullhorns away or bring out their own; I can only strain my ears so hard.
For (a), it would be reasonable, if the male-supremacist views you had to deal with weren’t mainstream in the men’s rights movement. Were the feminist messages I was exposed to “mainstream” or not? That’s actually a tricky question. Since I believe that most feminists don’t have a strongly negative view of male sexuality, and have nuanced views about consent that are more like yours and Lynn’s, the messages I got weren’t mainstream in the sense of being widely believed by feminists. On the other hand, I was running into these messages (like the “ask twice” roleplay) in institutionalized settings like schools, and it’s hard to get more mainstream than that.
What’s going on here is a strange situation where beliefs that are mainstream within feminism are minority beliefs in feminist discourse towards the non-feminist mainstream; basically, the spokespeople of feminism have “minority tastes” (to use Lynn’s term). A minority of feminists with more extreme views than other feminists and who are toting megaphones is indeed a PR problem for feminism, but it’s up to feminists to solve it.
As for (b), yes you should consider that there is more to men’s rights than what you’ve seen, but I think it would be within your rights to ask MRAs to show it to you.
And I’m not saying that it’s too late for me to believe that feminism is about anything more than the messages I heard from it while growing up. I know quite well that feminism is about more, and I’m trying to get feminists to sing it.
If I’m understanding you correctly, your only exposure to feminism was anti-rape programs for incoming first-years in college. True?
Feminists do, and can, and have spoken up from ‘those perspectives’. But I’m not sure what we’re supposed to do, other than canvass neighborhoods and hand out flyers saying “No, We Really Don’t Hate Your Penis”, to make sure that nobody assumes that negative images of male sexuality are all that feminism is about. Is the problem really that we’re not singing it, or that everybody would prefer to listen to the tired old songs?
I mean, FFS, I still hear people going on about how feminists snarl at men who open doors and they don’t shave their legs.
I strongly disagree that the spokespeople of feminism ‘have minority tastes’ – certainly the ones whose views are controversial get more coverage from the non-feminist media, because that’s how the media works. Sometimes feminists like Susie Bright get publicity, but only insofar as they’re talking about sex, and only insofar as THAT doesn’t offend mainstream sensibilities.
mythago said:
Thanks for acknowledging the poor design.
I think your explanation of the logic behind these programs is correct. I just think their logic is really busted.
It’s problematic to try to give people simple guidelines that are significantly different from what everyone does in reality and considers ethical. There are just a million ways for that to backfire.
Plenty of sophomores may be immature, but they are not inexperienced, despite what mommy and daddy and their high school authorities might think. If we present them with a model of consent that is much more rigid and restrictive than what works for them, they are probably just going to throw out the model completely.
As for the inexperienced kids, how are they going to get more experience if they’ve been taught to adhere to rigid, narrow, and over-simplified set of rules, and that any deviation from these rules makes them a bad person (especially if they are male)?
We can’t just tell teenagers that only explicit verbal consent is valid, and then expect them to figure out something more nuanced like “explicit verbal consent is one of the best ways to achieve consent, but certain mutual nonverbal ways of negotiating consent for some acts exist.” If the model is designed to not be taken seriously in one way, people will end up taking failing to take it seriously in other ways.
Instead, why don’t we present a model that isn’t defective by design, which everyone can take seriously from the start?
“Ask, don’t assume” seems like a good rule, and is better than some other approaches to consent, but it has a bunch of problems:
1. Asking has its own ethical issues. Asking is best reserved for when you think the other person will be interested in what you are asking about; otherwise, you are just making them needlessly uncomfortable. But how do you know when to ask? At some point, you have to make certain assumptions or guesses.
2. Even if you ask, you have to make an assumption about what the other person’s response means. You might believe that if they say “yes,” then they genuinely want to do what you were asking, but that’s an assumption: they might merely be going along unenthusiastically. You still need to be looking at body language, voice tonality, and subtext to determine whether consent is enthusiastic. Ironically, the “explicit verbal consent uber alles” paradigm actually discourages this sort of thinking. Explicit verbal consent is not always sufficient to establish enthusiastic consent.
3. It makes people think that asking and getting an answer verbally is the only way to communicate about consent. That’s just not true. You can grant someone consent to make a move on you without them asking, or you can try to set things up so that they will grant you consent without you literally asking. For instance, “if you want to jump me later on, I’d be down for that” grants consent without it being asked. The asking-centric paradigm of many programs fails to observe that in the real world, people grant consent without being asked, and it stifles people’s sexual imagination.
4. Virtually nobody believes it. It’s at odds with norms of nonverbal communication that most people (including some feminists in this thread) think are ethical, and it’s at odds with many people’s preferences. There seems to be a cultural consensus that certain acts can be negotiated nonverbally. It serves nobody to foist a model of consent on teenagers than denies this. Even if explicit verbal communication is encouraged as ideal, body language shouldn’t be completely thrown out.
“Ask, don’t assume” is a crude model of consent. Yes, it’s better to have a crude model of consent that’s overly restrictive, rather than a crude model of consent that’s overly permissive (like your example of “it’s better to ask forgiveness than permission). But a model of consent that isn’t massively oversimplified would be even better. Whether such a program would be feasible, either practically or politically, is a different question.
There is no getting around the fact that at some point, nonverbal communication and subtext need to be examined. If some people don’t have these skills, then our culture should teach them, even if only to use alongside verbal communication. Instead of telling people to not make assumptions, we should recognize that everything is an assumption, and teach people why some sorts of assumptions make more sense than others.
Giving people oversimplified, verbal-centric and asking-centric rules does not prepare teenagers for the reality of sexual communication in our culture, and it fails as a form of sex ed. It merely punish the minority of people who take those rules seriously. In fact, “asking only” sex education is remarkably similar to “abstinence only” sex education.
PUAs have the right idea where they actually teach men positive signals of interest to look for. Pickup seminars often use live coaching and female helpers to do this. The programs I ran into in high school and college sometimes had roleplays, but they were always horrible. The language they used was nothing like what real people say when talking about sex (e.g. “may I caress your breast, if that’s OK with you?”), and some of the behavior was nothing like what most people actually believe is necessary (like the double-ask for a kiss).
Hugh, you have to keep in mind that those explicit consent programs taught at universities are designed not for making communication between students easier, but for absolving the universities of any legal liability in the event of rape or assault. The university can say, “but…we have this mandatory program for the incoming freshman class….we’ve done our part!” The history of how most universities handled (handle…it’s still going on) sexual assault is abysmal—act like it never happened, sweep it under the rug, tell the woman, “better luck next time.”
That’s probably why I have a disconnect now that the conversation shifted; I’ve never been exposed to anything like that. I’ve read about such programs, but didn’t know that it was actually put into practice at anything but a small handful of colleges. I don’t know too many people who’ve had the “traditional” four-year college experience (going away to college, straight after high school).
You could say that makes me an “outlier”, but it doesn’t.
Hugh, again: are you saying that your only exposure to feminism was in your campus anti-rape class?
I don’t understand your problem with ‘ask, don’t assume’ as a baseline behavior, and frankly your points do not make sense.
1) Can asking be problematic? Sure – ask anyone who has had to repeat “No” over and over again. But are you really saying that “assume” is better?
2) I’m wondering what happened to the criticism that feminism is unfair to men with ASDs, who are by definition impaired in their ability to ‘read’ social signals and body language. You seem to be arguing that’s actually an OK standard.
That said, I would be astonished if an anti-rape program said “All you need is a ‘yes’, and it doesn’t matter if you are getting a verbal ‘no’.” Where I think you’re stumbling here is that these programs are trying to avoid teaching “her lips are saying no, but her eyes are saying yes.” Which, let’s face it, is an attitude that fits comfortably within PUA culture: As long as it’s not actual rape, who cares if she’s comfortable with it or if you respected her boundaries?
3) There’s nothing antifeminist about a program teaching clear communication overall: “You can say no and say yes later; you can say ‘not today but definitely tomorrow’” while still emphasizing that “no” does not mean “bug the shit out of me until I give in”.
4) Huh? Nobody believes that clear communication is a good thing and that relying entirely on nonverbal cues is problematic?
I hear you saying that you attended an anti-rape program that was poorly designed. Okay. Where I don’t agree is your suggestion that we just have PUAs come in and tell everyone How To Read A Woman Like A Book. Because instructing on the finer points of ‘negging’ is so much better than saying, dude, just ask already.
What reason do we have to assume that the feminism he or other men encountered is significantly different from the feminism you practice? I agree with Hugh’s response to this question with the exception of presuming that it is the minority view that gets all the attention. It seems improbable that a majority of people would allow a minority view to take precedence, unless the majority actually agreed with the minority view or at least the result that view brings.
I am unsure how one could reach that conclusion based only on a person sharing their personal experiences with feminism. We need not use fictional anecdotes. Is there more to Catholicism than its views on homosexuality? Yes. Should a person ask whether the negative views they were exposed to are the mainstream Catholic views? Yes. Has the Catholic view on homosexuality changed in the last decade? Yes. However, that does not change a person’s experience or undo the damage that was done. If a gay person says that Catholic clergy members hurt them when they were part of the Church and that they still see shades of those negative views today, one should not take it as meaning any more than that.
Judging by the comments and the frequency of these kinds of discussions it is likely the former. I agree with Hugh that the public feminist message about male sexuality differs than the private one. Until someone questions the public message, very few feminists ever speak positively about male sexuality. Even on this thread it took Sam and Brian’s comments to prompt positive statements about male sexuality. So if feminists have a positive perspective on male sexuality, it is their responsibility to canvass neighborhoods to spread that message.
Even on this thread it took Sam and Brian’s comments to prompt positive statements about male sexuality.
But….where are the positive statements about female sexuality? Before feminism, nowhere. Prior to feminism, the societal statements about female sexuality were (and still are…) extraordinarily negative. We’re temptresses. We’re sluts. We’re frigid. We’re repressed. We’re only using our sexuality to get at Some Man’s Money. We’re responsible for the Eternal Fall of mankind. Etc.
It took feminism to get women’s sexuality above the “just look good and open your legs” stage.
If men want a more positive view of men’s sexuality, who better to describe that than men? Where are the male voices for a holistic male sexuality that doesn’t push women into an inferior (or damn near irrelevant—see “look good, open your legs”) position?
In other words, why do we have to do your work for you? Second-shift, indeed.
La Lubu said:
I think you’ve put your finger on the problem: these programs are about absolving the university and (perhaps) mollifying parents by making them believe that their kids are “safe.” They aren’t about teaching real world sexual communication.
Lynn, your post makes a lot of sense, and I’m going to chalk it up as another example of a feminist who’s private views about sexuality are much more reasonable than the feminist messages that I was exposed to. Your views are significantly different from the hardline feminist views I’ve run into during sex-ed or anti-violence seminars.
mythago said:
Yes, the feminist messages I ran into in schools and the media were about the toxicity of male sexuality, and the lengths of explicit verbal consent that men must go through when initiating sexually.
When I started to become more engaged with feminism, even as a critic, I found that those views were not universal within feminism. But they were the loudest feminist views I was exposed to.
I don’t want you to have the impression that I think feminism is defined the messages I’m complaining about. I know quite well that many feminists have more positive views of male sexuality, and more nuanced views about consent. We can see some of these views in this very discussion, including from you. I’m trying to get those feminists to speak up more about their perspectives. That’s why I’m constantly bugging feminists to discuss how they think men should initiate sexually, and promote positive views of male sexuality. (And if someone says “but feminism isn’t about men!” I have to wonder: who do straight women date, aliens? Men’s dating behavior and sexual expression impacts women.)
Some feminists are already doing this, which is appreciated. But so far, it’s merely a drop in the ocean of negativity from other feminists towards male sexuality.
I fully believe that feminism has more potential than might be obvious from the behavior of some feminists toting bullhorns in the public sphere, but it’s the job of other feminists to take those bullhorns away or bring out their own; I can only strain my ears so hard.
For (a), it would be reasonable, if the male-supremacist views you had to deal with weren’t mainstream in the men’s rights movement. Were the feminist messages I was exposed to “mainstream” or not? That’s actually a tricky question. Since I believe that most feminists don’t have a strongly negative view of male sexuality, and have nuanced views about consent that are more like yours and Lynn’s, the messages I got weren’t mainstream in the sense of being widely believed by feminists. On the other hand, I was running into these messages (like the “ask twice” roleplay) in institutionalized settings like schools, and it’s hard to get more mainstream than that.
What’s going on here is a strange situation where beliefs that are mainstream within feminism are minority beliefs in feminist discourse towards the non-feminist mainstream; basically, the spokespeople of feminism have “minority tastes” (to use Lynn’s term). A minority of feminists with more extreme views than other feminists and who are toting megaphones is indeed a PR problem for feminism, but it’s up to feminists to solve it.
As for (b), yes you should consider that there is more to men’s rights than what you’ve seen, but I think it would be within your rights to ask MRAs to show it to you.
And I’m not saying that it’s too late for me to believe that feminism is about anything more than the messages I heard from it while growing up. I know quite well that feminism is about more, and I’m trying to get feminists to sing it.
mythago said:
Thanks for acknowledging the poor design.
I think your explanation of the logic behind these programs is correct. I just think their logic is really busted.
It’s problematic to try to give people simple guidelines that are significantly different from what everyone does in reality and considers ethical. There are just a million ways for that to backfire.
Plenty of sophomores may be immature, but they are not inexperienced, despite what mommy and daddy and their high school authorities might think. If we present them with a model of consent that is much more rigid and restrictive than what works for them, they are probably just going to throw out the model completely.
As for the inexperienced kids, how are they going to get more experience if they’ve been taught to adhere to rigid, narrow, and over-simplified set of rules, and that any deviation from these rules makes them a bad person (especially if they are male)?
We can’t just tell teenagers that only explicit verbal consent is valid, and then expect them to figure out something more nuanced like “explicit verbal consent is one of the best ways to achieve consent, but certain mutual nonverbal ways of negotiating consent for some acts exist.” If the model is designed to not be taken seriously in one way, people will end up taking failing to take it seriously in other ways.
Instead, why don’t we present a model that isn’t defective by design, which everyone can take seriously from the start?
“Ask, don’t assume” seems like a good rule, and is better than some other approaches to consent, but it has a bunch of problems:
1. Asking has its own ethical issues. Asking is best reserved for when you think the other person will be interested in what you are asking about; otherwise, you are just making them needlessly uncomfortable. But how do you know when to ask? At some point, you have to make certain assumptions or guesses.
2. Even if you ask, you have to make an assumption about what the other person’s response means. You might believe that if they say “yes,” then they genuinely want to do what you were asking, but that’s an assumption: they might merely be going along unenthusiastically. You still need to be looking at body language, voice tonality, and subtext to determine whether consent is enthusiastic. Ironically, the “explicit verbal consent uber alles” paradigm actually discourages this sort of thinking. Explicit verbal consent is not always sufficient to establish enthusiastic consent.
3. It makes people think that asking and getting an answer verbally is the only way to communicate about consent. That’s just not true. You can grant someone consent to make a move on you without them asking, or you can try to set things up so that they will grant you consent without you literally asking. For instance, “if you want to jump me later on, I’d be down for that” grants consent without it being asked. The asking-centric paradigm of many programs fails to observe that in the real world, people grant consent without being asked, and it stifles people’s sexual imagination.
4. Virtually nobody believes it. It’s at odds with norms of nonverbal communication that most people (including some feminists in this thread) think are ethical, and it’s at odds with many people’s preferences. There seems to be a cultural consensus that certain acts can be negotiated nonverbally. It serves nobody to foist a model of consent on teenagers than denies this. Even if explicit verbal communication is encouraged as ideal, body language shouldn’t be completely thrown out.
“Ask, don’t assume” is a crude model of consent. Yes, it’s better to have a crude model of consent that’s overly restrictive, rather than a crude model of consent that’s overly permissive (like your example of “it’s better to ask forgiveness than permission). But a model of consent that isn’t massively oversimplified would be even better. Whether such a program would be feasible, either practically or politically, is a different question.
There is no getting around the fact that at some point, nonverbal communication and subtext need to be examined. If some people don’t have these skills, then our culture should teach them, even if only to use alongside verbal communication. Instead of telling people to not make assumptions, we should recognize that everything is an assumption, and teach people why some sorts of assumptions make more sense than others.
Giving people oversimplified, verbal-centric and asking-centric rules does not prepare teenagers for the reality of sexual communication in our culture, and it fails as a form of sex ed. It merely punish the minority of people who take those rules seriously. In fact, “asking only” sex education is remarkably similar to “abstinence only” sex education.
PUAs have the right idea where they actually teach men positive signals of interest to look for. Pickup seminars often use live coaching and female helpers to do this. The programs I ran into in high school and college sometimes had roleplays, but they were always horrible. The language they used was nothing like what real people say when talking about sex (e.g. “may I caress your breast, if that’s OK with you?”), and some of the behavior was nothing like what most people actually believe is necessary (like the double-ask for a kiss).
mythago said:
I’m not sure. I had various other ideas, and I don’t know where I got them from. I believed that sexual harassment was bad, and that women were more oppressed than men.
It wasn’t presented as a baseline behavior. It was presented as a rule, and as the only example of a way to initiate. That’s the problem.
As I’ve said, it’s better advice than merely making blind assumptions, or believing that “it’s better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission.” The massive focus on verbally asking doesn’t explain how to guess when it’s the right time to ask.
I do believe that a mating system that’s highly dependent on body language and nonverbal cues is unfair to people on the Autistic Spectrum. Perhaps an ideal system would be different. But until we live in such a system, we need to equip people for the reality of nonverbal communication. Even people on the Autistic Spectrum can become much better at it with teaching, in some cases.
That’s not what they say, sure. In fact, I think one of the programs did say that body language could mean “no.” But the problem is that they aren’t teaching the skills to read that body language.
Oh, I agree. But this leads to a myopic focus on verbal consent over everything else.
I don’t think the second attitude is what PUAs generally believe, but I am uncomfortable about some of the PUA discourse on token resistance. That’s a great discussion for another time.
Virtually nobody believes that “verbally ask, don’t assume” is a rule that applies to every sexual act. For instance, a couple feminists in this thread suggested that a kiss could be negotiated through mutual nonverbal behavior. (I think that such behavior actually is a form of “asking,” just not a verbal type of asking.)
Mythago, in theory “ask, don’t assume” could be presented as a guideline that isn’t incompatible with nonverbal communication, and that doesn’t limit people’s sexual creativity. But in practice, “ask, don’t assume” is presented as a rule, and it’s presented as the only way to communicate about consent. That’s extremely limiting.
Body language is trashed as “unreliable” (except perhaps for reading “no,” but even then the actual skill of reading body language is never taught). This means that people won’t be taught to look for the body language cues for when to ask. The focus of these programs is on explicit verbal asking only. This narrow focus stifles people from even discovering other ways of verbal negotiation over consent (such as granting someone consent and seeing if they jump on you).
I think we both agree that what is taught in these seminars is better and safer than some of the ideas that people might otherwise believe. My beef is that the exclusive focus on verbal asking fails to teach people the body language skills to know when to ask, and to interpret the answers they get. It also also stifles people from understand ways of verbally communicating about consent. Furthermore, these seminars fail to adequately respond to the intuition of many people that certain acts can be negotiated nonverbally (e.g. kissing).
As a result, such programs may make people marginally safer (if their lack of realism doesn’t make their advice get thrown out), but they don’t prepare people for how sexual communication and negotiation actually work in the real world. A sexual communication workshop that doesn’t discuss real world uses of nonverbal communication is badly incomplete; when it’s presented as the “one true way”, then it’s a joke. The main use of these seminars is to cover the legal asses of schools, and make parents feel that their kids are safe.
I was suggesting about some of the nonverbal skills to be lifted from pickup, not negging. Would that really be such a bad idea?
Oops, I accidentally reposted my previous comment along with my latest reply, because they were both in the same text editor file. Hugo, if you want to delete the top half of the comment (from “double-ask” on up), that would be great.
Mythago,
““Ask, don’t assume†is actually a good rule, because it avoids the better-to-ask-forgiveness-than-permission problem, as well as giving a straightforward guideline to people who aren’t experienced at giving or receiving signals.”
It could be a f***ing great rule – but usually mostly in theory. I think that’s largely because we – certainly as societies – are largely unable to have a discourse about our desires, particularly sexually, but also because what our specific desires are may not be clear to us at the point at which we’re asked about it (I was just at a party where a girl grabbed me from behind and grinded me on the dancefloor – was fun, but would I have consented had she asked? I’m not sure).
Always asking, on the one hand assumes, I believe, a consciousness of preferences, their stability and an ability to verbalize them that I doubt is very common among humans of either gender. On the other hand, that may well be so to a large degree because we (as human societies) don’t have a very well established way of talking about sexuality, pleasures and desire in an open and non-judgmental way, outside of a few fringe communities like BDSM. Maybe that’s because the standard script has commonly understood implications, but they’re certainly tacit.
Now, *that* has pretty much nothing to do with feminism. *That* was there before feminism. But feminism only looked at *one* part of the previous discourse without looking at the other – that’s why you get “ask, don’t assume” almost only in one specific version: “Guys, don’t”.
And using that discourse is thus built on two problematic assumptions: One – the assumption that exaggeration (all men are rapists! *always* ask!) is necessary because guys will overstep their boundaries anyway, and two – that female touch is always wanted and male touch is always unwanted, except explicitly stated otherwise. By doing that, feminism is reinforcing the notions about problematic male sexuality that it claims to try to dismantle – in workshops like the ones Hugh mentions or via feminist mothers telling their sons about “how men are pigs.”
By the way, in Clarisse’s manliness-followup thread there’s a couple of comments with research about the famous “always ask” antioch policy and how it was not working, largely ignored especially by women, and didn’t do anything against *actual* sexual harrassment or rape – I think that from late June. Really quite interesting.
La Lubu,
“In other words, why do we have to do your work for you? Second-shift, indeed.”
I think what is impossible is claiming both that men are essentially not-bad, while continuing a discourse about male sexuality that is sort of pretending they are, using cultural instead of biological arguments for male sexual sociopathy, because it’s convenient for political reasons and relieves women from the previous joint management of assumed male sociopathy, and then claim that it’s not feminism’s job to provide examples of positive masculinity. It’s either one or the other, in my opinion.
The complaint was that feminism is/was unfair to men with ASDs because feminism made reliability as a male provider both unnecessary to women’s happiness and a boring turn-off, leaving those men with literally nothing to offer compared to exciting Bad Boys, and trapped them into “Always Ask” consent interactions with sexist women who expected them to silently and correctly initiate sexual contact, meaning that when they asked, the answer was always “No”.
There are women who can be offered male sexuality tout court, if they are mid-30s virginal autistics themselves, but for normal women male sexuality has to come with some bling or a hot bod or social connections or just some red-hot PUA. I was sold the same rape-prevention seminars at an even higher level of toxic male sexuality in the 90s and I pretty much discarded any positive view of feminism as a result, save explicit consent, which IME is a fun game to play with women as equally hard-up as oneself. It will be a turn-off, however, to the average fun-loving feminine (or femininity-performing) woman with sexual options, and she may be sexist enough to humiliate one for asking.
Since (as a sex blogger) she lived/lives in cities analogous to the rust belt (Seattle, a re-made re-gentrifying industrial/logging/port town) and Boston, and works as an EMT, her position is similar to yours and she relentlessly mocks a set of social cues and procedures designed to win the favors of gender-typical femininity-performing 21-25 year-olds in the Los Angeles (and mainly Hollywood) club scene.
Seattle and Boston are former industrial/logging/port towns, but they’re not really analogous to the rust belt anymore since both cities have a very strong tech presence. (This is said as someone who lives in Seattle.)
I would describe the Seattle scene as “guys trying to knock off their male competitors as quickly as possible” because of the gender imbalance in the tech companies there. It gets rather ridiculous.
“I think you’ve put your finger on the problem: these programs are about absolving the university and (perhaps) mollifying parents by making them believe that their kids are “safe.â€
I think this misses the mark. I don’t think it’s about that at all. Think along the lines of “Just say no to drugsâ€
It a political message fashioned, as all political messages and ideologies are, to attract the vote, the sentiment, the support. Accuracy, efficacy, pragmatism – none of these really matter. Simple messages are simple because complex messages are hard and don’t sway “vote†quickly or with a critical mass. There is little good about any of it, aside for its ability to act as a mechanism for vote, followed by the privileges that come with vote.
My experience in the BDSM community tells me the majority of people in it are…submissive men, looking for dominant women, followed by submissive women looking for dominant men, third place goes to dominant men wanting submissive women, and fourth place to dominant women wanting submissive men (they’re the rarity, and hence get their pick by an incredible ratio of suiters per dominant women). Other arrangements (gay, lesbian, bi, switch etc) are rarer, but don’t have disproportionate seekers and seeked.
Surveying a online community of 600,000 members (that I’m member of), I’d say the ratios are close to 40% sub men, 30% sub women, 10% domme women and 20% dom men.
This is exactly me. And I do prefer honest sexual communication before anything happens, before we’re even close (but not first-time-meeting strangers). For first-time-meeting, I still don’t play games, but my lack of awareness to my own body language could send weird signals I guess. I decide whether I’m interested or not pretty fast if someone shows interest, and it’ll show, obviously…even more than I’d try to show (my unawareness and all).
I’m also aspie and trans on top, and an avowed submissive.
But even minimal exposure to testosterone can lower it. Minimal as in “I don’t need to take injectable testosterone”, much less than needed to get a visible moustache (which many women do get).
My voice is rather androgynous (lower than alto, but I’d say also higher than tenor, so a contr-alto I guess – a role typically played by high-pitched adult men in choirs) due to this testosterone exposure. I’ve had limited testosterone exposure for a trans woman (far from fully developed for a male) so I think I could count as a woman who got a bit higher T level (at some point, but for long enough – not currently, but it doesn’t revert afterwards – voice and facial hair are permanent once grown) than average.
(warning: side conversation….but it needs to be addressed)
But even minimal exposure to testosterone can lower it. Minimal as in “I don’t need to take injectable testosteroneâ€, much less than needed to get a visible moustache (which many women do get).
But a woman can have a “low voice” relative to other women, without exposure to any more testosterone than the average woman has. Same with those “mustaches” (translation: darker than average peach fuzz on upper lip). Poor comparison, in fact, as body hair (like hair color, hair texture, skin color, and eye color) is strongly linked to ethnicity. Men who don’t grow much body hair don’t have lower testosterone levels than men with a great deal of body hair. Meanwhile, vocal tone and range has a wide variance across ethnicities.
In any case, I haven’t met any cisgender women with low voices who actually sounded masculine. I have a low voice; it’s been called “sexy” and “sultry”…but my voice has never been mistaken for a man’s.
I have met ciswomen who sounded like men before, enough to think it was normal, if rare, occurrence.
I also think it’s more than just ethnicity. Some butch women and trans men – who have never had testosterone injection, still have low voices, and sometimes beards. Not just peach fuzz, actual beards.
Testosterone elongates the vocal chords and deepens the voice during puberty.
So that is the actual CAUSE…There are so few studies on estrogen in general that it may be responsible for changes in vocal chords that perhaps affect sound without elongation. I’ve also seen studies where it came to the conclusion that it isn’t the hormone itself that produces the some of the effects, but how the body reacts to it…also, the difference in voice that I believe La Lubu is referring to isn’t the octave, but the breathiness that females tend to naturally have due to a gap in the folds of the vocal chords. I’m not convinced that we can narrow it down to an amount of testosterone.
Hmm. I have a high IQ, am a nerd, enjoy analysis of all subjects, like computer games and have a voice like a twelve-year-old girl. I’m thinking whatever effect testosterone may or may not have on vocal tones, it has none whatsoever on IQ, nerdiness, analytical tendencies or a fondness for gaming. This isn’t even the correlation = causation fallacy, folks…we aren’t even achieving correlation in the first place.
“but for normal women male sexuality has to come with some bling or a hot bod or social connections or just some red-hot PUA”
lolwut?
“I pretty much discarded any positive view of feminism”
Oh, okay. Now the above statement makes perfect sense. Interest level has plummeted to zero.
Is there some reason that this thread has deteriorated into a bizarre attempt to convert the heathen, er, I mean, convince a small group of strangely institutionalized playas that following the light will show them how feminism is the reely-trulee answer to all their sweaty-palmed fantasies rather than actually being the party-pooper lezbo roundup? The last ten or twenty comments all seem to consist of those exchanges, anyway.
It would be pre-natal testosterone effects, or their prevention, that affects psyche. Wether you’re more naturally masculine or feminine (even if not imposed on you). It’s also probably one of the main factors affecting sexual identity (that is, which sex you identify as when born and old enough to know different sexes exists).
Post-natal testosterone influence is what changes voice.
What made me interested in videogames did so before I was 4 and got hooked on Intellivision III (original 1978, I was born 1982) that my father played on.
It’s more that I think feminism is (in the economic sphere, anyway, and this may be a middle-class Californian viewpoint and issue) a done deal. None of the women I went to a public high school (and later university) with are going to give up their jobs, the vote, their small businesses (for some reason a lot of the gender-atypical nerdy women I ran across became consultants, crafts store owners, and private investigators, when not police detectives or sole-practice lawyers), and most have the familiar American nuclear family of their biological children with men *who are even higher-status than they are*. The successful feminine, or femininity-performing women, are small-time celebrities, adding beauty power to the mix. So I don’t think Sam, Hugh, Brian or I (and I am probably the least-effective “playa” of the mix, although i suspect the one with the most exposure to PUA gurus) can actually DO anything in our (inter)personal lives that would in some way trod on women’s autonomy, even if we wanted to, which we don’t. This may be because I’m a bit adept at reading body language but also only ever receive a plethora of positive signals from an even smaller minority of women than the gender-atypical-seeking Hugh, such that women appear friendlier, more sexual, and more sexually engaging–willing to act and willing to be approached–to them. Learning to initiate EVERY stage of romantic interaction is thus necessary even after finding the small subset of women who find you naturally attractive. And the less traditionally-masculine the man, the smaller the subset of women.
mythago said:
They do, but they get drowned out in the larger culture. When the predominant messages about male sexuality are negative, that’s really not counterbalanced by some feminist in a book or blog post somewhere saying something different.
Of course, I sympathize with feminists who are doing what they can in the present to discussion male sexuality in a way that isn’t primarily negative.
That could help… Ha, just kidding.
Well, it’s always going to be both. There are some people out there who’s view of feminism you (“you” as in feminists don’t have a primarily negative view of male sexuality) can change. There will be some people out there who’s view of feminism you can never change, but perhaps I could. And then there will be some people who’s views of feminism neither of us could change.
The existence of those latter groups of people who focus on the old songs doesn’t mean that the new songs shouldn’t be sung; that would be a cop out. There are people who will listen to the new songs if they are sung by a large enough amount of feminists. Those feminists will probably have to hit some sort of critical mass.
Until then, those feminists will probably have a long slog where they do their best to sing the new songs, but they are still lumped in with negative perceptions of feminism. Yes, that sucks, but it’s not just the fault of people being biased; it’s also the fault of other feminists who’ve built up certain associations with feminism.
That was the position I felt myself in with MRAs, and my solution was to just stop identifying as an MRA. I’m not going to identify as an MRA and go to great lengths defending them if other MRAs are just going to crap on my efforts by dragging the movement down into the dirt.
Will there always be a bias against feminism? Yes. Can you expect people to have a positive view of feminism when feminists with negative views of male sexuality are massively outshouting feminists with positive views of male sexuality? No. Even the most open-minded people towards feminism can only judge feminism based on what feminists say.
I’ve got some more ideas about how feminists can change views towards feminism, but they involve shouldering a lot of responsibility and doing a lot of work, so I think they are best saved for another time.
I was talking about the specific example of feminists leading consent seminars who argue that kissing must be initiated verbally to not be assault. Lynn characterized such a view of consent for kissing as a “minority taste.” If so, then feminists with minority tastes around consent (even within feminism?) are somehow in schools promoting their views.
So, I’m supposed to shout even louder and jump up and down to try to undo people’s impressions based on something Andrew Dworkin is alleged to have once said, but if I don’t even identify as a feminist, how am I supposed to do that?
You have greater faith in people than I do. I find that most people who hold negative, monolithic stereotypes (not just about feminists) do so because they find it useful to do so, not because they would immediately change their ways if shown a different point of view. If I decide that all MRAs are the kind of guys who write paens to Darren Mack, then I don’t have to engage with whether there are non-asshole MRAs who, perhaps, may have something useful to say, in a way that might force me to rethink my views; therefore wouldn’t it be useful to me to say that reasonable MRAs pretty much have nobody but themselves to blame if women think they’re all sexists? After all, they aren’t yelling loud enough, they’re being drowned out by the extremists in their ranks, and anyway perhaps they should pick a more neutral label than “MRA”.
SamSeaborn, I’m seeing a lot of verbal gymnastics on this, but really: what’s wrong with ‘ask, don’t assume’ as a starting point? Verbal communication fails? Sure, it does sometimes. I don’t see the corollary to that as ‘therefore, go back to grabbing her tits, because she might like it, and if she doesn’t, at least you got to grab her tits before she stopped you’.
Wow. Is this a sarcastic parody? Because the ‘logic’ is jaw-dropping. I’d understood (or perhaps, misunderstood) the argument to be that men with ASDs benefit from a social script, and deviating from the traditionalist social script just screws up their chances of getting laid.
The traditionalist script that ADS men “must follow” isn’t exactly evident for them. If they can,t read verbal cues or body language, treating them as if “you must ask explicitly and verbally or else you’re a creep” is any better – they’ll take it seriously, and thus have less success with those women who don’t *want* explicit asking…
I’m so glad I can be understood as female…or else, my future sex life would be inexistent (unless I somehow promised to be a sexual slave, that seems to have some few people interested – seems like my only way out as a trans female sub).
Does anyone else feel like there are things not being said…I really feel like this conversation is a lot of dancing around what really wants to be said.
As for ADS men…I didn’t realize feminism was PUA….the whole goal this time of feminism was how to get men to approach women in a healthy way…it wasn’t about women’s equality??? shit…I’m lost now.
“Wow. Is this a sarcastic parody? Because the ‘logic’ is jaw-dropping. I’d understood (or perhaps, misunderstood) the argument to be that men with ASDs benefit from a social script, and deviating from the traditionalist social script just screws up their chances of getting laid.”
Men with ASDs who dismiss feminism benefit from a social script…Men with ASDs who have been “indoctrinated” from feminism, are torn between social scripts and asking for explicit consent, which supposedly is always met with “no”…at least from women who expect that script, which supposedly is a majority (I can agree), and for some reason men deserve the majority of women to approve of them…while women don’t complain that the minority of men “approve” of them as full human beings and not just “I’d tap that.”….I am so lost here it’s not even funny…
“I find that most people who hold negative, monolithic stereotypes (not just about feminists) do so because they find it useful to do so, not because they would immediately change their ways if shown a different point of view.”
Good one.
“I find that most people who hold negative, monolithic stereotypes (not just about feminists) do so because they find it useful to do so, not because they would immediately change their ways if shown a different point of view.â€
perfect example of confirmation bias.
“(unless I somehow promised to be a sexual slave, that seems to have some few people interested – seems like my only way out as a trans female sub).”
That really somehow only applies to trans female sub? I thought that was life for women in general…you know, cause women who speak out about what they don’t like are “silenced” or held responsible for people who can’t understand that a minority of women don’t want to be sexual slaves.
mythago wrote:
If you are not a feminist perhaps it is not your problem. If you are a feminist, the best way to change people’s impressions of feminists is by showing them a different perspective. As the old adage says, actions speak louder than words. You might not be able to drown out the negative voices, but you can certainly have an impact on those affected by the negative voices. So if feminists want to sway the notion that feminists only offer negative opinions about male sexuality, they should preemptively and publicly offer positive opinions about male sexuality, not wait until someone criticizes the negative commentary or bury it in a blog post or book.
Ironically, that statement is an example of confirmation bias. People form negative stereotypes about other people for a variety of reasons, and they may change their views depending on a variety of circumstances. It seems unwise to assume that people are operating out of abject bad faith.
kristina wrote:
Which is?
I think the implication is that we are upset that women get to say “No” at all, and that we simply aren’t good enough to get female attention, on the order of figleaf’s recurring “If you are bored, you must be boring” trope on the Real Adult Sex blog.
I’m making a distinction with sex slave as a as-close-to-possible-as-real-life-sex-slave (but obviously, can’t be legally binding) to someone. A BDSM concept.
Not a metaphorical construct akin to saying that capitalism is slavery because everyone is forced to work and most of them do without being paid their real due.
I’m literally speaking of a “I belong to you”, though the concept is called Consensual Slavery in BDSM. Can also be referred to as TPE (Total Power Exchange). Actual slaves are much rarer than submissives within the community.
My trans status makes me have much less choice (75% of men who find me physically attractive dismiss me outright if I say I’m trans, I typically don’t ask (or get asked by) many women to be their partner). I was just saying that promising to be a (consensual) slave ups your scarcity and thus demand for you.
People who understand me as female, sexually and in other ways, will not reject me outright as a partner because of my trans status. And while its much lesser than the average 28 year old ciswoman, it’s still sufficient to be approached rather than approaching – my being Asperger would just be the coup de grace if I had to approach and was understood as male.
But I’ve just been repeatedly told that it’s too late anyway; that no matter what reasonable feminists do or say or have said and done, it doesn’t matter because the media will just repeat the tired old “hurrr they don’t shave their legs” thing; and even if feminists do proactively and visibly present a positive image, this will just get ignored because, sorry, it makes better copy to pretend Catherine Mackinnon said “all sex is rape” than to discuss a Susie Bright column. Particularly since all those positive depiction about sex talk about, well, sex.
kristina, of course men with ASDs (like women with ASDs) find social scripts a lot easier than ‘just wing it’ – what I don’t understand is the assertion that feminism is somehow ableist because the traditional gender role scripts help men with ASDs get by (women with ASDs can just go die in a fire, apparently).
Women with ASDs get approached sufficiently often that they can date, if they have an abstract intellectual understanding of the traditional script and are willing to execute the traditional female role. What they can’t do easily, according to Grandin and De Becker, is read the physical “tells” of a predatory male. I have heard female Aspies tell me they stopped dating because male attention came exclusively in the form of harassment, or because they were never outside the house, but (perhaps because of how women are socialized in pink-collar professions) I’ve never known one to have total script failure. Life is easier when someone else leans in for the kiss. This is just IME, anyway but Schala’s perspective has been very enlightening since I’ve never before considered the challenges of transgender people w/ASDs.
It’s easier to be harassed and have no ability to tell if someone is a possible partner or a serious danger, easier? Because the fear… It is not important, not nearly as important as fear of asking women out.
mythago,
“I’m seeing a lot of verbal gymnastics on this, but really: what’s wrong with ‘ask, don’t assume’ as a starting point? Verbal communication fails? Sure, it does sometimes. I don’t see the corollary to that as ‘therefore, go back to grabbing her tits, because she might like it, and if she doesn’t, at least you got to grab her tits before she stopped you’.”
are you asking me for a reply to this? I’m asking, because I don’t know positively you if you aren’t, even though I assume you don’t, because if you did you’d probably be less snarky. As you say, sometimes verbal comunication fails. So, are you asking for a real, non-snarky, reply in addition to what I’ve said what you call “mental gymnastics”?
kristina,
“Does anyone else feel like there are things not being said…I really feel like this conversation is a lot of dancing around what really wants to be said.”
No, I think things are being said, there’s just a problem of perspectives. As I see it, women/feminists are saying: This either isn’t a problem (“duh!”/ “I’ve been saying this forever”) or it’s sexual assault. And men are saying “this is a problem (“want better guidance”/”where has feminism been positive about male sexuality?”) and we’re not talking about sexual assault”. Bridging that perceptual gap requires a lot of putting oneself in the other’s shoes, and I don’t think we’re there yet. And I’m sceptical we’ll ever get there…
Good willing people talking past each other. Happens.
“Which is?”
I have no clue….I feel like communication is hobbled in some way, but can’t pinpoint it…perhaps Sam has what I’m sensing right…
“I think the implication is that we are upset that women get to say “No†at all, and that we simply aren’t good enough to get female attention, on the order of figleaf’s recurring “If you are bored, you must be boring†trope on the Real Adult Sex blog.”
Everybody is deserving of attention from the opposite sex, not everybody is deserving of a certain person’s affections… I don’t know how else to say I’m sorry that you feel like you can’t initiate successfully, and maybe I can’t relate…but overall I’d say the message of feminism I see is completely different from the one you perceive…I’m pretty sure I’d be asexual if I perceived men as incapable of being more than beasts, or with little value other than reproduction. The girls I know that aren’t feminists are VERY optimistic about men…to the point of seeming naive…so I’m not sure I can relate to the statement that everyone sees men as dangerous…I’ve seen my friends not afraid to initiate anything sexually, and they are not even feminists…
Sam, you brought up some girl grinding on you without asking permission, but at the same time you will say women think your sexuality is dangerous, and how she can do that without being judged as a predator…so you’d rather use her as an example of how women have it easier sexually than men, and at the same time say you feel your sexuality is dangerous? That really baffles me and is like…wow…damned if you do damned if you don’t…even if you never said anything to her like that, or maybe even thought it in the moment…it seems like a cognitive dissonance going on there..
I don’t have fear of being harassed. Though I don’t go out much.
My experience has been that “serious danger” was just as hard to ‘tell’ pre-transition, but that I was also more targeted, because boys and men are fair targets (and no one will care unless they get stabbed or something) and because I was just as naive (too trusting).
It’s not like people have done stuff to make it safer for men who trust too much.
And the topic here is not talking about a fear of asking women out, it’s about not being certain it is morally sound to ask women out (will the attention be wanted? won’t it be harassment?), regardless of the ability to do so.
“It’s not like people have done stuff to make it safer for men who trust too much.”
I personally have…For ex boyfriends, and my husband…anyone harassing anyone imo is wrong…even if it’s men harassing other men…I don’t honestly get how guys can say something bad about the other in a joking manner and have it not erode the friendship, but strengthen it…I have talked with my husband about it when he and his friends do it, and he just shrugs it off as the way guys are. I tell him how appalled I am by the behavior, and it has zero effect…No matter how much I say harassment sucks, no matter what effect it has on your friends and how you bond, I’m still met with an attitude of “you just don’t get it.” Damn straight I don’t get it…I think it’s harmful and counterproductive…and I’m not afraid to say how stupid it looks to me.
“And the topic here is not talking about a fear of asking women out, it’s about not being certain it is morally sound to ask women out (will the attention be wanted? won’t it be harassment?), regardless of the ability to do so.”
Really in order to do that we would certainly have to establish a moral authority, and seeing how morality differs from person to person, it’s rather hard or counterproductive to hold an entire group with diversities accountable..that is what we are arguing when we say feminists aren’t monolith, and why we suggest it seems better to establish some sort of relationship…that in itself presents problems though seen as “getting out of the friend zone”.
Now feminists are saying they haven’t this notion of monolith about feminism that some men do, or did..perhaps that is a matter of exposure? I’d say if the issue concerns you in more way than one (more than just how do I avoid harassing females.)then you are probably more likely to take interest in the messages and seek out diversity or hell even stumble upon diversity…I didn’t know much about feminism until I really took the time to read everything, even things I didn’t agree with…at least I saw how it may have connected to my experiences, and maybe was disconnected from my experiences..(I’m not accusing anyone of doing no research…so let’s not get all up in arms)..I think this is reference to “if it’s not about you, don’t make it about you.” I personally see that as a message to women too…if I’m happy with PIV, this message isn’t for me…but it took me a long argument with some radical feminists to figure that out, and at first my feelings were hurt and I felt shamed…but all the hurt feelings I had were “in my head” so to speak… Nobody was telling me how to live my life, they were just making a space for people who didn’t know they had other options…to give them the option of PIV or other mutually satisfying sexual experiences…that space for them is important, and I recognize that now…but I was blinded by my own experiences…and yeah I may not be “the perfect feminist”, but I was also told, there is no perfect feminist…there is discourse, and there is life…there is the musings of what could be a perfect society, and then there is real life…
I know some of you guys think I don’t get it…that maybe I don’t know what you’re feeling…but I have a glimpse…
I’ve had sex unwillingly before, and not by physical force, and while by feminist discourse I can count it as rape, I wouldn’t dare accuse those men of it…at the time I didn’t speak up, I didn’t say no, and even if the law would take me at my word that it happened I would NEVER EVER accuse someone of something they had no idea they were doing…because I recognize that I SHOULD have said no, and the reason I didn’t was fear, and anxiety, and this overwhelming desire to be wanted sexually, but that was not the fault of those men…it was the fault of an imperfect society…and my musings for something more hopeful helped me to recognize my own faults, and not impose them on others.
kristina wrote:
It reminded of a post I wrote a while ago that might be germane to this discussion: A Personal Story About Rape.
Hi,
This was a really interesting post. I do think that sometimes we forget to consider that women often need to work out a solution to a simillar situation. Certainly the same principle of affirm your own wanting but also to affirm the right of the person to reject it clearly applies. However, I think it should be noted that this problem is often further complicated by a history of learning not to be sexually passive. This is often a remarkably difficult thing to overcome for a woman or others facing strong social or physiological barriers to experiencing and understanding desire in ways which are genuinely respectful of people around them. Masturbation can be a morally complex issue for anyone. However, may women have difficulty becoming orgasmic and the strong draw of sexual and emotional fulfillment with men (or women) who often may not reciprocate the feeling based on any number of valid reasons including appearance,can result in an individual not developing effective strategies to deal with their own desire in a affirmative, moral way. I want to be clear there is no justification for taking out frustration on another person at any time. Rather, people struggling to understand their own desire and/or how to find positive outlets for it, should get professional help.
Richard… beautiful post…I identify completely..but I wouldn’t say in my case that someone who would suggest it is rape is necessarily doing me a disservice…I would like if you could possibly elaborate as to why you felt it was…
but anyway…it was important for me to know in future experiences, what rape actually is, and that I should recognize my right to say no, and if I don’t I’m doing a disservice to everyone involved…not just myself. Before I found feminism I was angry at those men whom I felt just used me…though it turned out it was less of them using me, and more of me projecting my anger of not being able to say no that dissolved the relationship…feminism gave me a way to express that while what happened was wrong, it was not strictly the fault of those men, and I HAD to take responsibility for my silence, and at the same time it suggests to guys the possibility that silence doesn’t mean yes…I can see how this gets confusing, and I’ve seen the idea of enthusiastic consent thrown around, and even that can be problematic given the idea that most women feel they have to moan like a porn star, in order to make a man feel manly…I really can understand the position of men..I would never want to be accused of something if the person didn’t speak up, I would never want to be accused if that person wasn’t clear about their consent, I would never want to feel like I’m undesired because those issues can be so sticky…which really is why I don’t see how feminism is so harmful…If I learned as a woman that saying NO is my right it’s not only beneficial for me…it’s beneficial for any man that comes in contact with me…I hurt men in my wake that never heard my “no.”, and I will never get to explain to them how sorry I am that I thought all they wanted was sex, when they may have thought it was mutual, and never had the opportunity to tell them that some women may have had my same problem and that confronting those issues may have led to a healthier relationship in their future…
kristina,
“Sam, you brought up some girl grinding on you without asking permission, but at the same time you will say women think your sexuality is dangerous, and how she can do that without being judged as a predator…so you’d rather use her as an example of how women have it easier sexually than men, and at the same time say you feel your sexuality is dangerous? That really baffles me and is like…wow…damned if you do damned if you don’t…even if you never said anything to her like that, or maybe even thought it in the moment…it seems like a cognitive dissonance going on there..”
I’m not really sure what you mean here. Where’s the cognitive dissonance? I felt a bit used because she mentioned she was doing it (and it was a bit more than grinding) to make another guy jealous. Still, you’re right, I never felt it was a big deal, and I was mainly thinking that I, or any other guy, certainly would never be able to get away with something like that… basically, if a woman is throwing herself on some guy he’s lucky, when a man is throwing himself on a random woman, he’s assaulting her – right? There’s just a different standard of acceptance of female touch, and that has a lot to do with social attributions to female touch as scarce as well as women being physically less threatening.
As for another grinding incident – last week I was walking by a woman on a dance floor, while she was dancing with another guy. And she dragged me in and “sandwiched” me between her (grinding me from behind) and her male friend who looked a little scared and moved away instantly. She put her hands around me, on and below my belt buckle. I was on my way out, and a girl was waiting for me at the coat check, so I quickly disentangled myself and said bye. It was a bit unusual, and it wasn’t threatening, but while she was all over me, I was thinking – if I didn’t have to go – what would be an appropriate move here? I hadn’t even seen her face and her hands were on and below my belt buckle. Would it have been ok had I returned the “favour” and touched her “lower back hips”, which, in that position was the comparable place to where she had put hers on me?
Basically, I thought her initiating an interaction like this on a dance floor was unusual, but totally ok for me – but I would never attempt anything like this, certainly not from behind, with a woman I hadn’t even talked to before.
And with respect to mythago – she never asked.
She just assumed her touch would be welcome.
And, I think, all we’re trying to establish here are instances in which it is reasonable for a guy to believe the same.
So, her hands were on my belt buckle and she was grinding me. Should I have asked on the dance floor where to touch her? What should I have asked? Or could I have assumed she was looking for me to reciprocate her initiation? What do you think would have been appropriate here?
kristina:
The simplest answer, which is all I have time for right now, is that I think convincing me to call rape what happened between me and the girl with whom I lost my virginity–or perhaps to whom is the more accurate way of putting it–was more obfuscating than it was clarifying; it actually blurred distinctions that I think are important to make, which is kind of what I tried to make the conclusion of that post about.
Sam…I really wish I could help you with a scenario…but I’m afraid I can’t…if her assumptions were that you would be okay with it, then you both aren’t even on a level playing field…I’ve been guilty of assumptions like that, but when someone brings them to my attention I step back and apologize…if I can’t recognize some of my assumptions about life are wrong I certainly wouldn’t be compatible with someone who can’t or has trouble following gender scripts…but if I’m not called out on how I could be wrong, I’ll never know, and I’ll never know another option…that is another reason I thought I did the guys in my past a disservice…they will never know there was another option to believing the tired old stereotypes of women…whether or not they would have agreed with me, I would’ve at least given them an opportunity.
Richard: I can understand that…I guess not everybody is going to come to the conclusions I came to…it’s going to depend on life experiences…I don’t know, I guess I’ve always grown up thinking everything is my fault, so it forces me to examine what part I had in everything (it victimized me in a way but seemed necessary to move past it, in my circumstances), and maybe that is why I came to the conclusion I did. I wasn’t raised in a perfect environment, but when I applied what I learned I was able to find a path…kind of like how I feel about feminism.
“basically, if a woman is throwing herself on some guy he’s lucky, when a man is throwing himself on a random woman, he’s assaulting her – right?”
I understand your frustration…but really…you were wishing women would be more open…and one is (even though it was WRONG of her to use you)and all you can think about is how if you as a guy did this would be seen as an assailant….
It is asking women to be more assertive, and when they are, thinking that it’s not fair because you can’t do that….
which is VERY much what I was saying as a woman who initiates has felt FROM guys that have specifically said they want to be approached….guys who also said women who approach don’t exist…when I showed them they did (hello…me) they despised me for it. Still…I didn’t feel like I deserved their attention…I just chalked it up to they have no idea what they really want…and avoided them like the plague…a guy who can’t make up his mind is scary.
kristina,
“you were wishing women would be more open…and one is (even though it was WRONG of her to use you)and all you can think about is how if you as a guy did this would be seen as an assailant…. It is asking women to be more assertive, and when they are, thinking that it’s not fair because you can’t do that….”
well, my point was how ingrained that feeling is. I think the two instances were different in that the woman in the first case was actually using me, the one in the latter (though I don’t know, as we didn’t really talk, probably) wasn’t, she seemed quite interested. So, well, as I said, I had to go, but that doesn’t mean I would not have appreciated her advance in other circumstances. Hence my question of what you/other commenters would feel her physical advance would reasonably justify in physical reciprocity (assume before asking).
Still, yeah, it does feel unfair that women can live with the feeling that their touch is appreciated, while men have to live with the assumption that their touch is at least potentially violent.
Hence my question of what you/other commenters would feel her physical advance would reasonably justify in physical reciprocity (assume before asking).
Wow. Uhh…I’m probably the wrong person to ask, because my answer would be for you to be on the safe side, and always ask explicitly for permission. I mean, you’re talking about putting your hands on a total stranger, not someone with whom you already have a relationship, and thus know and understand one another’s nonverbal communication.
I would freak out if some stranger touched me like that, assuming that it was ok because hey…it’s a dance floor, thus you lose all bodily integrity by being on it. I would feel that way whether it was a man or a woman, and no matter their size. That scenario would end very badly.
To me, it’s not necessarily about the implicit violence (and hey…cry me a river that as a man you have to live with the assumption that your touch is potentially violent…). It’s about respect and boundaries. My presence on a dance floor is NOT implicit consent for anyone to cross those boundaries without my explicit permission. I tend to assume that everyone feels the same way, even though I know they don’t. It does no harm to me to assume that others share the same strong sense of physical boundaries that I do. It does no harm to ASK for clarity from others, if I perceive they are sending “mixed messages”.
And that’s our disconnect. Will some people react badly to the asking for clarity? To the assumption of boundaries? To the process of getting to know someone better before making the leap into assuming nonverbal consent? Yes, some people will. I view this as a tremendous “plus”—I like to screen such folks out of my life, and especially out of my personal life. You seem to view this as a negative, for reasons I can’t understand.
LaLubu,
“cry me a river that as a man you have to live with the assumption that your touch is potentially violent…”
sorry, but that’s like the basic assumption I’m living with. Saying “cry me a river” basically means that you’re cannot understand that feeling.
“It’s about respect and boundaries. My presence on a dance floor is NOT implicit consent for anyone to cross those boundaries without my explicit permission.”
Well, but she put her hands on my zipper without asking first. Sure, at that point I could have told her that she sexually assaulting me. But the question is: doesn’t that action on her part reasonably imply consent for physical reciprocation? Assume we’re dancing with her hands on my zipper and I should stop, introduce myself and then ask explicitly if I can reciprocate by touching her lower hips instead of simply keep on dancing? I mean that sounds just absurd to me.
“You seem to view this as a negative, for reasons I can’t understand.”
It’s a standard only/very primarily affecting me/men – as explained here. Women have the freedom to both touch my zipper *and* potentially scream should I reciprocate in kind. I’m quite certain that you can agree that’s not really fair.
“It does no harm to ASK for clarity from others, if I perceive they are sending “mixed messagesâ€.”
You’re saying it was a “mixed message”. I don’t think it should be seen as such. I think that a woman who’s touching my zipper can be reasonably assumed to have implicitly consented to reciprocation in kind, don’t you?
“Still, yeah, it does feel unfair that women can live with the feeling that their touch is appreciated, while men have to live with the assumption that their touch is at least potentially violent.”
I agree…let’s get that right off the bat…it is unfair that men feel their touch may be violent, and women’s touch is “appreciated”…what causes this?
Honestly in my eyes it’s that society has always told me all guys want is sex, so if you are being a vixen on the dance floor, no guy in his right mind will object..unless he’s gay, MAYBE if he has a girlfriend, or you are just plain too ugly to be acting so sexual.
Feminism has told me, that some guys who buy into the idea that all men want is sex are going to think that way, but there are guys who don’t buy into that idea, even though they still sexually desire you, it isn’t their MAIN goal…so now it comes to the question of..ok how do I tell what man will sexually desire me and just use me, and what man will sexually desire me, AND love me? I mean if I just ask I don’t think the real answer would come out…not because men are liars, but because actions speak louder than words, that goes for both sexes. So what actions would define a feminist man? As MRAs would put it…being a “bitch” and catering to her needs…what I think they forget is…if you cater to her needs, she will cater to yours at the same time…it can’t be thought of who does what first…
In animals…if an animal senses you don’t trust them, they will immediately distrust you…you would have to show your trust first, then the animal will immediately submit…nobody says…no the dog should trust me first…Talk about a catastrophe…and when it is all said and done, it’s realized that it was never the person submitting to the animal, it was mutual respect. I’m going to use that site again as an example..it says that an alpha is one who looks out for the good of the group, and not the one who will pick a fight over being first…the one picking the fight has established he does not have endless resources, nor the good of the group in mind…if you have endless humility, you will be met with endless humility…that is my experience, and why I’ve said before that I am willingly submissive to my husband…needless to say, he picks most of the fights…and yes, he always “wins”…;P
“Well, but she put her hands on my zipper without asking first. Sure, at that point I could have told her that she sexually assaulting me. But the question is: doesn’t that action on her part reasonably imply consent for physical reciprocation? Assume we’re dancing with her hands on my zipper and I should stop, introduce myself and then ask explicitly if I can reciprocate by touching her lower hips instead of simply keep on dancing? I mean that sounds just absurd to me.”
I’d have to say, voice your thoughts…if you feel that you doing that would warrant for sexual assault, and you feel that your boundaries were over stepped..you need to let her know. I know you may be welcoming the attention, but you’re welcoming it under the terms that if you don’t, it may never happen again…THAT is not FAIR, for you or her…you’re letting her go with the assumption that this must happen all the time for you, and it’s not a big deal(leaving her able to confuse any other guy she may come in contact with)…if you are in the slightest bit uncomfortable it NEEDS to be voiced…no not by screaming RAPPPPE!!!, but maybe by letting her know you’re not used to some girl just grabbing you like that, and it makes you uncomfortable..not with the physical contact…you enjoy that(I think??), but with the assumption that could be behind the physical contact…if she responds badly, she doesn’t care about your feelings…if she reciprocates and you get into a great convo about it, you have a LOT in common..you both are willing to please each other…
In going with my original submissive comment… let me play a scenario for you.. I’m very forgetful for various reasons I often lose items, a lot of times they are important items… My husband will get into a rage and blame me for losing it..I understand he’s frustrated at not being able to find the item..I’m frustrated about it too..I could essentially be “submissive” and let him yell at me…but the truth of the matter is I can’t find it if he’s yelling at me..my first reaction will be to yell back..I’ve been able to recognize that, and not yell (thus being submissive)..however, I calmly state that there is no way I can find what we’re looking for with him yelling at me..sometimes he continues to get angry, I simply stay calm and point out yet again that his yelling is distracting, and I don’t want to argue, I want to find the item..I have clearly stated my boundaries (that I won’t be yelled at) and that my goal is the same as his (the good of the group)…by this point he stops yelling and tries to find the item too..sometimes he will look and continue arguing, but at least he’s not in my face about it, and once the item gets found all is well again…he will usually apologize (submit) for being so angry and yelling, and I just shrug it off, cause hell, we found the item… to outsiders this seems abusive…but if we take it down to base level animal behavior, it’s that my husband is NOT an alpha…unfortunately, I’m not either…but I’m learning.
Same, the “cry me a river” comment was meant to illustrate the fact that your hurt feelings that you can be perceived as a potential rapist because you are male, is a far lesser burden to carry than the burden I carry—which is having to build my actions and life around the fact that not only can I be raped, but that I can’t count on getting the support of the police or justice system after the fact. That I can be blamed for my own rape (indeed, bear a greater share of the blame for my rape than my rapist) because…what was I doing in that neighborhood? or living in that neighborhood? or out after dark? or wearing that? shouldn’t I have known better? Yes, Sam. Cry me a damn river of blues. Your blues, son, ain’t like mine. Being raped is a greater trauma than being assumed to be capable of raping. Deal with it.
Ahem. As for this: I think that a woman who’s touching my zipper can be reasonably assumed to have implicitly consented to reciprocation in kind, don’t you? Not necessarily. First of all, this place you went to….it serves alcohol, no? She may have been drunk, and not in any position to give consent.
You can be more open to intimate touch from a stranger precisely because you are male. And if you’re open to that form of touching from women you’ve never even spoken to, hey…I’m not Big Sister; I’m not going to tell you that you’re wrong. But you did ask for advice, and if you’re looking for someone here to tell you, “go ahead; feel her up,” that someone isn’t going to be me. Where I come from, the scenario you described doesn’t typically end well. Where you’re picturing “damn! I can get some babe to go home with me,” I’m picturing, “he’s going to get belted in the chops by her husband (or boyfriend, as the case may be). Or, belted in the chops by her, when she sobers up enough to be cognizant of some strange dude’s hands on her, but not aware of her own actions.
I’m arguing from practicality, in other words. It isn’t very common for women to fondle some stranger’s testicles on the dancefloor, period, let alone apropos of nothing. The fair assumption might be that she’s horny, but the fairer assumption is that she’s stone drunk out of her gourd. The practical rule of thumb is “don’t engage with drunk people.”
Now, if you find yourself in that situation again….turn around. Turn around as in face her. And do not use the same level of intimate touching as she does, or else you can find yourself (at the very least) landing on your can outside the joint, courtesy some burly bouncer. You should never make assumptions about what someone you don’t know is or is not open to. I know that flies in the face of the status quo, but the status quo offers very poor advice about women and/or our sexuality.
Women have the freedom to both touch my zipper *and* potentially scream should I reciprocate in kind. I’m quite certain that you can agree that’s not really fair.
Of course it’s not fair. It’s not fair because we live in a rape culture, and the advantages of that rape culture primarily benefit men. (go ahead, click the link and be enlightened.) First of all, women don’t really have the same freedom to assert our sexuality as men. We do so (outside the context of a committed relationship) at our own peril. Sometimes that peril includes rape or other forms of assault, sometimes that peril is having a difficult time getting hired, or getting job assignments because of our reputation as sluts (which doesn’t even have to be remotely related to having actual sex). So, blithely claiming that it sucks because this woman put her hand on your zipper, but you didn’t feel comfortable reciprocating in kind is missing the greater point. She doesn’t live her life in the club, y’know.
“So, blithely claiming that it sucks because this woman put her hand on your zipper, but you didn’t feel comfortable reciprocating in kind is missing the greater point. She doesn’t live her life in the club, y’know.”
This is true, but misses the fact that Sam is doing the very thing he finds confusing, not being clear…Sam if you don’t feel comfortable reciprocating in kind you NEED to say that, and not act like it doesn’t bother you, when it clearly does…that is the cognitive dissonance I was point out earlier…some feminists would view it as you being a “typical man” (I mean no offense by that either)you would rather get touched there than say it makes you uncomfortable..maybe you don’t even recognize it makes you uncomfortable because you are so busy focusing on the physical aspect, (and the longing to not feel toxic, but by doing that you are the very thing you are confused about, sending mixed messages)..but to me and every body else here, it’s crystal clear you are uncomfortable.
For some reason we as humans can sense each other’s incoherence but not be able to point it out..thus most instances of poor communication. We are all simply filling in the gaps with what we’ve been taught and assuming a lot of stereotypical junk.
“And do not use the same level of intimate touching as she does, or else you can find yourself (at the very least) landing on your can outside the joint, courtesy some burly bouncer.”
Sam, this may sound like oppression olympics to you… but given lalubu’s previous statements, she is saying you are sending mixed messages by reciprocating…and don’t be surprised if the girl was unknowingly sending mixed messages, and you were reciprocating with mixed messages…and everyone in the mix was left to fill in the gaps with stereotypical assumptions…her assumptions that you just wanted sex, and your assumptions that she was reciprocating…I think it’s fair to say that when both parties are sending mixed messages (which is indicative of unclear boundaries)that something is going to go awry, and neither party will win.
I’m not sure that male victims of rape are more believed, defended, or have police and justice for them. That their rapist doesn’t get better off than them, and that they they’re not told that they “were after it” (all men are presumed to want sex, so they can’t NOT be after it), even if children.
I guess that they don’t base their life around the chances of it happening (even if its 1/6 chance for men, and 1/4 for women), and that they don’t get labeled as a slut for it.
Sam,
Replicate the action in rhythm, speed, and duration, but in an area where it can still pass as sensual rather than sexual touch, I guess, like a hand to the top edge of her hip. The most rational explanation is that she is drunk, which is sad because female-initiated touch is like the Nirvana of the dance floor for the average man, but it is likely to be a prelude to a game of “Rapo” or “Let’s You and Him Fight” from Eric Berne’s “Games People Play.” So we can say that female touch itself does not communicate a “Yes”, so you’re complaining about “No Means No” AND “Yes Means No” together like chocolate in your peanut butter. And frankly, only a sexual utopia devoid of slut-shaming where she can clearly communicate consent in public is going to cure that, and I don’t see anyone speaking Icelandic around here.
kristina
“ok how do I tell what man will sexually desire me and just use me, and what man will sexually desire me, AND love me? ”
Why is *love* always necessary to make (male) sexuality transcendent? I’m not saying that it’s not great, but it’s odd to me that the difference between a valuable and not-valuable male touch is completely independent of that touch – it’s emotional, not physical. You’re restating the problem in a different way.
“I know you may be welcoming the attention, but you’re welcoming it under the terms that if you don’t, it may never happen again…”
Well, why should it be impossible to enjoy the touch under that condition?
“and it makes you uncomfortable..not with the physical contact…you enjoy that(I think??), but with the assumption that could be behind the physical contact…if she responds badly, she doesn’t care about your feelings…”
I’m pretty sure my feelings were the last thing she cared about at that point. She didn’t know me. But she assumed I would like her touch, and she wasn’t wrong about that.
“THAT is not FAIR, for you or her…you’re letting her go with the assumption that this must happen all the time for you, and it’s not a big deal(leaving her able to confuse any other guy she may come in contact with)…
It may come as a surprise to you, but discussing these kinds of things in such a situation is not advisable. She wanted to dance, dance with a sexual twist, but nothing else, certainly not a discussion about gender dynamics, and my perception of the male touch as problematic. As I said, I’ve had such discussions, and, carefully (meaning: still being a confident male in those discussions) done, they can be useful and sexy. But they do have their time and – assuming I had not been on my way out, this would not have been the occasion for it.
La Lubu,
your comment made me a bit sad, because it’s basically “go back to the top of the page and start all over again”.
“Being raped is a greater trauma than being assumed to be capable of raping. Deal with it. ”
You’re right. And that means? You don’t think it’s still worth talking about other problems as well?
“She may have been drunk, and not in any position to give consent. ”
Well, she certainly was in the position to grab me.
“You can be more open to intimate touch from a stranger precisely because you are male.”
I agree. But I’m sure you do realize how that is all very different from the common advice of “treating women as people.” Just look at the first post under the link you gave.
“Of course it’s not fair. It’s not fair because we live in a rape culture, and the advantages of that rape culture primarily benefit men.”
I’m sorry, but in that explanation, rape culture is really just a different way of saying “men are like that” without having to say “men are like that”, which would, in turn, require female responsibility. Potato, Potato.
“First of all, women don’t really have the same freedom to assert our sexuality as men.”
I disagree with that statement. I’d say that women face a different set of social dynamics (aka slut shaming), but they can also get away with a lot more, as apparent in my story, and as apparently accepted by you as the natural, respectively cultural, order of things. I may get social recognition for being good with women, but women who are actually looking to assert their sexuality (in the way most men would like to) will have an easier time doing so.
“So, blithely claiming that it sucks because this woman put her hand on your zipper, but you didn’t feel comfortable reciprocating in kind is missing the greater point.”
Of couse, instead I should really be happy to take one for the greater good of gender justice…
“I’m not sure that male victims of rape are more believed, defended, or have police and justice for them. That their rapist doesn’t get better off than them, and that they they’re not told that they “were after it†(all men are presumed to want sex, so they can’t NOT be after it), even if children.
I guess that they don’t base their life around the chances of it happening (even if its 1/6 chance for men, and 1/4 for women), and that they don’t get labeled as a slut for it.”
I don’t think that male victims are more believed or have more justice…but socially..whether those men want it or not (because of the message that men always want it, and sex = scoring)it is seen as an achievement and not as a violation..which is sad..but again feminists aren’t the ones saying sex = scoring…that is all mainstream society…which feminists hopefully are not representative of. It’s not saying..well it’s your fault for being a man…it’s saying you should join feminism and tell those mainstream insensitive jerks to stop metaphorically raping you!
“Why is *love* always necessary to make (male) sexuality transcendent? I’m not saying that it’s not great, but it’s odd to me that the difference between a valuable and not-valuable male touch is completely independent of that touch – it’s emotional, not physical. You’re restating the problem in a different way.”
I’m not saying that is the saving grace of male sexuality…jesus…it’s what I want out of sex…feeling, emotion…not to be tossed aside like a dirty sock after masturbating… if you don’t see it that way, then I’m going to have to agree to disagree.
“it’s emotional, not physical”…and for you it is…what physical not emotional??? There in lies your communication issues… you don’t understand how I am emotional, I don’t understand how you are physical… you make no effort to see my emotional, I’ll make no effort to see your physical…it’s not about you Sam….sheesh… it’s what I want out of sex…I can either find someone who provides it, or not…contrary to what you think it’s awfully hard to find a guy who thinks emotional takes precedence over physical..or hell that they are even equal…they all assert as you do that their way is better… sure okay…you’re way is better, for you…but don’t complain to me about it…you have the superior method and I don’t know why you have trouble finding girls that think the same way… I really can’t get over how self centered you are…I know there are guys who don’t see it the same way I do…but I certainly don’t complain over it, I put up and shut up until I found someone who agreed with me..yeah I got a lot of attention from guys who saw physical being the BEST way, but I didn’t want anything to do with them…I really don’t even understand how you can agree with ANY feminist discourse..at all.
“Of couse, instead I should really be happy to take one for the greater good of gender justice…”
Nobody said you have to be happy about it…I certainly wasn’t happy finding guys to use me sexually…it’s a byproduct of not even TRYING to understand the other person’s desires…again Sam, if there are women out there who are going to explicitly touch you without your consent..feel free to engage in that…but again…don’t complain about the messiness of a messy form of communication…if she isn’t concerned with boundaries I think it’s safe to assume you don’t have to worry about it either…if you’re worried about a false accusation of rape…such is the issue of crappy communication…if you find a girl that just wants sex…great…but if one of you falls in love and the other doesn’t…again…don’t complain about the mess of sloppy communication..I honestly don’t give a crap what you do, but I think other women might, and when the mess needs to be cleaned up you probably will too…until then… feel happy to live in your own world.
kristina,
“not to be tossed aside like a dirty sock after masturbating”
ahem, if that’s your definition of love, then we don’t disagree. That’s what I would call “connection”, not love. My definition of love requires a bit moer then “not being tossed aside.”
And sorry, your last comment – I really don’t quite understand what you’re saying there.
“I may get social recognition for being good with women, but women who are actually looking to assert their sexuality (in the way most men would like to) will have an easier time doing so. ”
Okay, so you’re upset that you can’t initiate without being called a creep… but you don’t want to use the word slut…why on earth would you not want to slut-shame Sam…could it be that it will make it easier for women to assert themselves…but wait…that can’t be it because you don’t think it’s fair that you can’t assert yourself…it’s not about women Sam…stop pretending…it’s all about you! You honestly can’t see that???
“My definition of love requires a bit moer then “not being tossed aside.—
Really??? would that be unconditional? Would you be willing to reciprocate unconditional Sam..because by your comments here it’s hard to see anything you feel as unconditional…You won’t take into account that maybe some women need an emotional bond before sex, but insist that women see that physical can lead to emotional…that is not unconditional…I’ve been a woman who has just had sex to have sex (not bragging, as a matter of fact it was what I was talking about with not accusing men whom I slept with of rape…I had sex because as a woman it was what I was supposed to do), and I’ve been a woman who needed emotional security before sex…I’ve been to both places..you seem to only have been to one (and that’s not saying you’ve never fallen in love).
I’m sorry, but in that explanation, rape culture is really just a different way of saying “men are like that†without having to say “men are like thatâ€, which would, in turn, require female responsibility. Potato, Potato.
Excuse me? Female responsibility? Feminists are already taking “female responsibility” by working to end rape culture. Since you seem determined to remain willfully ignorant of its existence, you’d better not click on the Rape Culture 101 link. You clearly didn’t do any reading at the last link, if all you got out of it was your own defensive justification of “but, but….she grabbed me! So what if she was drunk!!”
I disagree with that statement. I’d say that women face a different set of social dynamics (aka slut shaming), but they can also get away with a lot more, as apparent in my story, and as apparently accepted by you as the natural, respectively cultural, order of things.
Again, your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. I emphatically mentioned that the norm is not for women to be grabbing men’s crotches on the dancefloor, and that when this happens, it’s almost a lead pipe cinch that the woman in question is too drunk to be legally capable of giving consent. The reverse is not true. Men can and do grab parts of women’s bodies uninvited, without the need for inebriation, because being female and out in public is seen as enough “consent” by boorish assholes.
Women can’t “get away” with being openly sexually expressive without heavy repercussions in the rest of our lives. Repercussions like losing custody of our children. Losing our jobs. Losing the respect of people we know. Being asked to leave religious congregations (or being asked to publically humiliate ourselves in public confessions of our sexual “misconduct”, depending on one’s religious background). Having our children ostracized at school or on the playground. Not having our reports of sexual assault or sexual harassment considered. Being shunned, and having our children be shunned.
If a man has twenty sexual partners over the course of six months, chances are it isn’t going to affect how his employer views him. He is still going to be thought of as a rational actor. If a woman has five sexual partners over that same course of time, she will be thought of as flighty, irrational, and untrustworthy—not responsible enough to make important decisions.
Dude. You are soaking in privilege and don’t even know you’re wet. Wait a minute….yes, you do. You specifically used the phrase “get away with” for a reason. You know that sexual activity outside of marriage is viewed as “getting away” with something—and moreso when done by women. You used a phrase that illustrates the hostile attitude US society has towards female sexuality. Think on that, do some basic 101 reading, and get back to me.
Because I guaran-damn-tee you, if there was anyone at that dance club that is in any way, shape or form connected to this woman’s employer….she hasn’t “gotten away” with anything. She’ll receive the punishment that keeps on giving.
Thank you la lubu…I was starting to think I was nuts!!!
kristina,
“Sam…stop pretending…it’s all about you! You honestly can’t see that???”
really, I honestly can’t see what you’re talking about. Why should I want to slut shame??? I want everyone to be able to live a happy sexuality. Slut shaming part of the female double bind. I want to get rid of that just as I want to get rid of the male one.
As for love, I’ve maybe been in love twice in my life. Maybe not at all. I fall in love about every two years, until rather recently there was no way for me to express that. If anything I need more emotional connection for sex than most men, a lot more, probably – but my personal situation doesn’t blind me to the more general problems which I used the grinding story as an example for.
“I want everyone to be able to live a happy sexuality.”
If I say I need men to show me an emotional bond before sex..and then complain to men that they just don’t get it…I’m so hurt…and several men tell me they do get it, and I insist that no, they don’t because they don’t show me that emotional bond before sex..and they tell me it’s ok you’ll find a guy who will…and I stomp my feet and tell them it’s not fair, I want it NOW!!! I just wish men could be more emotionally free, so I could have sex with them..and go on to describe situations in which these men asserted that these guys were trying to bond with me emotionally before sex (perhaps by refusing my advances on a dancefloor..cause I figure I have to give a guy some incentive to show his emotional side)and I take offense to the guy who refused me because he won’t reciprocate emotionally when I’m being physical…I’m following society’s advice..I don’t get it…
That seriously is me asserting everyone having a happy sexual life??? Really??? I’ll be sure I tell my friends to try that one out…
La Lubu,
I give up. I cannot explain my point any more clearly than I have done, so either I’m unable to make my point or you’re unwilling to accept it. Either way I think this thread may have run its natural course. I don’t like how it’s getting more aggressive and I’m not interested in any kind of aggressive exchange.
You can kill every guy’s arguments on a feminist blog by asserting “lack of awareness of privilege”. Well. There you go. I’m too blind too see. Funny that it’s usually the people who make that argument who are unwilling to accept their own advantages (see, not even using privilege here…), apparently mostly to retain the discourse hegemony.
“Women can’t “get away†with being openly sexually expressive without heavy repercussions in the rest of our lives. Repercussions like losing custody of our children. Losing our jobs. Losing the respect of people we know. Being asked to leave religious congregations (or being asked to publically humiliate ourselves in public confessions of our sexual “misconductâ€, depending on one’s religious background). Having our children ostracized at school or on the playground. Not having our reports of sexual assault or sexual harassment considered. Being shunned, and having our children be shunned.”
This is not the case in my universe – certainly not to the extent that I can see. I can’t tell you more, but I’m sorry if that’s the case where you live. Maybe our experiences are indeed to far apart for a discussion in which we really get where the other one is coming from.
“This is not the case in my universe – certainly not to the extent that I can see.”
I can see how false rape accusations ruin a man’s life..but you can’t see what she’s saying??? it’s not that it doesn’t exist…it’s that you refuse to see it..or can’t see it.
False rape accusations are wrong, nobody in the feminist sphere says it isn’t…we say it’s hard to determine false allegations and real ones because of the nature of the crime, and we can’t simply toss aside potentially real rape cases because some women (or most according to people who don’t have boundaries and interact with people who don’t have boundaries) just because there are women out there who would like to steal money from a man or get some twisted version of revenge where she gets socially punished too, just for being a “rape” victim…
“Funny that it’s usually the people who make that argument who are unwilling to accept their own advantages (see, not even using privilege here…), apparently mostly to retain the discourse hegemony.”
You truly are a gem Sam…nobody said SOME women didn’t have advantages over SOME men…it’s the bigger picture…retain what??? That we have boundaries and you don’t? You aren’t happy with women asserting their boundaries (coming onto you, or saying they need emotional before physical) because you can’t assert your boundaries (giving her a kiss, without feeling like you will be arrested, or just not interacting at all?)Yes…this is a DUH! moment for anyone who understands boundaries…
kristina,
“I can see how false rape accusations ruin a man’s life.”
But I have never even talked about false rape accusations… of course, every guy is afraid of false rape accusations but that’s really not what I was talking about. And I’ve explicitly agreed with La Lubu that fear of rape is worse than fear of not being able to initiate. If I didn’t agree with that, I would hardly be here.
Is this what’s happening here? I’m saying “she touched my zipper”, wonder whether you would consider that as implicit consent for anything, and you’re reading that as slut shaming, victim blaming, and a complaint about false rape accusations?
Apparently, we really have to work harder on understanding each other.
“whether you would consider that as implicit consent for anything”
No I’ve said multiple times that yes it would be implicit…under certain conditions…some of which la lubu outlined..if she wasn’t drunk, then yes…
I just think it’s hard for feminists who have been rape victims or knew someone who was who implicitly said no..maybe after the victim initiated contact as well…to say yes without feeling a moral obligation should something go wrong…
As women who are constantly under the message that you must be physical with men, and when we are, we get told we are sluts, or that it’s not fair that men can’t behave that way…when in our experience it’s been pretty common for men to just touch us (and it’s socially considered fair game)…and yes you may be of the few that aren’t sexually harassing us…but if you are one of the few that don’t sexually harass us and don’t actually mean I need physical before emotional…and you’re complaining about how you can’t be physical…it sounds kind of odd.
Again…if I said I wasn’t the type of girl who needed emotional before physical and I am perfectly capable of seeing what comes next as a suitable option…wouldn’t it seem odd that I would get upset if a guy doesn’t call me back after an encounter, or that it doesn’t lead to a relationship?
“But I have never even talked about false rape accusations…”
I know…I was trying to think of an equivalent to make a comparison…perhaps it failed..the social stigma I’d have to say is the same…man loses job, family, friends…woman loses job family friends…the emotional damage is def in favor of the woman, but I was trying to put that aside, to meet somewhere…
kristina,
“I just think it’s hard for feminists…”
it probably is. But that’s the “negative what if” discourse we talked about above. That’s the (only) negative view of male sexuality. I see why it exists. But I don’t think it’s helping to generate a broader vision of gender justice that includes positive views of male sexuality and positive “what if” narratives.
“but if you are one of the few that don’t sexually harass us and don’t actually mean I need physical before emotional…and you’re complaining about how you can’t be physical…it sounds kind of odd.”
Why? Well, I’m pretty sure that I’d need to kiss a woman before falling in love with her. But in general, I don’t want to rank one or the other. Both women and men should be free to pursue whatever kind of relationship they desire, be it merely sexual or merely emotional.
“of course, every guy is afraid of false rape accusations but that’s really not what I was talking about”
Actually…I don’t think my husband was ever afraid of false rape accusations…at all…but he was also one of those guys that was sure to ASK if this was what the woman wanted…if those women were turned off by it…then so be it..he thought nothing of it…and he had women few and far in between…but he did have the esteem to say “I don’t need that bullshit.”
Well, I personally think that organized religion sucks. Think what you will, but my personal take on spirituality is that it’s personal between me and the potentially-unique higher power (it may not even have a personality AFAIK, I’m agnostic). I need not be validated by rituals, especially if those rituals are seeped into intolerance and hoop-jumping.
And that’s independant of my being trans. I took the decision to cast off organized religion from my life, at 11, when I learned maybe they were off, by a couple solar systems (I learned the concept of reincarnation existed. And later that Christians (especially their authorities) actively seeked to destroy that belief within followers…by I dunno, declaring them anathema and heretics).
“Well, I personally think that organized religion sucks. Think what you will, but my personal take on spirituality is that it’s personal between me and the potentially-unique higher power (it may not even have a personality AFAIK, I’m agnostic). I need not be validated by rituals, especially if those rituals are seeped into intolerance and hoop-jumping.”
And I’m glad that you recognize that is your prerogative to feel that way, and that I need not feel the same…it means a lot to me…it really does.
Also…for what it’s worth…I agree with you…and I’m a Christian… ;P
They sought to destroy the belief in reincarnation, because of stated beliefs by them, that believing in reincarnation through the self (self-improvement to the point of perfection, or at least betterment to near-Christ, or actual Christ levels) meant the Church was useless. The Church being useless was bad, that means less power over people (and less wealth), and no ability to control people by fear and persecution.
So they declared that Jesus was unique, and in his own category, that was completely ever unattainable for us. They also declared that the “fabulous pre-existence of souls, was anathema” (and those who believe in it, heretics), which is pretty much declaring that God creates souls ex-nihilo (from nothing) at birth, and that they never existed before, and never exist after physical death.
That was in the Council of Nicea or Constantinople (if anything, it’s 552 AD), in the 6th century…a while ago. Some 1,460 years ago.
Buddhists hasn’t had a perfect record (they condemn transsexuality as a society, and not out of religious prejudice…but they included it in religious precepts), but their beliefs more or less survived about intact from 2500 years ago (Gautama Siddharta Buddha was alive around 500 BC, he is not a god by his own word – and claimed others could reach his state…it made for a very different attitude with regards to church control).
I’m Catholic according to my birth (Catholic parents), to my baptism, to my first communion and to my confirmation…all stuff I did before being able to really think about it on my own.
I’m steeped in ex-Catholic society here (most were baptized, most don’t practice, go to church or think Catholicism is important…they do it by habit, practice, “Because their parents did it”, but still don’t care much – most swears in French (Quebec is 75% French) are Christian church words, modified to sound more slang-y). Catholicism fell in the 1960s here (due to a famous politician abusing religious power), so my parents got the fall (born 1958), and I and my brothers got the ‘habits’ (born 1982, 1984, 1991, 1993), but we’re unlikely to reproduce them.
“Why? Well, I’m pretty sure that I’d need to kiss a woman before falling in love with her”
I didn’t say kiss…why do you think I mean kiss? To me, kiss is a DUH! moment…I’m pretty sure everyone here said those moments you have are DUH! moments.. So by physical you mean kiss, and I mean sex…not because I think all men want sex, but because I see sex as a proxy to express strong emotions… and you say kiss because…to you that is a strong proxy to express emotions????
I don’t like how it’s getting more aggressive and I’m not interested in any kind of aggressive exchange.
How passive-aggressive of you. I’m speaking both from my own experience and from the experiences of other women I know that I have witnessed. Gee, how nice that you live in such an enlightened, feminist paradise where there is no such thing as a “slut”, where all rape cases are taken seriously and investigated thoroughly by the authorities, and where no woman suffers negative repercussions for having sex while *gasp!* unmarried. Pray tell, where is this feminist paradise, so I may look into the possibilities of finding work there?
Because buddy, I’ve had plenty of negative repercussions for my incorrigibly slutty behavior (translation: rumors that I’ve had sex with Tom, Dick and Harry—-and I never even got to have the got.damn.sex!!). I’ve had contractors not want to hire me because of the fear I’d be sleeping with all my co-workers and breaking up marriages and stuff. No shit. How did I get this reputation? For being female, still breathing, and having at least one sexual partner after my divorce. Boom. That did it. From then on, I was Exhibit A for slutdom. How dare I screw like I have a life or something. And when I had a child out of wedlock (I was partnered at the time), that pretty much sealed the deal. Shit, if I had half the rich sex life that my rumors are having, it’d take a team of morticians three days to get my legs closed enough to fit me in the casket when I die. I don’t even flirt. And I still gained that reputation.
As a single parent, I have to deal with the side-eye from teachers and school administrators and various staff (my daughter has an IEP—she was a preemie) who assume that because I’m an “unwed mother” I must be bringing a veritable troop of men home every night, sexing it up ’till the wee hours, bombed on booze….and that’s why my daughter struggles in school (as opposed to her severely premature status). Hell, her premature status is assumed to be related to my being unmarried (thus, probably some drug-using slut). I lost my job when she was born when I asked for family medical leave; that didn’t happen to the next (married) woman in my local. One of the other (unmarried; still has a sex life) sisters in my local had several instances of sexual harassment and even an instance of sexual assault (from a masseur, while getting treatment!) go unconsidered because…hey, she must be asking for it, right?
I’ve had friends who had pretty tame, pretty sparse sex lives be challenged for child custody from exes taking advantage of the fact that (male) judges frown on unowned women having sex. I know women who were once active members in their church have their congregation turn their backs on them when they got divorced, and especially when it became known (translation: assumed) that they were having sex with men. This is particularly common for small-town women. And it does trickle down to children—all of a sudden, your kids are the only one’s in class not to get birthday invites or allowed to play with neighborhood children. I’ve had friends tell me these stories; how much their hearts were broken when people they thought were friends turned on them, on a dime.
And dude. I don’t live in a small town. Never have. I live in a blue state. And this still happens. I’ve sat at umpteen break tables and listened to umpteen conversations about women and sex and sluttiness and contempt that some men have for women who seem to be enjoying themselves when they fuck.
It’s toxic. All of it. And guess what? You aren’t the recipient of any of it. So much so, that you accuse me (more or less) of arguing in bad faith when I try to explain to you just why some women are sending mixed messages. Because we are dancing as fast as we can to keep up with the contradictory messages about our sexuality and still keep some semblance of authentic sexuality, and it’s still not enough. Because the minute we take that “female responsibility” and get frank about when, with whom, and how we’d like our sexual activity to take place—not only are we sluts, we’re emasculating sluts at that. Ain’t that a groove?
Naw, man. You need to get your 101 on.
“Shit, if I had half the rich sex life that my rumors are having, it’d take a team of morticians three days to get my legs closed enough to fit me in the casket when I die.”
I know it’s not funny in the sense that it’s a violent thought…but I guiltily LOL’d…the satire did me in…
“I’ve had contractors not want to hire me because of the fear I’d be sleeping with all my co-workers and breaking up marriages and stuff.”
I believe your assumptions…and I’m not saying you are wrong…but others might need more proof than your word…I think the next line of thinking from the numerous debates I’ve seen is how do you know that is WHY they didn’t hire you, and not that it was all “in your head” and you just weren’t AS qualified?
*ducks and covers head* I’m sincerely just trying to see if maybe I’m being biased as Sam asserts… *please don’t hurt me*
LaLubu,
“It’s toxic. All of it. And guess what? You aren’t the recipient of any of it. So much so, that you accuse me (more or less) of arguing in bad faith when I try to explain to you just why some women are sending mixed messages.”
No I’m not the recipient of any of that. And yes that sounds toxic. And I’m sorry you have to deal with that. I certainly know more women who have kids out of wedlock than women who are married with children. See, you said you read the comment I linked to above -
http://realadultsex.com/comment/reply/2631/17675 – because I think I’m making the points you’re making about unfair treatment of women in that respect – if from a guy’s perspective (meaning, I’m looking at that, too).
But I really don’t understand why you suddenly feel the need to make this about “how women have it so much worse” that there’s really no need to even discuss other problems? For what it’s worth, I usually really appreciate your comments, LaLubu – I hope you won’t consider this either actively or passively aggressive.
I don’t mean to be impatient Sam…but…
“Why? Well, I’m pretty sure that I’d need to kiss a woman before falling in love with herâ€
I didn’t say kiss…why do you think I mean kiss? To me, kiss is a DUH! moment…I’m pretty sure everyone here said those moments you have are DUH! moments.. So by physical you mean kiss, and I mean sex…not because I think all men want sex, but because I see sex as a proxy to express strong emotions… and you say kiss because…to you that is a strong proxy to express emotions????
Canada must be another planet then. Unmarried people are assumed to be…unmarried. Most live-in couples are unmarried here, like 65%, imagine the amount of “out of wedlock births”, and no one cares. At least in my province of Quebec.
My aunt was unwed, and got 3 children out of her union, that lasted 20+ years (it’s ended 10 years ago ish, and she recently died of cancer). I never considered her inferior, different or anything. It was my first of seeing “wow couples can cohabitate together and get children”, but I was a young child, so it would have been new wherever I was. I certainly wasn’t the kind to go on about how stuff is “unnatural” or whatever is the norm down there in the US.
Your situation would be very anomalous here, if it ever happened. It certainly wouldn’t happen because of your marriage status, it would be something else (we’re not perfect – probably recent immigrant status…if you looked caucasian then it wouldn’t ever happen with us (French Canadians) – can’t speak for the minority English (primary and/or only language) and ethnic portion (native american and a whole host of other origins that are obvious to people) of the province), though probably a lesser impact on your life.
Why I can’t speak for them is that they are more religious overall. They’re probably still nothing compared to the Bible Belt region.
how do you know that is WHY they didn’t hire you, and not that it was all “in your head†and you just weren’t AS qualified?
I do have a reputation as a damn good journeyman. No one has ever questioned my working ability—only that I could be a source of “trouble” because of, y’know, not having boy parts and all. I’ve overheard some of those conversations, without the guilty parties knowing that I overheard them. Lucky for me, I am a union member and thus have recourse when a job call is suddenly “pulled” for no reason—I insisted on intervention (and had I not had the intervention, I would have appealed to the Department of Labor—which is what I had to do during a previous union administration when I was denied FMLA in flagrant violation of the law (and while two male employees for the same contrator had carte blanche to return to work whenever they healed up from non-work-related injuries). In that case, the DoL caseworker caught the contractor in a lie; the paperwork backed me up, and I won the case—he had to pay back pay and all my medical insurance as required.
FWIW, there are two main stereotypes of women in construction: dykes and whores. I’m not a dyke, therefore…. No, really. It is that blatant. I came up through the apprenticeship being regaled with tales of all the women who made extra money on the side giving blow jobs or fucking for cash (on the massive construction projects). It’s at least as big a trope as the “hairy-legged feminist”. I entered the trade right at 21; I got divorced shortly before I “topped out” at 25 (right before turning 26). Contractors around here still haven’t gotten used to women in the trade yet. I was the first one for many of them. I wasn’t being judged on my own qualities, but by what the expectations were—expectations built on frames of stereotypes and laced with hostility about “women’s places” and what the kind of women who didn’t stay “in place” were like. My youth and the fact that I didn’t have any children worked against me—proof that I wasn’t a “good” woman.
So, despite my best efforts to be very discreet about having a sex life, and having relatively few partners (in comparison to the average single man) I was judged pretty harshly for it. I wasn’t given the same latitude the men were—not even close.
Now, how much of the hostility had to do with sexuality and how much had to do with my gender, period, is up for grabs. But I do have witnesses as to why some employers took issue with me. It had nothing to do with my work, or even my personality or ability to get along with others. It was a fear of the disruption my sexuality would bring. Which is laughable, considering what everybody (including me) looks like in baggy-ass Carharrts.
It was also striking to me the difference in how I was treated when I travelled to other jurisdictions—jurisdictions that had more female participation and more of a manufacturing base (translation: more of a history of women working in nontraditional environments, hence, men who grew up with mothers who worked in those environments). It was the difference between night and day. I just happened to be the one of the bellwethers in my area.
“I never considered her inferior, different or anything.” This isn’t about you… to quote feminists… it’s great you didn’t consider her inferior…but have you ever talked to her about how other people may have viewed her, or if she may have suffered at all through her years from people who maybe aren’t so tolerant…assuming you are the status quo (tolerant) is “privilege”…and I don’t use that word to accuse you of anything…
Why I can’t speak for them is that they are more religious overall. They’re probably still nothing compared to the Bible Belt region.
I’m sure you’re right…but keep in mind, I’m not in the Bible Belt. I’m in a relatively “liberal” area. It’s just not so liberal on certain topics—lots of cognitive dissonance, like liberal men who will give lip service to female sexuality, but still slut-shame a woman who has more sexual partners than they think she should have (like, four or five. Anything over eight lifetime sexual partners is immediately suspect. Probably why “eight” is the average response of women on their “number”.)
Well, believe me, the Quebec French-Canadian status-quo is what I’m saying. Religion went out of favor, big time, and within a single generation. Only 1/3 of couples in LTRs who have children marry here.
1960s: 98% of people married to have children (my parents born)
1980s: 80% of people married to have children (I was born)
2000s: 33% of people married to have children (I was adult)
And my aunt got children in 1984, 1986 and 1992.
I did talk to other people, most seemed not to care one iota. They got other stuff to do in their life than shame people for their healthy life choices. I think my coming out as trans was way more shocking to my family.
Something about “Conjoints de fait”:
Conjoint de fait should more or less accurately translate to “Legal union” but not married. Differences with marriage include not having anything to sign (you just declare it), no alimony for adult partners (child support is still mandatory if any is needed) and no mandatory separation of goods acquired during the union.
“I did talk to other people, most seemed not to care one iota. They got other stuff to do in their life than shame people for their healthy life choices. I think my coming out as trans was way more shocking to my family.”
You’re still missing my point…I asked if you asked your aunt if she ever felt like people saw her as other…I understand you can’t ask her now. Family having a positive attitude doesn’t count, just as I think you could dismiss your family’s attitude on your decision.
I could talk about how horrible rape is all day, and I would find tons of people who would agree with me in theory..but if I take the issue deeper as in I was actually raped that is when the negative attitude starts such as the implication that maybe I was asking for it by the way I was dressed, what time I was out at night, what was I doing with a guy like that, etc. If you talked to the same people I talked to they would say rape is wrong…if you talked to me, I would tell you those people have some major cognitive dissonance going on.
kristina said:
This sounds interesting. Could you elaborate on what you mean by kissing being a “DUH!” moment?
LaLubu,
“It was a fear of the disruption my sexuality would bring.”
but you do realize that, while you have to suffer because of that, it’s not so much assumptions about your sexuality, but about male sexuality, about “men who are like that”, men who are unable to deal with any sexual urge, don’t you?
So are you saying they can deal with it and that is just not commonly understood, or are you saying they cannot? Because I’m getting a lot of “they cannot” from your comments – and I while I believe that Hugo is usually exaggerating his point when he talks about the “myth of male weakness”, this would be an instance where I think it would be appropriate.
So feminism sort of requires a “men areN’T like that”. Because if they were “like that”, then we couldn’t do anything about it and management of the male condition / assumed male sexual sociopathy would be a social task, part of the costs of which would have to be born by women – by, say, not “tempting” the “men who are like that” in certain positions, possible like the one you were excluded from because of your sexuality (this is a hypothetical, I’m not assuming that it would be anything like any form of temptation, just to make that clear).
So in this respect you are kind of – at least implicitly – relying on the assumption that “men areN’t like that” (sexual monsters), while you are making that exact point when you’re always assuming “negative what ifs” in your reply to the initiation problems I mentioned. Can you see what I’m saying?
You’re choosing “men are like that” when you’re actively discriminating between appropriate male and female levels of physical contact at initiation (her touching my zipper is basically ok, but responding in kind would not be ok) and you’re choosing “men aren’t like that” when you’re discriminated against in the workplace.
And that is the common feminist discourse. But these approaches are mutually exclusive, which is why the feminist reiteration of assumed male sexual sociopathy makes reinforces the males aren’t sexually sociopathic hence working with them won’t have negative consequences on productivity argument less credible. Or it’s the other way around, and it’s unfair to reinforce notions of male sexual sociopathy if there is an understanding that “men actually aren’t like that”.
Again, which one is it?
They would say rape of women by men is wrong. Even if they’re not too enlightened when it comes to recognizing the facts.
They don’t hear about rape of women by women, unless LGBT themselves (which is a small subset of the population), or knowledgeable feminist (rare enough in the general population).
They hear about rape of men by men…in prisons. There’s a plethora of jokes about prison rape, and it’s THE incentive for many not to be imprisoned. But they think it doesn’t happen outside prison, unless LGBT themselves.
They never hear about rape of men by women, unless statutory rape (many of those cases end up high profile because society hates pedophilia and seems obsessed about it). Even in statutory cases, “he was lucky”. Outside those, it doesn’t exist, he HAD to want it. Only rape victims (both sexes) and very enlightened people seem to think this exists.
Look up James Landrith for an anecdote about how his rape was seen when he came out with it last year.
He was laughed at by the men and women commenting. Only victims of rape defended and believed him.
It wasn’t a “you had it coming” because of circumstances. It was a “it couldn’t possibly be rape” or “rape (by a woman) can’t happen to you, ever”, because he’s male.
I understand and appreciate the point of this post, but have perhaps, better and certainly briefer answer(s) to your student’s question: women are people too, treat them that way; and, to quote the R. Akiva, do not do as you would not have done to you. I would argue that the former is the very heart of feminism, and the latter should be at the heart of all of our relationships, of whatever kind, with each other.
“This sounds interesting. Could you elaborate on what you mean by kissing being a “DUH!†moment?”
I can only account for the actual events that Sam has described in which under the mainstream social scripts that I suspect he is surrounded by has indicated that the girl wanted to kiss him in those instances.
If it was a “feminist script” which again, isn’t a set script, but one that would vary from feminist to feminist I suspect it MAY have gone differently…or perhaps I’m projecting how I would have acted and reacted in such a situation..one where I don’t really see myself grabbing some guy’s zipper and if I had and operated under the assumption that he would enjoy such contact perhaps by my mainstream indoctrination that men LOVE women to touch their zippers without explicit consent… or hey…he was asking for it, I would think it would be reciprocated in kind, and perhaps have my feelings hurt that he didn’t, and confirm my fears of my mainstream indoctrination that I must not be good enough.
If feminism gives a rule of thumb for consent I will follow it…that is, if I believe women are indeed oppressed, and men are the oppressors…If everyone is oppressed, the consent means nothing and traditional mainstream social scripts are accepted…
Schala…why in the world do you read my relation of rape as oppression olympics… I was trying to illustrate how unless you specifically asked your aunt how she felt and if she was ever discriminated against you will never know…because her feelings are about HER…not you, and not men… THIS IS WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT!!!!
“Only victims of rape defended and believed him.”
Have you had children out of wedlock??? So is there maybe a possibility that YOU just don’t get it…and that MAYBE the people you talk to don’t get it either…Although I don’t know what year you were born…it seems the view on out of wedlock childbirths in Canada is favorable amongst people of your age..so even asking others may not lead to a conclusion…that’s also not taking into account the class status of the people you are talking about either…again…the only way to REALLY know if YOUR aunt was discriminated against is to ASK HER! Unless you want to argue that what she thought doesn’t matter and could have been so sickly twisted that she was just a bitter person…but I hardly think you would take that approach…
I can’t ask her (she’s dead, since 2 months ago), only my mother (who is her sister) whom she saw at least monthly since a long time.
Born 1982, I’m 28. And the ‘out of wedlock’ option is more favorable in Quebec province, *because* it is less religious than the other provinces, or god forbid, the US.
Marrying here, in Quebec, isn’t a “contract before God”, it’s a way of having certain obligations and rights (inheritance, next of kin, etc, can also adopt children from previous unions) become automatic, and a way to confirm an union more ‘officially’. And religious marriage ceremonies are overwhelmingly done (when people choose to have a religious ceremony at all) because churches are pretty (and big), or because it’s a tradition (ie the meaning of the tradition was lost)…certainly not for religious reasons.
So people don’t feel forced to marry, peer pressure etc. They feel pressure to settle down, to have kids…but 66% of couples do that outside marriage here.
“I can’t ask her (she’s dead, since 2 months ago), only my mother (who is her sister) whom she saw at least monthly since a long time.”
I know, and I’m deeply sorry for your loss..so if I offended you by bringing it up I AM deeply sorry, it was not my intention to dishonor her memory, but make a space for her to survive as more than a memory (in the world…I know she’s not just a memory to you and your family). I just feel that sometimes those people become “invisible” in family because family can be taken for granted (it happens..to everybody..in a way you may have even become invisible since your decision to transition)and the world barely gives two s**ts about men, let alone women who at that time didn’t meet the status quo, or when the status quo was undergoing a transition.
Have you ever talked to your mother about whether or not her sister had a hard time with being an unwed mother? If it’s too soon to ask such questions I completely understand as my inquisitiveness does NOT take precedence over you or your family’s comfort….again, I offer my condolences..I’ve had losses in my family recently that have been crushing as well.
Sam,
Feminists (as a group) think she was wrong to grab at your zipper.
Non feminist society doesn’t think she was wrong but do think she was sluttly and if you were to have sex with her no matter what she said later or how she acted later no judge or jury would convict you of rape.
I’m not sure what about the above makes you think there is a double standard being shown by feminists.
She had no right to that intimate of a contact in my view. There are many men who would be uncomfortable with it and sexual assault of men is not okay. Now, she got lucky, and you didn’t mind so yeah it was non verbal consent to more sexualizing of the dance than usual but because of the wrong nature of her first action you responding in kind has the same problem as her action in the first place it’s not clear if it will be welcome or not. Wereas if she had worked up to that move by getting clear non verbal consent from you there wouldn’t be a problem and both of you would be in the clear. However I don’t think feminists (as a group) would be saying you are immoral by responding by putting your hands on her butt or hips or whatever. They might say that hey, you might want to turn around and get a feel for whats actually going on here and if she’s so drunk she doesn’t even know who you are. So what the hell is the problem?
“Wereas if she had worked up to that move by getting clear non verbal consent from you there wouldn’t be a problem and both of you would be in the clear.”
Well, what would count as clear non-verbal consent? I’d much rather ask, personally… or just don’t touch..
“However I don’t think feminists (as a group) would be saying you are immoral by responding by putting your hands on her butt or hips or whatever. They might say that hey, you might want to turn around and get a feel for whats actually going on here and if she’s so drunk she doesn’t even know who you are. So what the hell is the problem?”
EXACTLY. I’ve been saying all along if you want to follow mainstream social scripts, that is your choice, you can go do what you like, as long as you don’t cry to me that you feel demonized because of the mere existence of another “script” that the person you were dancing with wasn’t following or knew that it existed. If you had a problem with mainstream social scripts you would have told her no, and followed a script on clear consent and she would have either followed that script or not..I suspect not though considering she initiated the mainstream script in the first place. If you have no problem with the girl acting on a mainstream social script, you shouldn’t have a problem following the mainstream social script…pick one or the other, don’t set yourself up to the bind in the first place.
Victoria,
thanks for your comment.
“Feminists (as a group) think she was wrong to grab at your zipper.”
I’m not so sure about that. I think feminists generally feel a cognitive pressure to hold women to the same standards they would hold men to, but in that situation, I suppose particularly sex-positive feminists will likely also feel that saying that could be seen as slut shaming, or attempting to control a woman’s expression of her sexuality. I did some reasearch on the Antioch explicit consent policy a couple of months ago, and one thing that was repeated over and over was that there is a double standard in which women can do stuff men would get killed for. Above, La Lubu said: “You can be more open to intimate touch from a stranger precisely because you are male.”
See, I don’t even disagree with that notion, and I think I said so above. I suppose men are generally more confident in their ability to get rid of aggressors of any kind. That may be factually wrong, but it probably means that invasions of personal space or touch aren’t as quickly seen as transgressions as it seems to be the case for women. There was an exchange about this between Kurt, the openly gay huy, and his crush Finn in one of the last Glee episodes – should you watch that – in which Finn tells Kurt that, if he (Finn) would do to a girl what he (Kurt) had done to him in the last year, she would have hit him with a restraining order.
“Non feminist society doesn’t think she was wrong but do think she was sluttly and if you were to have sex with her no matter what she said later or how she acted later no judge or jury would convict you of rape.”
I think that is at the heart of a lot of communication problems. I can’t speak for La Lubu or kristina, but now I read their replies as being worried not about whether she had implicitly given consent to me putting my hands on her hips or butt but whether her putting her hands on my zipper could be construed as consent to sex.
I’m not sure what about the above makes you think there is a double standard being shown by feminists.
Really? Just from the last couple of comments – which clearly aren’t representative of feminism, but still…:
Jezebel – “…women are people too, treat them that way; and, to quote the R. Akiva, do not do as you would not have done to you. I would argue that the former is the very heart of feminism, and the latter should be at the heart of all of our relationships, of whatever kind, with each other.”
La Lubu – “do not use the same level of intimate touching as she does, or else you can find yourself (at the very least) landing on your can outside the joint, courtesy some burly bouncer. You should never make assumptions about what someone you don’t know is or is not open to. I know that flies in the face of the status quo, but the status quo offers very poor advice about women and/or our sexuality. … Of course it’s not fair [but we live in rape culture].”
“Now, she got lucky, and you didn’t mind so yeah it was non verbal consent to more sexualizing of the dance than usual but because of the wrong nature of her first action you responding in kind has the same problem as her action in the first place it’s not clear if it will be welcome or not.”
So where would you say the “non verbal consent to more sexualizing of the dance” ends if responding in kind is not included?
“Wereas if she had worked up to that move by getting clear non verbal consent from you there wouldn’t be a problem and both of you would be in the clear.”
How would that have been possible in advance. Even verbal consent isn’t always clear, non-verbal consent is always more or less assumed. How could she have gotten clear non-verbal consent to touch my zipper prior to actually doing so?
“However I don’t think feminists (as a group) would be saying you are immoral by responding by putting your hands on her butt or hips or whatever.”
See that’s where I’m not so sure, given all the above. There’s La Lubu’s statements that men shouldn’t respond in kind because they’re men and then there’s kristina’s statement that all this is “Duh!”, women aren’t made of candy glass (somewhere above in different words), as long as no one is actually raped. There’s mythago saying “don’t assume, ask” is the moral baseline. Jezebel says “treat women like you treat people, don’t do what you wouldn’t want to be done to yourself”, which translates to respond in kind (though I doubt that’s what she actually wanted to say). To me, that’s only a couple of conflicting messages about the morality of – in this case – responding to an initiation, but usually with respect to initiation. Can’t you see that?
“They might say that hey, you might want to turn around and get a feel for whats actually going on here and if she’s so drunk she doesn’t even know who you are. So what the hell is the problem?”
Yeah, they may also say that. This is actually good advice. As for the problem, I am looking forward to your reply to this comment.
kristina,
“If you have no problem with the girl acting on a mainstream social script, you shouldn’t have a problem following the mainstream social script…pick one or the other, don’t set yourself up to the bind in the first place.”
But it’s not like feminism is saying “pick one or the other, they’re morally equivalent.” I mean, that would be like saying “yeah, we believe women’s rights are trampled in patriarchy, but if you prefer the behavioural implications thereof because they work, just use those!”
Men are not more confident in their ability to get rid of aggressors so much as they are taught that they should be able to handle of any aggressors. That narrative gets interpreted by others as men can always get rid of any aggressors. For men, it gets interpreted as a demand that they tolerate unwanted touching from a woman or they are less of a man. Conversely, if they tolerate unwanted touching from another man, they are less of a man.
However, La Lubu’s comment comes from a different place, namely the assumption that all males want sex from women, therefore any intimate touch from a strange woman is inherently acceptable and consensual. When that gets combined with the the position that women are incapable of being aggressors, one gets La Lubu’s incorrect assertion that a man can be more open to intimate touch from strangers because he is a man. The better assertion would be that people, particularly women, assume men are more open to intimate touch from a stranger because they are men.
Well, what would count as clear non-verbal consent?
Sam and Zipper Woman exchange glances. They move closer, chat for a bit, with more meaningful looks exchanged. After some time together on the dance floor, having retired to the sidelines for a drink, they look long into each other’s eyes, move close, and, after staying for a long moment in this obviously-about-to-kiss state, one of them leans in for a kiss. As the kiss becomes more passionate, both move their hands along each other’s backs, and press their bodies close. They are breathing fast. At this point, Zipper Woman can fairly conclude that she has nonverbal consent to at least attempt the move of the hand to the zipper (though she should still accept the rebuff gracefully if Sam moves the hand away); the negotiation of the intervening physical steps allows a reasonable expectation of openness to further advances.
As it is, since she grabbed for the zipper without any such intervening steps implying openness to further advances, she was out of line. And probably drunk out of her gourd to do such a thing.
Although, really, going with nonverbal consent with someone you’ve just met on the very night you met him still seems risky to me. Zipper Woman would be better advised to use words before moving for a guy’s crotch.
The better assertion would be that people, particularly women, assume men are more open to intimate touch from a stranger because they are men.
I’m fine with not assuming that men are more open to intimate touch from a stranger because they’re men, if that means that I get to apply the assumption that no one should be expected to be open to intimate touch from a stranger. My problem comes when a man says that he is open to intimate touch from a stranger, and so why should there be a problem with him approaching me in the same way? If there’s going to be a single standard, and a single standard seems reasonable enough to me, the single standard should be the one where Zipper Woman doesn’t get to grab Sam’s zipper out of the blue, rather than the one that may put me at risk of half a dozen men grabbing for my zipper any time I set foot in a bar.
I agree, although I think we should also do away with this nonsense about the woman being drunk. You could just as easily assume that the men who touch women are drunk and therefore less responsible for their actions, but I do not think that you would assume that. So why should I assume that the women who touch me without my permission are intoxicated or otherwise not in control of themselves?
I’ve had hmm pretty forward behavior while being drunk once (with a guy I didn’t really know, his private party)…but I wanted to be drunk (not plastered, just “I feel good” drunk), and knew something would probably happen out of it.
What happened was consensual, in so far as two drunken people can consent to each other, and I don’t regret it happening…but it probably wouldn’t have happened this way (maybe at all) if not for being drunk.
I’m naturally shy, I wouldn’t be forward normally. Drinking is kicking my ass to go forward and have less “but what if” (extreme hesitation) in my head.
Of course, in a family party, my being drunk means nothing. I know that the context for stuff just isn’t there. And I *am* conscious that my drinking could lead to more if I’m not careful, in a place where the context *is* there.
I can be consciously careful, even if drunk; when not being in the mood, being faithful to my boyfriend. It’s when nothing of the kind is obstructing that it can go further (ie being single, and in the mood). More or less, if I’m drunk, and flirting with you…I knew it could happen, and have no objection to it. My being drunk isn’t removing my consent (unless I’m sick, but that’s not attractive either).
That’s just how I work thought, YMMV.
TS,
The point was that the woman’s drunkenness turns Hand on Zipper (which, unsolicited and out of the blue, would be Nirvana On the Dance Floor for me and many, many other touch-deprived straight men who only have that happen once every few years) from an Awesome Opportunity to Finally Get some to a Chance to Be A Felon Even If She Consents, given that drunk people (read: women) can’t consent even by saying “Yes” and participating. Sam can’t win for winning. I suppose the thing to do would be to keep building a connection until she can consent to sober sex 7-8 hrs later, but that’s a relationship already.
I said “drunk,” not “drunk and therefore less responsible for her actions.”
Whether someone who’s drunk is held less responsible for his or her actions depends on the action and the degree of intoxication; if the action’s a crime, such as a DUI, one assumes “responsible,” because no one else was more in control than the person who took the drinks, while if the action is, say, signing a contract, presumably everyone’s better off all around if people who are drunk are presumed incapable of signing contracts and you wait till everyone’s sober.
But before you even get to the question of how responsible someone is or isn’t for his or her actions, there’s a basic rule of thumb that it’s usually best to back away slowly from total strangers who are drunk; both they and the people around them may behave in unpredictable and dangerous ways. And if you’re in a bar, a stranger who makes an unsolicited grab for your crotch is highly likely to be drunk.
Friends who are drunk are another matter; if you know each other already, you may be in a better position to assess each other’s degree of intoxication and usual responses to alcohol.
That James Landrith story was interesting. It’s possible. Pregnancy hormones do crazy things to a woman’s sex drive. But I’ve never met a pregnant woman who consented to sex with a random stranger without a condom, let alone risked a counter-assault by trying to take him by force. This is the time that women are the MOST careful about what goes inside their bodies.
I might have believed it if she wasn’t pregnant. I’d like to hear her side of the story.
Well, it happened 20 years ago, localizing the pregnant woman might prove difficult. I doubt he took her coordinates.
And she didn’t consent to sex as much as force it on him. By blackmail.
Many people think it’s physically impossible – even my boyfriend thinks erections are so dependant on mindset (being in the mood, not asleep) that they can hardly be achieved by touch alone, or stress. Though he is right on the “it’s harder when drunk” to get erections, it’s still quite easy with dedication.
I disagree that it’s impossible or unlikely, or risky. If she had been assaulted, she could have easily cried rape and be believed, and used the assault as damning proof of her assertion, he’d be in jail before he knew it. No one would believe he was forced. That’s the beauty of the thing for her.
And this is the time more mature women are careful, but 19 years old people of both sexes tend to be rather carefree. Even James himself took a risk (he was 20 I think) by having her sleep in the same room, knowing she was drunk and being a stranger and all. He just wanted to do a good action (not let her drive home in this state).
However, La Lubu’s comment comes from a different place, namely the assumption that all males want sex from women, therefore any intimate touch from a strange woman is inherently acceptable and consensual.
What the…? That’s not at all what I said. I do not assume “all males want sex from women…” yadda yadda. I merely said that Sam has choices that women don’t have because he is a man (in a sexist society). He can say yes or no without repercussions.
Frankly, I was thinking first and foremost about the relative level of risk for sexual assault. It isn’t that men aren’t immune to sexual assault, but men are more at risk from other men than they are from women. If it isn’t another guy grabbing Sam in the groin, Sam probably has little to fear when it comes to leaving the place and getting to his car safely.
But, it’s also about the different perceptions of sexuality in men and women (“studs” vs. “sluts”). If Sam says “yes” to that woman, he’s a stud, a lucky guy. If he says “no”, he’s probably a smart guy for avoiding drama, or STDs, or whatever (the assumption where I live of a woman who grabbed some stranger’s crotch in the club would be highly negative—and yes, from the men. Which isn’t to say they still wouldn’t have sex with her…just that she’d be “the crack whore”–regardless of any or no drug use—or the “hosebag”. Any time she went to the club in the future…that would be her name. Hey, don’t ask me why men have such contempt for women who hold to the same sexual practices as men.)
Other than that, what Lynn said. Drunk people are no fun to be around, and their propensity for ugliness, violence and drama is right there under the surface. If Sam or anyone else wants to risk that, like I said before, I’m not Big Sister. Go for it. But don’t be surprised when it doesn’t work out that well for you. If what you’re really looking for is safe, NSA sex (which isn’t what I assume Sam is out looking for, based on his previous posts), there are umpteen better ways of finding it. You can find plenty of non-drunk women to put their hands on your (a random stranger’s) crotch within a setting where that is expected and welcomed.
Ok, Schala. The article I read didn’t mention that she was drunk or that she was 19. It just said that they met in a bar. I went to bars when I was pregnant, but I didn’t drink. I still do alcohol free karaoke nights.
If she’s willing to get drunk while she’s pregnant, the icky bareback sex is more belevable.
Yes it’s possible for some men to do the deed in that condition. That’s where the expression “beer goggles” comes from. Most men don’t refer to it as rape, they just come at that with their “fuckin’ the dog and sellin’ the pups” win/win approach to rank ordering women in terms of their fuckability. After an experience like that, a guy will usually say, “man, I can’t believe I drank so much. I had to chew my arm off to get away from her.” But his buddies won’t knock him too much unless he makes a habit of dating Shallow Hal’s type of women. One or 2 “chew my arm off” stories are just kinda funny. At least Dogfucker’s getting some.
(No I don’t agree, I’m just saying that’s what men think.)
Technically that is rape. But how’s the girl supposed to know if the guy’s hard? And don’t any of you MRAs start bugging me about date rapists and nipple erections. Guys don’t get hard because they’re cold. And Landrith didn’t say anything about peeing.
Lynn Gazis-Sax: I know what you said, however, it is rather common for feminists to give reasons for women’s bad behavior, especially unwanted sexual contact. So when women commit sexual assault, it is because they are drunk, high, crazy, hormonal, or some man made them do it, not because the women think they have the right to commit those acts or simply do not care about the man’s response. Such assumptions are not made about men’s actions. So what I am asking is that you respond to unwanted female touch the same way that you respond to unwanted male touch. As for strangers in bars usually being drunk when they grab my crotch, that has not been my experience.
La Lubu: As a man I cannot say yes or no without repercussions. If I say no to a woman, I put myself at risk for public humiliation, questions about my sexuality, and potential false accusations of sexual impropriety for rejecting the woman’s advance, all of which could result in physical harm against me depending on how those around me choose to react (and all of which have happened to me). As for the level of risk, statistically speaking males face about the same risk of sexual assault from women as they do from other men. Forty percent of those who sexually assault males are women. That men may not (openly) fear assault from a woman has more to do with the social and feminist narratives that women are incapable of committing such acts and that men can always protect themselves. And yes, there is a difference in the perception of male and female sexuality, one of which is the assumption that female sexuality is harmless and always desired by men.
Indeed, I have to agree with ToySoldier, that La Lubu’s description of what it’s like to be a man in that situation simply isn’t true. While a man is likely to face different repercussions for his choice of how to act on the situation, he can’t generically say yes or no without repercussion. A yes might yield “stud” or “lucky guy” (though it’s as likely to yield “dog” or various other negative (though not that negative, beyond what’s already baseline assumed for a man), but a “no” is going going to start with him being a “fag” and the best realistic outcome is being browbeaten into relenting and changing his answer to a yes. How serious the risk of a physical or sexual assault is in this case (well, beyond the sexual assault of being coerced in sex with someone when you don’t want it, of course) is a little harder to estimate, but it’s not essentially zero. It probably is a fifth or tenth the reverse, and how much it weighs in one’s mind matters, but is harder to figure out (I’d certainly be much more concerned about the social ostracization or a non-sexual assault in that case, but I’m not sure how typical that is.)
So what I am asking is that you respond to unwanted female touch the same way that you respond to unwanted male touch.
Actually, my own personal experience has been that unwanted male touch also often involved the man being drunk; I just think that people who get drunk and then act out sexually by inflicting unwanted sexual touches on others bear some responsibility for getting themselves in that state (and I’m willing to agree that the same applies to women).
It’s true that I’ve also sometimes run into sober men who still got grabby out of entitlement, and if you’ve run into the same from women, they also deserve criticism.
LaLubu,
“But, it’s also about the different perceptions of sexuality in men and women (â€studs†vs. “slutsâ€). If Sam says “yes†to that woman, he’s a stud, a lucky guy. … He can say yes or no without repercussions.”
It’s only a tangent, but you do realize that there is also pressure on men to perform this role? As a guy who’s been a virgin far too long I can testify to that. Mentioning this just in passing.
You do realize that the male studness value is a consequence of the scarcity and value attributed to female touch which, in turn, also produces the notion that men are getting lucky when being touched. Have you ever heard that with respect to a woman? Possibly with respect to love or mones, but touch? Male touch has so little socially attributed value that it’s usually not even mentioned. That, in turn, also explains the stud vs. slut problem (and yes *BOTH* is a problem). A stud is someone who is perceived to be up against perceived bad odds, thus demonstrating value, while a slut is perceived as losing value. Both is unhealthy and reproducing, reinforcing the social notions that lead to the problem in the first place.
“Hey, don’t ask me why men have such contempt for women who hold to the same sexual practices as men.”
First, because most haven’t thought about what they could do to break the cycle. Second, because they – women – have it so much easier doing what men say they would want to do. The value of something that is perceived as just given away is perceived lower as the value of something that needs to be fought for. In that scenario, it’s obvious why being gate keeper is a rational strategy for women. They can only keep the value of their sexuality up by keeping it scarce. But that scarcity is, just as the male desire to increase their sexual value by “scoring” scarce sexuality, contributing to this overall unhealthy approach to touch and sexuality.
Another factor contributing to keeping the perceived value of male touch low is the tendency to attribute at least potential violence to it. Problem is, as you say, the risk of being raped is more important than the risk of being perceived as potentially sexually violent. However, as long as that’s the case, it will be hard to change the perception of female and male sexuality in a way that would help equalize their socially attributed value and thus help change the currently socially successful strategies of stud and gate keeper to something more mutually beneficial.
I mean, in essence, that seems to be what you said in the post: affirmation of male wanting and the graceful acceptance of rejection ( => increase the value of male touch by increasing its legitimacy and reducing its perceived potential danger ), but as we can see in the discussion, this *IS* a concept really hard to fill with useful and fair behavioral suggestions.
Of course, Lynn is right with this -
“If there’s going to be a single standard, and a single standard seems reasonable enough to me, the single standard should be the one where Zipper Woman doesn’t get to grab Sam’s zipper out of the blue, rather than the one that may put me at risk of half a dozen men grabbing for my zipper any time I set foot in a bar.”
but the result of that absolutely correct and reasonable approach, given the assymmetry described above is probably reinforcing the assymmetry considered as problematic in the first place.
Personally, I think a lot of possibility lies in *playing* roles while being aware of the performance and being perceptive if the stage partner may at some point be interested in dropping masks. But I know that’s also not very specific.
“If what you’re really looking for is safe, NSA sex (which isn’t what I assume Sam is out looking for, based on his previous posts), there are umpteen better ways of finding it. You can find plenty of non-drunk women to put their hands on your (a random stranger’s) crotch within a setting where that is expected and welcomed.”
I’m really trying to use examples to talk about general problems, but here – what is NSA sex? And where is that place where there are plenty of non-drunk women putting their hands on random strangers? The only place I can imagine is a swinger’s club, but hearing stories from people who’ve tried that, the male/female ratio there also makes women the gate keepers…
“Personally, I think a lot of possibility lies in *playing* roles while being aware of the performance and being perceptive if the stage partner may at some point be interested in dropping masks. But I know that’s also not very specific.”
So men should be aware that women are playing roles and may want to drop the mask… okay, I can get that…but what is the incentive men will get to drop the mask? Love??? As in love is the transcendental quality for women’s sexuality? Then, it’s a matter of how do you define love? Sheesh Sam…just seems like a polar opposite of what we’re presenting…you really do think that overall men get the shit end of the stick don’t you?
Now I get it, Sam. Now I really get it. You’re obsessing a little, but that’s understandable.
You’ve talked yourself out of several opportunities to try something new, but you think maybe you shouldn’t have, but maybe you don’t want to try again but maybe you do.
About 15 years ago I got it into my crazy head that I wanted to bungee jump off one of our nicer bridges. Nothing like the Golden Gate Bridge or anything, but a nice one. It’s illegal, dangerous, crazy, and that’s why I loved the thought. On the con side, I could hurt my back, even if nothing else goes wrong. If something were to go wrong… I’m seeing the clips of the search for Tyler Clementi. Scary.
Then I watched the special features on my LotR box set, and started thinking about Orlando’s bungee jumping celebration. That’s the coolest thing I’ve ever heard. The guy fell out of a window and the doctors told him he’d never walk again. Less than 2 years(?)later he got to play Legolas, launched that amazing career doing all his own stunts and he celebrated by bungee jumping. Amazing. I don’t find him hot like a lot of other women do (nice face but he’s kinda skinny) but his movies are fun. I respect the work he puts into them.
So it’s not so dangerous to go bungee jumping after all. I promised myself I’d get into the best shape of my life when I can squeeze about 6 months of weight training into my schedule. I’m going to turn my back into a beautiful V and have something close to a 6 pack if that’s still possible after 2 kids. And then I’m going to do it. I’m bungee jumping off that bridge.
Same idea for you Sam. You’re either going to do it, or you’re not going to do it yet. So you’ll do it later. How old are you? 24? 25? You have plenty of time for that. In the meantime you’re all neurotic and overthinking it, and you’re missing out on other things. Go enjoy the rest of your life.
Xena,
hmm, maybe you really get me on some level. That was certainly an interesting story. I have to go skydiving first, though. I’m over 30 by the way, and I’ve been involunatarily celibate for the most part of my twenties. So well, mentally, I’m probably 24, yeah. As I said above, only part of my delayed psycho-sexual development was due to my feminist education, the rest was religion and a bit of OCD, mostly O. So I don’t have as much time as you imagine, but I am enjoying my life now. I was a virgin when I got my graduate degree, but I’ve spent a lot of time and effort thereafter on improving myself. I think I’ve said this three times in this thread, but I’ve very likely read more feminist philosophy than the average gender student. And anthropology, psychology, mating, dating, self-help, SC. I’ve read it all, and I worked on myself, adn it worked. The first time a woman told “you’re hot” was emotionally at least on par with getting my masters degree. And right now, I cannot complain about lack of female attention, however arrogant that may sound – I mean, for all my hangups about kissing – I had to get “so good” that women would kiss me. And they do, occasionally.
I’m not as interested in gender matters for my current self, but for my self as it was ten or 15 years ago. I’m not the only one, and while I may be an unusual case to the extent that I have gone from really bad to being “good” with women, I’m certainly far from the only one who is concerned about the matters we talk about here.
See, I may be overthinking it. But the corollary of that is – don’t take it literally. You’re sure that’s such a good message?
Yeah, I guess there are people who stop by who might need to know that it’s not ok for a guy to touch some girls’ zippers when he’s drunk. For me, some of these minor boundary infractions are SO minor I don’t even think twice about them, even when I’m on the receiving end. Zipper touching is an offense that earns the guy a forceful shove and a Warrior Princess scowl. I don’t even bother to cuss for something that minor because I get so many unwanted hand pats and hair rubs in the course of a week I’d give myself an aneurysm if I got angry about all of them.
I hope feminists are willing to forgive Sam and I for overthinking consent.
Since when does a “metacontrarian” care about forgiveness, Hugh?
So you regret things you didn’t do, and somehow everyone else is to blame??? That is healthy? That’s the reason we should change for you…because you regret that it wasn’t easier for you to make a decision???
Xena… you seem to have yourself a plan and take control of your life…good for you…if only everyone had those qualities.
“I hope feminists are willing to forgive Sam and I for overthinking consent.”
That’s a loaded statement and you know it…passive aggressive…get over yourself!
Xena,
I think Hugh just forgot to put the sentence into [sarcasm] brackets
Sam, I think Xena realizes that…why else point out the obvious?
You know Sam…I think you may have a point… but I’d more like to say that young boys shouldn’t be “demonized”…I was just reading on passive aggressive behavior and how it forms in childhood and under what circumstances…so yes while you and others have cited coming into contact with feminism at a young age, that is NOT the majority of men’s experiences…I again don’t think it’s the rhetoric that has to change..I think it’s parents and people that have influence over young people’s lives that has to change…I have 2 young boys, and the LAST thing I would ever do is indoctrinate them, not because I don’t feel the rhetoric has merit, but because I don’t see them as playthings to manipulate into what I would see as the “perfect man”. They have to learn at a young age to assert themselves, and recognize boundaries…something I feel you were strongly lacking in your childhood (the ability to assert yourself without feeling like a jerk)…I simply teach them that certain actions have different possible outcomes, and create an awareness of the choice they can make…I would say that feminism adds another level of awareness that can only be made after the individual is self-aware… So I’m sorry that your childhood was so taxing, but as an adult responsibility needs to be taken for yourself..I think there are certain behavioral issues that need to be addressed and I suggest that more insight should be gained on the issue of passive aggressive behavioral patterns that I have spotted in these conversations.
Thanks kristina. You’re right. I knew Hugh was being sarcastic. I was being sarcastic too, but I save my
for the kinds of sarcastic things I’d say with a smile on my face. Hugh’s sarcasm’s also not worth cussing about.
Since when do I care about “metacontrarians” who snidely ask for forgiveness?
The thing about passive aggressive behavior is it’s so hard to spot, and deal with…You can’t be accusing because it’s your fault, you can’t focus on negative anything…but you’re afraid to be positive because you don’t want to reinforce the behavior…you have to be neutral..and really that is a hard position to take when you perceive something to be said that is “wrong”. It’s a total lack of boundaries and anyone who asserts their boundaries leaves the passive aggressive person feeling hurt (due to childhood trauma)…something I’ve noticed in these conversations…and honestly in men in general…I think lots of parents are just getting it wrong.. I’m going to have to be more conscious of my parenting and extra vigil in being sure I list out positive and negative outcomes of my little ones choices… They are only 4 and 6 so it makes it more interesting in how to explain the situation so they understand…but it’s worth it in the end.
kristina,
“So you regret things you didn’t do, and somehow everyone else is to blame???”
Nah, mostly I blamed myself, when actually, other people did have some responsibility. But, honestly, that’s a bit unfair as an argument, because it discounts (my, in this case, but in general) male experiences as valid sources in the gender discourse. I mean, would anyone call a woman’s complaint about adverse conditions passive aggressive? I mean, from that point of view, feminism *itself* would have to be seen as basically passive aggressive (and, occasionally, actively aggressive), wouldn’t it?
“something I feel you were strongly lacking in your childhood (the ability to assert yourself without feeling like a jerk)…”
that’s actually a fair point.
“So I’m sorry that your childhood was so taxing, but as an adult responsibility needs to be taken for yourself..I think there are certain behavioral issues that need to be addressed and I suggest that more insight should be gained on the issue of passive aggressive behavioral patterns that I have spotted in these conversations.”
Well, what’s done is done. Could you be a little specific? Because I am living under the impression that I *am* trying to be positive and trying to find positive behavioral patterns while I perceive a lot of the other comments to be at least potentially passive aggressive. Interesting.
“you really do think that overall men get the shit end of the stick don’t you?”
No, I don’t. I believe that life has more dimensions and aggregate scores are not helpful for individual people and their problems and challenges. Sure, we’re also shaped by social forces and biology, but when it comes down to it, I don’t think that it’s possible to come up with a useful aggregate value to compare and rank the experiences of individuals. That is actually one of my main criticisms of feminism.
Sam…I too would say a woman was being passive aggressive…wall girl for instance was passive aggressive, with the nasty parting shot… people who don’t communicate directly are passive aggressive….shit SAM…I DON’T HATE MEN!!!! I hate people without boundaries…they are a danger to people who are able to assert their boundaries…by thinking they are against them… I really suggest you look up signs of passive aggressive behavior and see if maybe you can recognize it…You are being “positive” you are trying to please everybody…but in doing so, you are having trouble finding your boundaries…you are putting yourself last, and screwing up the underlying social rules of people…not men, not women…people… If you put yourself last you run the risk of people not respecting you…if you don’t assert boundaries people will cross them all the time and you will wrongly perceive them as attacking you…They can’t attack you if they don’t know where the boundaries are… Sam, don’t take my word for it…look up passive aggressive…it probably won’t change your mind anyway..but it’s worth a shot.
As for your childhood…you seem to imply that a lot of the messages you heard from feminists in your family was that men are evil… I would guess that if you ever disagreed with your aunt, you were made to feel like you were disgusting, or shamed…you didn’t get to “find yourself” in the world, and it has led to great behavioral issues… Like I was pointing out with zipper girl…you got your way (a girl asserting herself) yet it was still someone else’s fault that you couldn’t assert yourself and reciprocate…you don’t take responsibility…that’s one thing I have to say about MRAs…I may not agree with them, but I know their boundaries and I know to stay the hell away…with passive aggressive people you’re never too sure…
Yes, feminists could be seen as passive aggressive, especially if you don’t know your own boundaries…and I see that again, you pointed out that they could possibly be actively aggressive…Everyone has some passive aggressive behaviors…EVERYONE… but with you it is a constant pattern with those responding to you it is a response to your passive aggressive behavior…after all, nobody wants to be perceived as attacking you because you were acting rather gracious…your graciousness is rooted in wanting to please everybody…it’s obvious you disagree with a LOT of what feminism has to say, but you make it out to seem like you do agree, and go and do the opposite of what every feminist’s advice is here citing that it’s not that easy…no it’s not that easy for you because you have one foot in feminism and one foot in what you feel you should be able to do…make up your mind, nobody is going to kill you for it..you’re an adult you have the right to your choices…just because I as a feminist would disagree with them doesn’t mean you have to please me..it would be nice yeah, if you could see things the way I do but until you are able to make your own choices that have their own consequences (good or bad)and still be able to take responsibility IF something goes wrong, you will never be able to take any ideology seriously.
Actually I think that Sam was lamenting the sociosexual worthlessness of male touch, such that he could be PUNISHED for reciprocal touch if the woman so desired, rather than it being a simple misunderstanding were he to reach around in return. Men and women negotiate touch behind closed doors all the time, what made it twitchy was the public social context. Until our culture is really comfortable with public consensual touch (it isn’t) there will be no way to remove the unpleasant ambiguity from unsolicited female sexual touching of men.
Eurosabra… you kind of summed up my entire argument as to why Sam is passive aggressive…you didn’t at all address my main points. I am saying I agree with Sam that is hard to do…2 passive aggressive people communicating in a non assertive way will cause those problems that you just stated. You seem to be assuming that I am saying only men are passive aggressive…not so… Wall girl was passive aggressive, and when Sam was passive she blamed it on him (because she expected him to read her mind) which was wrong, she didn’t accept responsibility for her own in-action…which is wrong (that parting shot, instead of shrugging it off as oh well I didn’t tell him how could he have known?) Then a girl actively touched Sam’s zipper…it could safely be assumed that she was asserting herself (not in a way I would recommend but it was still assertive), and Sam over thought the situation and seemed upset that he over thought it (that is understandable) but WHY did he over think it? He probably feels that if he were to reciprocate her assertiveness that he would somehow be blamed…blamed by who? My guess is feminists (as per indoctrination he received from his aunt)but like I pointed out even if I disagree with that girl’s assertiveness, and if Sam had reciprocated the same way…it’s not about me…it’s not about how I disagree with what the both of them would be doing…if that is what you’re comfortable with it’s what you’re comfortable with, as long as both parties are being assertive there is no issue. The issue comes when women like wall girl, and men like Sam get together..both will lose.
Right, but the thing is I’d advise Sam to push lightly until he met with a hard “No”, such as his hand being brushed away, because I have extensive experience on losing out where asking for explicit verbal consent is a turn-off. It is true I am always more circumspect when the woman is “with” (read: “owned by”) one of the men present, but as a Middle Easterner I always note implicit alliances, patronage relationships, etc. because these are routinely a matter of life and death, as are fights over women. Even Western club culture has its topoi like “She’s just getting her coat, man” and chest-beating implicit communication short of a full-bore fistfight. Rejection is always easy to detect, what bothers me is the success that slips away implicitly.
“Right, but the thing is I’d advise Sam to push lightly until he met with a hard “Noâ€, such as his hand being brushed away”
Again…that is what I am saying..I didn’t say ask her if you can touch her, if she has already touched you (I’m assuming we’re talking about zipper girl)..I’m saying he feels he has to ask because of some perceived threat of being lynched or hated or whatever from either said girl, or outside influences (feminists)…If zipper girl physically asserts herself and he reciprocates physically…that is FINE…how many different ways do I have to say it…there is no hard no, soft no, maybe no, whatever the f you’re talking about no, because if zipper girl is being assertive but doesn’t enjoy Sam’s being assertive in RETURN, there is something wrong with her communication and she is no longer assertive, but passive aggressive (I can touch you, but you can’t touch me)… and I who am assertive and appreciate assertiveness in return does NOT want my no to be seen as a soft no or hard no or anything BUT no…by saying no can sometimes mean yes you are ignoring my no’s which mean exactly what I SAY…and that is NO.
I don’t understand how you would rather communicate in screwed up ways instead of saying man that chick is crazy..passive aggressive behavior will drive you crazy..so crazy in fact, that you redefine the meaning of NO…see what I’m saying?
kristina said:
What’s probably going on in Sam’s head is not fear of being lynched by feminists, but fear of doing something wrong. There is not a consensus in feminism on consent. La Lubu says she wouldn’t give Sam license to reciprocate physically in this scenario; you say that it’s OK for Sam to reciprocate physically. Given the difficulties feminists have in resolving their differences in views on consent, it will also be difficult for Sam to resolve his views on consent.
I very much doubt that Sam wants to communicate in screwed up ways. I think he just has difficulty finding women who want to communicate about consent in clear ways, and instead prefer nonverbal communicate (which may or may not involve passive aggressiveness). If he could find women who wanted clear communication about consent, he would be dating one, instead of being here.
Right now, all 3 women in his area who enjoy clear communication about consent have boyfriends, so he is going to have to wait until they free up. Yes, that’s a joke.
kristina,
“just because I as a feminist would disagree with them doesn’t mean you have to please me..it would be nice yeah, if you could see things the way I do but until you are able to make your own choices that have their own consequences (good or bad)and still be able to take responsibility IF something goes wrong, you will never be able to take any ideology seriously.”
I’m not really sure what ideology has to do with owning one’s own behaviour. Why would I want to take any particular ideology seriously beyond accepting their social importance? I am willing to listen and integrate – you can call me ideologically eclectic. I see that as a compliment.
I’m not exactly sure what your definition of passive aggressive behaviour is. I’m not trying to please everyone. As I mentioned with respect to “keeping feminists in charge of our own moral judgments”, I’m not doing that. Still, this being a feminist blog, I am, occasionally, as Hugo mentioned above, bending over backwards to respect – to the extent possible – both the axiomatic structure and terminology of feminism. I believe that we all benefit from understanding someone else’s position, and I believe that feminism as a discourse is causing (mostly) unintended side effects. I think it is important to point such things out so everyone can gain a better understanding of what’s going on in and what we’re doing in the world around us.
The thing is, again, this is neither merely, nor mostly, about me. This is about negative side effects of a discourse that is dominating the gender debate and causing double binds – mostly for men, but also for women. I believe that it is well worth disentangling it.
“I don’t understand how you would rather communicate in screwed up ways instead of saying man that chick is crazy..passive aggressive behavior will drive you crazy..so crazy in fact, that you redefine the meaning of NO…see what I’m saying?”
No, I don’t see it, actually, sorry.
I wish I lived in your world, Sam, where feminism was so powerful and so prominent that it it “a discourse that is dominating the gender debate.”
I think one reason Kristina and I and others here are very critical of your position is that everywhere we go our “no” is taken as a “yes” except in feminist spaces, where “no” usually is taken to mean “no.” When I come to a feminist blog and hear “but if a woman says no, what if she wants me to take it as yes, and I don’t, and I don’t get laid, feminism is to blame” it just reminds me of every other place in the world where a woman’s “no” means “yes.”
I’m also really tired of reading women = feminists. If some woman somewhere did something anti-feminist, that’s not a surprise. The vast majority of women, like the vast majority of men, are anti-feminist. Don’t blame feminists for the behavior of anti-feminist women. And you’re surprised that Lynn and Kristina have different thresholds of comfort with different activities? That because women are not a monolith.
Find the approach that makes you feel like a decent and respectable human being, and 80-90% of the time things probably won’t work out with the women you’re interested in, because nobody has thousands of perfect life partners. But if you can find principles that make you feel comfortable with yourself, you’ll end up with women who respect and like those principles and ethics that work for you. You’ll end up with women who are more compatible with you. You’ll self select for women who are not playing games like Wall Girl or Zipper Girl.
So yes. Maybe if you did the exact same thing, Lynn would have rejected you and Kristina would have reciprocated. That’s a one-out-of-two, pretty good odds. Do you really need a “technique” that works for every single woman? Well, if that’s what you’re holding out for, you’re not going to find it. Women are different, we are unique human beings, and once you start treating us as human rather than as sexual conquests in the making, things may look up.
Sorry, I realize that my comment was unnecessarily aggressive, and possibly unclear. I’d like to make it clear that I absolutely respect male desire, that I don’t believe that there is anything inherently wrong with male desire (the myth that men are lust-crazed beasts is profoundly anti-feminist), and I find male desire to be sexy and attractive in the right person (ie a person who I know and respect and who knows and respects me).
What I find problematic is the idea that every flirtatious encounter should be successful, that there is even a way for every flirtatious encounter to be successful. Failure to hook up is much more common than success. And if the failures are with people with whom one would not really be personally compatible — then that’s a positive result, not a negative.
I hear you that your aunt’s tutoring left you very confused and conflicted. And I’m sorry about that. Her version of feminism is both old fashioned and offensive to the principles most modern feminists adhere to. However, now that you’re meeting feminist women who embrace male desire, I think it’s time for you to decide independently of what you heard in your youth what kind of dating approach feels right to you. You won’t be able to find an approach that works for every single woman. Find one that feels ethical and right TO YOU.
I’m a woman who is very direct and not scared of taking the initiative with men. And even though that does scare off a lot of guys, I’m not willing to compromise my principles. I don’t believe that either person “should” be the pursued or pursuer, and I would hate to end up in a relationship with a “traditional” man who couldn’t take it when I want to give him roses for our anniversary, etc. So I’ve always been direct about asking guys out, I’m happy to take the lead, and yes, I usually get rejected. I’ve kissed three men in my life and slept with only two. But in those situations, I was able to behave in a way that I felt was natural and ethical for me. I didn’t have to play games or put on masks around my partners.
And that’s why, Sam, I just really wish you would ask yourself what kinds of boundaries and actions make YOU comfortable rather than continuing to ask women what they think you should do. You seem like a good guy, one who shouldn’t have trouble finding a way to behave in a way that you feel is ethical in the dating arena. It won’t seem that way to every woman you meet — some will want you to be a He Man and others will have such a low threshold of comfort for whatever reason that everything scares them away. But if you find what makes you feel like you’re behaving in a responsible and ethical manner, then you’ll find partners who will reciprocate. You won’t get to sleep with everyone you meet, but you won’t have to continuously wear a mask, either.
There is not a consensus in feminism on consent. La Lubu says she wouldn’t give Sam license to reciprocate physically in this scenario; you say that it’s OK for Sam to reciprocate physically. Given the difficulties feminists have in resolving their differences in views on consent, it will also be difficult for Sam to resolve his views on consent.
Feminists are different ages. Feminists are of different races and ethnic backgrounds. Feminists have different religious and/or spiritual backgrounds, and different frameworks for ethical behavior. Feminists have different educational backgrounds. Feminists live in and/or were raised in different countries, and/or live in different regions of the same country. Feminists speak different languages—literally and metaphorically.
In short, feminists are not The Borg. That’s why feminists can have different opinions on this and still both be right—for our own experiences, for our own demographics.
Where I am from, the whole “push lightly until coming up against a hard no” is a piss-poor tactic. It will get you labelled as being somewhere in the range of creep to asshole. Where I am from, “no” is always a “hard no”—a solid, full-bore, cannonball “NO”. Here, if someone means “maybe” they will say that—usually not in the literal form of “maybe”, but with other verbal responses such as “REally?” “oh yeah?” “hmm” or “huh.” along with smiles, open body language, and further questions designed to encourage the other person to stick around.
Look. Maybe Sam would have gotten laid by Zipper Girl. Maybe Zipper Girl would have freaked out and slapped him. Maybe Zipper Girl was trying to make some other guy in the joint jealous, and maybe Other Guy would have decked Sam for reciprocating. Who knows? Because Zipper Girl wasn’t saying, that’s for sure. She also wasn’t grabbing Sam’s hands and placing them on her body (which is a universal sign for “run your hands over me, dammit” no matter where you are).
If Sam wants to reduce the unknown factor of where-and-when he should put his hands on a dance partner’s body, Sam should take a bona-fide dance class. (sometimes clubs have these classes for free at the beginning of the night) Salsa, steppin’, swing….whatever. That’s why those dances exist—the rules are already apparent from the beginning, so there isn’t going to be anywhere near the ambiguity that there is in standard “wiggle your ass in the immediate vicinity” club dancing. Absent that, accept the risks of ambiguity and move on, ok? It really is that simple.
Unlike some other feminists here, I apparently come from a place where people are really verbal and really frank. That’s why I’m biased in favor of crystal-clear communication. It’s what I grew up with, it’s what I see on a daily basis….fish don’t question the water, y’know? And there is no feminist utopia here. At all. If you say “feminist”, people picture Andrea Dworkin, even though most people don’t remember her name. They just remember, “overweight, unshaven, homely older woman who hates men.” That’s the image of feminism where I live. So please stop with the comparison of Antioch rules with midwestern shit-or-get-off-the-pot bluntness, ok?
If shit had “gone South” (as we say) for Sam in the Zipper Girl instance, it wouldn’t have ended well. Never mind Sam getting slapped, or thrown out by the bouncer, or getting a black eye from the guy Zipper Girl really had her eye on. Sam’s real problem would be that from then on, he’d have a rep with the other women in the club….long after Zipper Girl had sobered up and forgotten about him. Because the other women probably didn’t notice Zipper Girl groping his groin….but they would have noticed a barfight, a slap with “get your hands off me!”, and/or the bouncer intervening. And from then on, Sam would be “the Creep”. What’s a Creep? A guy who doesn’t understand (or willfully ignores) boundaries.
Sam wouldn’t be able to explain that “hey…she had her hand on my crotch…I thought it was ok to reach behind and feel her ass! who knew?!” Not because feminists are all assholes who think All Men are Always Guilty, Everywhere. No…it’s because we’ve all had a lifetime dealing with sexual boundary-pushers ever since we were about eleven. Seriously guys…that’s when it starts. In grade school. Not grade-school boys pushing on our boundaries. Adult men. And it continues. Club, nothing. Shit, we get mashers and creeps just being in any crowded place.
Our boundaries, in other words, aren’t respected. We aren’t respected, that’s why. So ixnay on the PUA. Don’t push boundaries. That isn’t a “shit test”; it’s disinterest.
I don’t claim to know everyone’s background, everywhere. But I’m very comfortable asserting that almost all women have had unwanted advances, and experienced many, many instances of not having “NO” respected. So when in doubt (as Sam unquestionably is)—find out. Confirm. Don’t assume, and don’t push boundaries. Overstepping your bounds is a deal-breaker with most women; one you can’t recover from.
And if all you want to do is get laid? Get on Craigslist already, for crissake. Or go to a sex club, if one exists in your area. And don’t pretend that women groping strange men in the crotch in public is a common sight. If it were, this conversation wouldn’t exist—everybody’d be out gettin’ some. She was drunk. Drunkenness doesn’t lead to good sex. Sam, you dodged another bullet there, pal.
Oi…Sam… you’re on here asking how YOU should behave…We’ve pretty much told you behave whatever way you like…I know it won’t guarantee you a kiss…but neither did my asking guys out and being the one who approaches, but I didn’t want to compromise that.
“I’m not really sure what ideology has to do with owning one’s own behaviour. Why would I want to take any particular ideology seriously beyond accepting their social importance? I am willing to listen and integrate – you can call me ideologically eclectic. I see that as a compliment.”
It’s not, owning your behavior is part of being an adult, and I feel like you are asking how you should behave, therefore to me coming across as irresponsible or childish (sorry)
If you feel that feminists aren’t in charge of moral judgments why are you even here asking what you should do? In my opinion it seems that you just want feminism to go away, but aren’t saying it…why else would you be here with ideas that are so conflicting, and at the same time saying feminists shouldn’t be in charge of some morality concept you think we have…as if we all have the same one. Some women don’t mind grinding on a dance floor (some might even be feminists)…I wouldn’t do it..but I’ve had bad experiences..it’s not my place to tell some woman who is able to do that, not to. (see…no absolute morality there..I just know my boundaries)
I don’t understand why a better understanding is needed…I’m not forcing you to take feminism seriously, so why are you here? If the question for a better understanding comes to mind…think circular reasoning. It’s your choice to be here, and I find that the main issues are nested in disagreement, so really why cause undue stress to yourself? Not everyone will be pleased with every action someone takes…it’s a fact of life.
“The thing is, again, this is neither merely, nor mostly, about me. This is about negative side effects of a discourse that is dominating the gender debate and causing double binds – mostly for men, but also for women. I believe that it is well worth disentangling it.”
Sam,
Why be here or do anything feminism says if it’s causing double binds (that goes for men OR women)? I think the world is causing double binds for women (I know you agree)…but to be concerned that feminism isn’t “letting” women be free sexually? morally? Nobody is forcing those women to do anything either….if they disagree that is fine (they can live their life as they please), as long as they don’t blame MY ideas (that they don’t have to follow…AT ALL) for how horrible their life is… is well… passive aggressive..a.k.a. Not taking responsibility for their actions or inaction.
““I don’t understand how you would rather communicate in screwed up ways instead of saying man that chick is crazy..passive aggressive behavior will drive you crazy..so crazy in fact, that you redefine the meaning of NO…see what I’m saying?â€
No, I don’t see it, actually, sorry.”
I don’t know how much clearer I can possibly make it…If a woman doesn’t respond to your touch or your direct communication in a positive manner, you aren’t compatible..Nobody can force another person to think the way they do…although you are asserting feminists can force everyone to think the way they do (you don’t think the way a feminist does…BUT that doesn’t mean you don’t respect women, most of my female friends don’t think the way a feminist does BUT that does not mean they don’t respect themselves)…again, I notice you seem to mark every single woman you come across as feminist, maybe this is part of the problem…a lot of women believe they are deserving of respect, but disagree a LOT with feminism and prefer traditional roles…(the main tenet to feminism…they are not feminist)…just because a woman wants respect and acts as though she is “holding back” doesn’t mean she is a feminist, it means she is a woman who respects herself…something in which I think where the problem lies..not feminism…
A feminist is one who doesn’t believe in rigid gender roles…however they go about it, is their business…is everything each woman tries in her pursuit to go against gender roles going to work??? probably not, but it doesn’t make them any less feminist as long as they are against rigid gender roles…yeah…this makes feminists hard to spot..you won’t know unless you talk with one…so targeting them specifically by spotting them in a bar or on a dance floor…is ummmm… impossible? I personally thought of it as a defense mechanism…if he cares he’ll talk to me, if he doesn’t like what I have to say, he’s disagreed with a main part of my being.
“And that’s why, Sam, I just really wish you would ask yourself what kinds of boundaries and actions make YOU comfortable rather than continuing to ask women what they think you should do”
Yes..please…whatever actions make you comfortable Sam…asking women what actions you should take, then pointing out a double bind that could be avoided, by not trying to please every woman on the planet (we aren’t all the same…some like sex on the first date, some don’t even kiss on the first date)is…ummm… not taking responsibility for your actions or inaction. So what if so and so wants you to push her against a wall…you didn’t…whether that’s due to not wanting to play into the “idea” of male sexuality being dangerous (passive aggressive…you are blaming some random idea falsely attributed to ALL feminists on your decision not to push some girl, who didn’t communicate BEFORE she made clear that she was leaving, that it was what she wanted…first she was passive aggressive..she said she had to be careful..saying one thing…then got upset you didn’t push her…doing another.), or if you just didn’t come up with the idea that you should have pushed her against the wall on your own…(that’s not your fault, and it’s not feminism’s fault..it’s HER fault… who was the one that didn’t communicate properly in that situation? Again…she said one thing (I’m afraid) then acted in another (make me afraid)… If you don’t see that communication as screwed up, and really just want to please women like that (see…seeking to please women) then you are doomed to communication issues.
Sam yes, you aren’t out for just you…you are a small part of it…that is MY POINT!!! That is passive aggressive…it’s never conscious…it comes out of a strong desire to please others, but a fear that you’ll never be good enough, so you are constantly asking…is this right? (maybe to that feminist over your shoulder?)
You can never love someone else until you love yourself. You have to be happy with whatever action or inaction that you took (within certain boundaries of course…but I really truly believe you have the sense to know not to hurt someone on purpose…that’s the MAIN rule of humans and social animals)you aren’t happy with what happened with wall girl…why? Would you have felt okay if you pushed her (that’s fine…it was what she was “secretly” asking for..what wasn’t okay is that she didn’t make that clear until it was too late)? or you wouldn’t have felt comfortable pushing her anyway? (again, that’s okay too…as long as your decision had to do with how YOU felt…not HER, since she didn’t tell you how she felt.)
You think it’s fair that she was confusing you (even if it wasn’t consciously)? I don’t think that’s fair because I respect you as a person, one who deserves to know what I’m thinking (that sounds awfully conceited doesn’t it..lol…I hope you know what I mean)when it affects you.
Well, community standards, people. You apparently have men who like to fight to defend their property, bouncers who like to take men apart, etc. etc. In Los Angeles, Zipper Girl would have to explain the security cam footage of her hand on Sam’s crotch if stuff started after she groped him due to his reciprocation. There are honest misunderstandings, and then there’s “Let’s You And Him Fight”, and what you are describing is LYAHF. Ideally the society would be comfortable enough with male touch and with public consensual touch that Sam could say (to himself and to bystanders) “I’m allowed to see where this goes, assuming she’s sober.” It is not and you are glad that it is not and you postulate drunkenness because of your (and society’s) devaluation of male touch and male sexuality.
No, Eurosabra…..it isn’t male sexuality that is denigrated in most of the US. It’s women’s physical sexual aggressiveness that is denigrated. In most of the US, Zipper Girl’s behavior would get her marked as “unrapeable”. She would lose respect, especially in the eyes of men. She would be insulted and spoken of in a demeaning manner.
BTW, can any other LA denizens here vouch that this is not the case in LA? That men in LA don’t regard sexually expressive or explicit women as “sluts”? Because on other feminist blogs I’ve always been under the impression (fromwomen) that LA is not the feminist paradise the men on thi thread are making it out to be.
“It is not and you are glad that it is not and you postulate drunkenness because of your (and society’s) devaluation of male touch and male sexuality.”
This is a rather large assumption…considering I’m one who is “sexually aggressive” with my husband, and get offended when he doesn’t reciprocate, and over joyed when he does…I see that as a strange assumption. I NEVER EVER refuse my husband sex…no matter what the circumstances, even if I am upset with him…and he knows I am because I tell him so…but to refuse him sex, is to refuse him all of me…whether he takes that as owning me (which yes, I think he does as he doesn’t care as to WHY I’m angry, just that I disagree with him) is beyond my ability to change….that change has to come from within him…but we are one as God ordained and without me, I don’t give him the opportunity to be whole.
I tell you this Eurosabra, and everyone else here with great humility….again…I know all this may be taken out of context, but that is not within my ability to change…nor is it something you should blindly enforce in your own life…I am not telling anyone how to live theirs, just how I live mine.
“In Los Angeles, Zipper Girl would have to explain the security cam footage of her hand on Sam’s crotch if stuff started after she groped him due to his reciprocation”
Why the assumption that something would go wrong??? You can’t safely assume that zipper girl wanted to be touched???? Why can’t you assume zipper girl would want to be touched?
I also want to make it clear….that when I’m mad it’s usually my husband that initiates sex, or contact..he tells me he finds it sexy…
The point, of course, is that here you’ve only looked at “successes”. If Sam reciprocates with Club Woman, maybe he dances with Kristina, but he sexually assaults Lynn. Which is kinda the important point.
Yet feminists are a group of people united by a specific set of ideas distinct enough to warrant a label that separates the group from all others. Being such, it is reasonable for people to expect a certain degree of cohesion among feminist thoughts and theories, particularly since that cohesion is what feminists present to the public.
In general, no one’s boundaries are respected. Part of this is because unless a person tells you what their boundaries are, we have no method of knowing what is or is not acceptable to that person. Another is that we are all very opinionated creatures, and we project those opinion on others. We also presume a lot about other people’s experiences. One of my uncle had a saying: what you think you know and what there is to know are two different things. We cannot know for certain the things we do not personally experience, and we should not presume to that we do.
Deservedly so. We typically say bad things about people who engage in inappropriate sexual behavior. I think perhaps we have a different standard of acceptable behavior as I do not think women have the right to touch boys or men in a sexual (or any) manner without consent, nor do I think boys and men must put up with unwanted sexual contact from women.
Oh ok…well Eurosabra…I didn’t postulate that zipper girl was drunk…I postulated that if it were me (and I’m not usually drunk, and haven’t been known to be touchy feely with men who are strangers even when drunk)and I touched a strange man…chances are for me… I wouldn’t be drunk… the postulation that the woman is drunk from other women is that they would have to see themselves drunk in order to perform such actions.
In other words…I could see myself touching a man without being drunk and accepting his touch as well…this may come from my confidence in being a good fighter and my wit…it could also be sheer stupidity and ignoring a possible bad situation (that’s what society would tell me anyway)… should things make that turn for whatever reason…not just because of the man reciprocating my touch…I could also possibly anger my boyfriend (and rightly so…without violence of course…but I know my anger can often over take me if I’m unable to control it…fight or flight..it’s not about assuming men are violent…it’s about being aware that anger = bad… not… man = anger = bad.) Your presuppositions are revealing what you think of yourself…not what women think of you…especially not feminists.
“The point, of course, is that here you’ve only looked at “successesâ€. If Sam reciprocates with Club Woman, maybe he dances with Kristina, but he sexually assaults Lynn. Which is kinda the important point.”
So how can we make things uniform Brian? I say we inform people proper ways of communication, as in hey ladies…tell us what you want, and we’ll accept no as no…don’t be afraid to be forward because society will call you a slut..society is wrong…(sounds to me an awful lot like feminism)Also, guys you are going to have act in good faith and BELIEVE her…then the woman SHOULD have to act in good faith and follow your advice to tell you what she wants..but if you don’t believe her anyway…what’s the incentive?
so basically…tell everyone to be direct..and if there’s disagreement in the goals and how to reach them…the safest route is to avoid it. Society wants us to be indirect…discreet…manipulative…when you’re not those things, you are against society…but if you insist on being indirect and stomping your feet..you may as well be slut-shaming.
I think we are talking at cross-purposes, my point was mainly that ZG’s action would be taken into account if Sam complained, or if she later complained of reciprocal touch. I also don’t see slut-shaming by men as a useful tool of social control, ever, in my experience it’s just used to further belittle the man doing the attempted shaming as someone who “can’t get laid.” Shaming by women, particularly intra-social-group may be effective, and the above may be an explicitly mainstream middle-class-white situation, whereas women answerable in some way to elders of a traditional culture might be in real trouble. ZG is either just drunk or a game-player or (the most unlikely) actually making a real unsolicited physical move, which does not fit with my actual experience of the world except on the order of every couple of years. When I have been spontaneously groped by a woman in the club, it was meant as pseudo-bad-girl-showing-off and was not a genuine sexual advance, so an ideological statement of “girl power” rather than anything else. So, yes, the assumption is that it’s like unsolicited touching by men in some contexts, an ideological statement.
kristina,
just briefly for now -
“Why the assumption that something would go wrong??? You can’t safely assume that zipper girl wanted to be touched???? Why can’t you assume zipper girl would want to be touched?”
It was La Lubu, not Lynn, who made that point here, and repeatedly thereafter.
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2010/10/21/of-the-validation-of-desire-and-the-graceful-acceptance-of-rejection-on-male-wanting/#comment-565472
Sam I’m assuming La Lubu is assuming that because in her experience, she would not touch a man in such a manner..Why doesn’t really matter here…she has her reasons and she has a right to them because they are based on her life experiences…one in which no matter what she does as a woman she will be considered a slut…so she’d rather avoid the method of “obvious” evidence that she is, and leave it to hearsay…I’d say legally and logically, that’s a good approach.
I on the other hand would do so, and risk being called a slut, a temptress, she asked for it responses, job loss, being frowned upon, etc etc… I am not taking a smart approach…but I am trying to meet men halfway…and what do I get??? shunned.. I would see it as going against society just for a man…and he can’t reciprocate??? I could blame it on him for being weak…but I don’t…I blame it on society for holding such crappy views of me.
Eurosabra…I have NO CLUE what you are talking about…
“my point was mainly that ZG’s action would be taken into account if Sam complained, or if she later complained of reciprocal touch”
What is that supposed to mean…you’re being rather vague… what conclusions would be drawn from having ZG’s actions taken into account if Sam complained? If ZG complained later? Would the conclusions be the same…because to me they are different situations with different outcomes.
I’m also very positive that the feminists here would agree with me…
Mainly, if she tried to get another man to kick Sam’s ass for groping her in return, or if she set the bouncer on him, Sam would have the security tape which would pretty much clear him of any sexual assault charges, plus make a nice civil suit settlement against the club/bouncer possible. It would be an interesting sort of case to have a “reasonable person” precedent set in, because Sam is pointing out that a “reasonable person” would take it as an honest sexual advance and reciprocate in kind and feminism is explicitly against that kind of reason and that kind of standard, with “Yes Means No” standards of consent.
WTF???? are you serious??? She “said” yes when she touched him…that’s why Sam would have a case for being a “reasonable person” in the first place…. WOW….
Also why La Lubu, would avoid touch like that…she prefers to directly address the situation and make it clear beyond a reasonable doubt for BOTH parties, and a court of law that she didn’t consent…
You’re missing the point entirely anyway…ZG wasn’t fully direct… yeah she touched his zipper, yeah a reasonable person and feminists would agree that is consent…it isn’t consent to continue to sex…but it is consent for the next touch Sam makes (I seriously doubt he’s going to ravage her on the dance floor…so I think I’m being reasonable here)Communicating in “indirect manners” such as touch can be risky…one I used to take… but it is risky precisely because if there is no video footage, it has to be taken on hearsay…hearsay is a BIG GAMBLE in a court of law…Lawyers pick jurors VERY carefully in a case with hearsay because they like to see which biases the jurors have that will swing in their favor… A jury of men is more likely to see Sam’s point of view (she touched me first), a jury of “feminine” women are more likely to see the girl’s point of view of…I touched him, but I was still scared he would do something… (that conclusion is something I’m guessing on..because I personally would see her as negligent…just as I see my behavior as negligent…I’m just aware that it’s a risky behavior)
Actually…you know what… the jury of females would say she shouldn’t have been out there doing that… BUT they would initially take compassion for her situation…then push those uncomfortable feelings of being able to associate with their own experiences, and what they would associate with what THEY would have done…and come to the conclusion that she shouldn’t have been there…
It’s hard for me to think like a typically feminine woman…I don’t think I ever was one… so sorry…
“with “Yes Means No†standards of consent.” What?!?! What feminism have I been learning??? I always thought it was NO means NO… are you confusing feminist with feminine..or women??? I’m totally confused.
Yeah, I’m one who doesn’t mind communicating with touch and I’m a feminist…but I know how to handle myself if something gets out of hand, and that what I’m doing is RISKY…I know the risks…I do it ANYWAY… call it stupidity, or call it awareness combined with overconfidence… It will still have the same results…nobody will get found guilty of rape (the conviction rate is pretty low, and my risky behavior is “asking for it”) and someone will get hurt (whether it be me or the rapist)…
Just FYI, folks, I’m gonna close this thread — once we get down to the same three or four people having a conversation in a month-old thread, it’s outlived its usefulness. I’m shutting it down tonight at 9:00PST.
Yet feminists are a group of people united by a specific set of ideas distinct enough to warrant a label that separates the group from all others. Being such, it is reasonable for people to expect a certain degree of cohesion among feminist thoughts and theories, particularly since that cohesion is what feminists present to the public.
Why? That level of cohesion isn’t expected of people belonging to major (or minor) religions, to people belonging to major (or minor) political parties (or adhering to certain political ideologies). Nor is that level of cohesion expected of people who claim ethnicities (for example: the myth that Italian-Americans refer to the sauce one puts on pasta as “gravy”—nope. That’s entirely a regional thing. It was always “sauce” (in English) or sugu (in Sicilian). But there’s a lot of people who will argue that!). So. Why expect anything different amongst feminists, particularly considering that feminists comprise a hell of a lot more demographic variety than most other groups? As a working-class feminist, I’m still waiting for the contributions of my foremothers (immigrants, labor unionists) to make it into the Official Feminist Canon(TM)—but that isn’t going to stop me from claiming feminism.
Ahem. Anyway. Since Hugo’s going to close the door on this thread….my main point (that must have gotten lost in the digression) is that more communication, insuring that both parties are on the same page, and less ambiguity are good things. Ambiguity and assumptions are not. Zipper Girl may have responded quite well to Sam putting his hands on her. But there is the possibility she wouldn’t (perhaps from drunkenness, perhaps from game-playing, perhaps because she wanted to be in control of when and where any reciprocal touch went)….who knows? She didn’t make that clear, and Sam made no attempt to clarify either. What was clear to me from my reading (although I could be wrong on this—and if so, I’m sure Sam will clarify) is that Sam was unsure of what to do, and at least somewhat uncomfortable with that ambiguity. (He was also uncomfortable with inadvertently intruding on a couple, and especially with the reaction of the man who was previously dancing with Zipper Girl.) So, Sam made the best decision he could with what he was faced with—a great example of how ambiguity typically causes people to withdraw, wait, and watch (an important survival skill). As for advice, Comrade Svilova said it best with this: But if you find what makes you feel like you’re behaving in a responsible and ethical manner, then you’ll find partners who will reciprocate. You won’t get to sleep with everyone you meet, but you won’t have to continuously wear a mask, either.
The issue with finding “feminist PUA advice” is the same issue with “PUA advice” in general—the good advice is so general as to almost be meaningless, while specific advice is so situational it is as likely (or even more likely) to result in failure as in success. A review of the thread shows feminists leaning towards more direct forms of communication—which will result in either rapid success or rapid failure. We (feminists) think of this as an unqualified good. Feminists actively screen out partners who are not copasetic. Most feminists will agree that anti-feminism (in a potential partner) is a surefire libido killer. The most important sex organ is the one between your ears…and (speaking for myself) frankly, if he ain’t sexy up there, it’s impossible for him to be sexy anywhere else.
That’s not good enough for “PUA advice” though. When Comrade Svilova say, “You won’t get to sleep with everyone you meet, but you won’t have to continuously wear a mask, either”…that’s already seen as a “fail” by PUA standards (where “wearing a mask” is ok, and consciously reducing the number of potential partners is seen as weak). This is life, and there is no “easy button” for it, especially when it comes to sex. Remember, “physically pretty and/or handsome” and “sexy” are two entirely distinct categories that sometimes converge. And some folks haven’t even gotten to that level of understanding yet.
Schala – the woman who raped me wasn’t drunk. I had a few that night – which she bought me since I was under 21 and she was not. She was sober and spent her money on me. I never asked her too and hadn’t planned on drinking – just listening to the music and hanging out. I’ve never claimed otherwise and I don’t why people keep trying to claim she was drunk. This is incorrect and I’ve never stated otherwise.
She did what she wanted for her reasons. I have no idea why she did it and nothing she could ever say would be sufficient justification. You seem to feel differently since you need to hear her side of it for some reason – as if anyone could ever rationalize raping another human being.
How does a person defend committing a rape? Why would anyone want to listen to them if they did?
Hugo,
“once we get down to the same three or four people having a conversation in a month-old thread, it’s outlived its usefulness.”
It’s your blog, but I don’t really understand the logic of that argument.
La Lubu,
some quotes -
“But there is the possibility she wouldn’t (perhaps from drunkenness, perhaps from game-playing, perhaps because she wanted to be in control of when and where any reciprocal touch went)….who knows?”
““reasonable person—
I think most people *want* ambiguity, they want wiggle room. They are not always aware of their preferences, and they use unclear methods of communication in order to be able to withdraw or claim the opposite in case they change their mind along the way. I believe that is pretty universal among humans, although your experiences suggest cultural influence on such communication patterns.
I don’t think that’s a good thing, that’s just the way it is. You may say it’s a feature, it weeds out the ones you don’t want to talk to anyway, and irrespective of numbers, I don’t see failure to live up such a high standard as a personal disqualifier. Wall girl is not crazy person, she’s a social worker from who expects men to initiate. As for Zipper girl, I can’t tell, our interaction was not verbal. Sure, she may be crazy. But that’s where the “reasonable asumption” bit comes into play. I believe kristina is right – “it isn’t consent to continue to sex…but it is consent for the next touch”.
“Sam was unsure of what to do, and at least somewhat uncomfortable with that ambiguity. (He was also uncomfortable with inadvertently intruding on a couple, and especially with the reaction of the man who was previously dancing with Zipper Girl.)”
You’re right to a degree. I was uncomfortable with the ambiguity, but not because I was afraid of the guy’s reaction, but because I was asking myself the question that Victoria and kristina answer one way, and you answer the other way. To you, it seems that even such explicit behaviour wasn’t sufficient to create a state of “reasonable assumption” about her intent. A state in which I could assume consent to the next step, and in which an error about that, her pushing my hand away, for example, or her saying “no”, would not in itself be infringements of consent. The problem is, as I mentioned above, that getting a “no” usually equals an infringement of consent if there is no such thing as “reasonable assumption” – be it explicit or implicit.
“Don’t push boundaries. That isn’t a “shit testâ€; it’s disinterest.”
Except for the women who later tell you or your friends how you were tested. Again, you may consider that dodged bullets, and maybe you’re right. But that’s not a solution for the general problem. That the logical extereme of “don’t push boundaries” is “don’t talk to anyone”, and that “don’t push boundaries” doesn’t have contextual qualifiers, which it certainly needs. And that even in the case of Zipper Girl, you’re more than reluctant (to put it mildly) to assign any responsibility for a potential misunderstanding to her.
Comrade Svilova,
“Do you really need a “technique†that works for every single woman?”
it’s really not about that. It’s about the feeling that even though I have my own moral standard, there is always that negging feeling that my judgment is not sufficient, that my making mistakes is worse, etc. As I said above – “think of feminism as saying “oh jeffrey†in this clip from the BBC’s “Coupling†(yes, it’s a dream sequence, and it’s hilarious, but maybe it’s also helpful in explaining). I removed the http:// in case Hugo has auto embed turned on.” Coupling: “Jeff kissed someone!†– youtube.com/watch?v=J0dV0_qOliQ (dream sequence)
There’s also a dream sequence of her picturing the kiss, and it ends with her fear of not being kissed for lasagna rests between her teeth. Which, incidentally, seems to be a state I leave more women in than I intend to…
“What I find problematic is the idea that every flirtatious encounter should be successful, that there is even a way for every flirtatious encounter to be successful”
It’s really not about this, in my opinion. In my opinion it is about protecting women from “reasonable assumptions” from men that aren’t so reasonable at all. Like wearing a short skirt, or merely saying hello. Feminist discourse is clearly and rightly making the point that a lot of things that were once considered grounds for “reasonable assumptions” about her intent are actually neither grounds nor reasonable.
But there comes a point where *actual* reasonable assumptions are being discounted unfairly, and I believe that feminist discourse has a lot of men imply that point, like Jeff, in the clip, or me, or Hugh. And while I do believe that La Lubu is right and fear of rape is more important than fear of being seen as a sexual predator, I do also believe that we can do better than merely saying it’s either or. Probably in another thread, though.
A longer reply to La Lubu and Comrade Svilova is stuck in the moderation queue.
Schala: “Look up James Landrith for an anecdote about how his rape was seen when he came out with it last year…He was laughed at by the men and women commenting. Only victims of rape defended and believed him.”
That’s not really true. I was on two different sites’ threads about Mr. Landrith, including Dr. Helen’s Pajamas Media thread, and there were a good number of non-rape-victims (including me) stepping up to the plate for him. There were far too many insensitive louts there, too — which will only serve to make us stand even more firmly in his corner.
Mr. Landrith, I hope you are finding the healing you need.
La Lubu said:
Then it would be great, if feminists were saying that ethical requirements for communication varied by demographic. But they aren’t (except for some feminists in this thread defending feminism). The message I got was always: “explicit verbal consent,” not “explicit verbal consent, except that if someone starts dirty dancing with you, it’s OK to reciprocate.”
I’m now pretty sure that we aren’t talking about the same thing. Sam never said anything about getting laid by Zipper Girl. He was asking about the ethics of touching her on her “lower back hips.” Do we really think she would have freaked out and slapped him?
Those are good points, but they aren’t what Sam was asking. I thought he was asking if it was ethical to touch her lower back and hips. He wasn’t asking whether it was socially a good idea.
And touching someone’s zipper is not? How blatant does does she have to get? Her communication was a universal sign for “I want to grind with you” in cultures that do it. Grinding involves people put their hands on each others’ lower back and hips.
If you want to invalidate her signal by suggesting she was drunk, that makes sense, but she did give a signal and it was clear. The question Sam was asking was whether it was ethical for him to act on that signal.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Sam never said anything about “feeling up her ass.” He was talking about touching her lower back and hips. I agree with you that feeling up her ass (even in response to her touching his zipper) would be more morally complicated.
I do all these dances. Her starting to grind up on him as about as ritualized as you can get.
I agree with the booty-wiggling communication is a bit more ambiguous, but it’s not the scenario Sam was talking about.
Pingback: Thinking About “Creep” | No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz?