Monday, January 26, 2009
The Ladies I Was Gonna...
Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Write a long post about the NYT Magazine's cover story yesterday by Daniel Bernger—which argues, in a nutshell, that women have sexual desire too (!)but science hasn't really figured out what it's about yet—but I see that Amanda at Pandagon already said everything I wanted to say, and then some. A sample:
The main thing is that Bergner shies away from cultural explanations, as do his researchers, even though the research could easily point to cultural reasons more than biological ones for women’s differences. No one asks the most relevant question, which is, “If women were raised in a less oppressive environment, and given the same sexual cues and permissions as men, would it change their sexual responses significantly?” Part of the reason that the question isn’t being asked is that Bergner and his subjects know that being a feminist is somehow anti-sex, and therefore they go out of their way to denounce it. The word is only brought up in order to falsely imply that feminists are anti-sex, even if we’re still tediously morally superior.She pronounced, as well, “I consider myself a feminist.” Then she added, “But political correctness isn’t sexy at all.” For women, “being desired is the orgasm,” Meana said somewhat metaphorically — it is, in her vision, at once the thing craved and the spark of craving.Unfortunately, if she didn’t strain herself to avoid feminist explanations for women’s so-called narcissism, she would have a better chance of stumbling on the truth. She has all these theories about why women like to look at the female form, tend to see “sex” in women’s bodies more than men’s (just like straight men do), and respond so strongly to being desired. Many of them have the strong whiff of bullshit, like this:
“The female body,” she said, “looks the same whether aroused or not. The male, without an erection, is announcing a lack of arousal. The female body always holds the promise, the suggestion of sex” — a suggestion that sends a charge through both men and women.Men’s bodies can be sexual without an erection—-look at the statue of David for a classic example. There is nothing inevitable about the sexualizing of the female body and not the male one. I suppose it’s “politically correct” to say so, but I think women’s bodies represent sex, and therefore cause arousal responses, in both sexes because we live in a male-dominated society where men who control our media-saturated culture put forward women’s bodies as sex objects while often avidly downplaying the sexual representation of male bodies, because they think it’s demeaning to be looked at as a sex object. (And it is). [...]
Much of a female life is spent squashing emotions and desires that men are permitted to indulge—-for food, for anger, for lust, even for shout-from-the-top-of-your-lungs joy. It’s no wonder to me that the habit becomes so ingrained you can’t turn it off even if it’s suddenly socially necessary that you do. The problem with the virgin/whore dichotomy has always been that you can’t make someone be the perfect virgin her whole life and then expect her to be a lusty whore the second she’s in a bedroom with a man. And if I’m right, a pill won’t fix the problem. The only thing that will fix the problem is extending the privileges we give men from their babyhood on to women.
Amanda doesn't address one of the most startling statistics in the whole article—that as many as 30 percent of women suffer from "insufficient desire"—a number I think is both improbable (almost a third of women can't get turned on?) and basically meaningless (insufficient desire for what? Sex with a selfish, sexually lazy partner? And what are the cultural factors that determine "sufficient" desire?") But her post is well worth reading in its entirety; another smart take over here.
Share via
2
Erica, I know you're badass enough that you don't need to hear this, but before the trolls and naysayers rip this post and you apart for no reason: I love you and your writing. You're spot on as usual! Thanks for continuing to bring it home for the ladies.
3
That is the most insufferable load of horse manure I've read in a very long time. You've outdone even yourself on this one.
After reading that, it's not too hard to understand why you're such a lonely person.
After reading that, it's not too hard to understand why you're such a lonely person.
4
Oh boy. One thing too often left out of feminist critiques is a willingness to look beyond our own culture. These studies, for example, attempted to control for culture, while Amanda's critique does not. Thus this statement:
might be true, but the author doesn't lift a finger to provide evidence for it, except for the lazy fallacy of generalization by pointing out our (admittedly) patriarchal media culture. So, where does patriarchy come from? And can you provide counterexamples from other (less patriarchal) cultures to prove your point? And how would you go about explaining the cultural differences between patriarchal societies and matriarchal societies if men and women are mentally and sexually identical?
I don't have much interest in knee-jerk neo-feminist cultural critiques that are based on neither medical research nor anthropology. Show me the money!
I think women’s bodies represent sex, and therefore cause arousal responses, in both sexes because we live in a male-dominated society where men who control our media-saturated culture put forward women’s bodies as sex objects while often avidly downplaying the sexual representation of male bodies, because they think it’s demeaning to be looked at as a sex object. (And it is).
might be true, but the author doesn't lift a finger to provide evidence for it, except for the lazy fallacy of generalization by pointing out our (admittedly) patriarchal media culture. So, where does patriarchy come from? And can you provide counterexamples from other (less patriarchal) cultures to prove your point? And how would you go about explaining the cultural differences between patriarchal societies and matriarchal societies if men and women are mentally and sexually identical?
I don't have much interest in knee-jerk neo-feminist cultural critiques that are based on neither medical research nor anthropology. Show me the money!
5
Poll question: in Anglo-American cultures who exerts more normative control over women, men or women?
6
It seems to me that this post--yet another "I'd have written _________, but somebody else already did a better job at it than I ever could, so I'm going to copy and paste all of it into my post"--is just more evidence that bloggers are not real journalists.
Of course, Erica claims to be a journalist-blogger, so, well...maybe she should consider writing her own material sometime?
Of course, Erica claims to be a journalist-blogger, so, well...maybe she should consider writing her own material sometime?
7
aren't there feminists who are also scientists? or at least understand how to use empirical evidence to support a hypothesis?
i don't necessarily disagree with what amanda "thinks" is true, but she would be a lot more convincing if she provided a little more than her own internal logic to defend her opinions. i haven't read the entire article she is addressing, however it does appear to have a lot of research and data supporting it's conclusions. it could very well all be smoke and mirrors, but that's still more than what amanda uses to pick it apart.
i don't necessarily disagree with what amanda "thinks" is true, but she would be a lot more convincing if she provided a little more than her own internal logic to defend her opinions. i haven't read the entire article she is addressing, however it does appear to have a lot of research and data supporting it's conclusions. it could very well all be smoke and mirrors, but that's still more than what amanda uses to pick it apart.
8
the idea of female lust as fundamentally narcissistic jibes with my experience. it's just too awful to admit when you can blame paternalism.
9
Hey, off-topic, but Erica, did you see where the holocaust-denying kook recommunicated by the Nazi pope the other day (and is of course also a 9/11 truther), believes that "almost no girl should go to any university"?
http://www.sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Will…
"[T]rue universities are for ideas, ideas are not for true girls, so true universities are not for true girls."
You're not allowed to wear pants, either.
http://www.sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Will…
"[T]rue universities are for ideas, ideas are not for true girls, so true universities are not for true girls."
You're not allowed to wear pants, either.
10
@7:
That's being generous. There's a history of feminist hostility to science (e.g., Lawrence Summers's ouster over the suggestion that there might be biological differences between men and women, and that more research might be warranted--regardless of tact, he was advocating more, not less research into a still-open question, no?).
I can sort of see a historical basis for this as a counter to the historical tendency of bigots to make false scientific claims to support their bigotry. But opposition to empirical research is never justified, regardless of whether we might dislike the results.
As for this particular case, I have a hard time even seeing how it's sexist to imply that men and women both find the female form arousing. And "Amanda" strains credulity with the claim that "men [in the media]...avidly downplaying the sexual representation of male bodies" (really? I can't open a magazine without seeing images of (sexy) male models).
That's being generous. There's a history of feminist hostility to science (e.g., Lawrence Summers's ouster over the suggestion that there might be biological differences between men and women, and that more research might be warranted--regardless of tact, he was advocating more, not less research into a still-open question, no?).
I can sort of see a historical basis for this as a counter to the historical tendency of bigots to make false scientific claims to support their bigotry. But opposition to empirical research is never justified, regardless of whether we might dislike the results.
As for this particular case, I have a hard time even seeing how it's sexist to imply that men and women both find the female form arousing. And "Amanda" strains credulity with the claim that "men [in the media]...avidly downplaying the sexual representation of male bodies" (really? I can't open a magazine without seeing images of (sexy) male models).
11
@10,
First, Summers took heat over what he said, but he ultimately lost his job because he was a shitty administrator. Second, he absolutely wasn't advocating more research, he was trying to brush off accusations that there weren't enough female professors with tenure in science and mathematics at Harvard, something for which he bore a great deal of responsibility.
First, Summers took heat over what he said, but he ultimately lost his job because he was a shitty administrator. Second, he absolutely wasn't advocating more research, he was trying to brush off accusations that there weren't enough female professors with tenure in science and mathematics at Harvard, something for which he bore a great deal of responsibility.
12
What does "insufficient desire" mean? It means that a woman wants to feel more sexual desire, and doesn't. This isn't exactly rocket science.
13
Certain people in the evolutionary psychology camp seem to believe that all human behavior can be explained by making analogies to animal behavior. Many liberal humanists seem to believe that all behavior can be explained by the images we're exposed to in the media. It's the old nature/nurture split, combined with a healthy dash of "one theory to explain everything" mania.
It's just possible that our behavior is more complicated than either of these absolutist stances implies. I am just as skeptical of Pandagon's boilerplate claim that all observed differences between men and women are explainable as a result of early exposure to Barbi dolls as I am of the "Men's Rights Advocates" who believe women are genetically predisposed to enjoy shopping.
It's just possible that our behavior is more complicated than either of these absolutist stances implies. I am just as skeptical of Pandagon's boilerplate claim that all observed differences between men and women are explainable as a result of early exposure to Barbi dolls as I am of the "Men's Rights Advocates" who believe women are genetically predisposed to enjoy shopping.
14
Many feminists fancy themselves "social scientists" but the point stands; many of them haven't even done the bare minimum of research in the field of social science to qualify what they believe.
15
Desire, a complicated psychobiological phenomenon, is influenced by culture? I never would have expected that.
16
I'm sorry, Erika, but I will not let you get away with "insufficient desire" being the fault of "selfish, sexually lazy" men. When I slept with men, I got laid virtually whenever I wanted to. With women? No. Even women who tell me I'm hot, even women who tell me I'm great in bed, even women who love me are not anywhere near as interested in sex as even the least randy man I dated.
But I do agree that the term "insufficient desire" is asinine.
But I do agree that the term "insufficient desire" is asinine.
17
This is a problem looking for a drug to solve it.
Or the other way around.
(takes out his Color Me Cynical Coloring Book)
Or the other way around.
(takes out his Color Me Cynical Coloring Book)
18
I thought the NYT article was interesting, although it sucks that so much of the research seems to be driven by pharma companies trying to come up with a new pill to prescribe the ladies.
I think the relevant question to ask is: how can women reclaim our own desires - not just as sexual objects (getting turned on by the perception of being desired by another) - but as agents? We don't have to wait for the end of patriarchy, y'all, it is possible.
Also sucks that so many women are still alienated from our own bodies.
I think the relevant question to ask is: how can women reclaim our own desires - not just as sexual objects (getting turned on by the perception of being desired by another) - but as agents? We don't have to wait for the end of patriarchy, y'all, it is possible.
Also sucks that so many women are still alienated from our own bodies.
19
Is anybody else's copy of the Patriarchy Agenda 2009 late? It's supposed to arrive a couple weeks before the W-2s.
20
@16: That's not what I said. To clarify: The term isn't defined anywhere, so it MIGHT AS WELL mean that. Which is to say, it's meaningless.
21
I think ECB could write pretty much anything and fucks like No 1, 3 and 8 would take a shot at her. WTF? Is it misplaced anger, misogyny, meanness? Go back to your dark creepy holes and chill.
22
There's one study mentioned in the article that tried to control for culture.* None of the others did. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?
*And that study merely looked at the type of sexual images that turn women and men on. Straight men are turned on by sexual images of women, gay men are turned on by sexual images of men, women are turned on by sexual images of practically anything. Amanda Marcotte didn't pick apart that study nearly as much as the others -- the ones saying that women's desire is primarily narcissistic, etc.
These studies, for example, attempted to control for culture...
There's one study mentioned in the article that tried to control for culture.* None of the others did. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?
*And that study merely looked at the type of sexual images that turn women and men on. Straight men are turned on by sexual images of women, gay men are turned on by sexual images of men, women are turned on by sexual images of practically anything. Amanda Marcotte didn't pick apart that study nearly as much as the others -- the ones saying that women's desire is primarily narcissistic, etc.
23
Everyone better get used to more of this type of post from ECB now that ericacbarnett.com has gone tits up -- that's where this stuff used to end up...
24
Social pressure against homosexuality is far stronger than that against female sexuality, yet somehow that doesn't seem to slow the gay boys down.
"Insufficient" desire could be defined as too weak to keep an otherwise good marriage out of couples therapy. Or to keep desparate husbands from writing sad letters to Dan Savage. Or weaker than an woman once had, or would like to have. Either way, 30% doesn't seem unrealistic.
"Insufficient" desire could be defined as too weak to keep an otherwise good marriage out of couples therapy. Or to keep desparate husbands from writing sad letters to Dan Savage. Or weaker than an woman once had, or would like to have. Either way, 30% doesn't seem unrealistic.
25
@24 Has it, and Ms. Barnett is misguided; most men WANT to be looked on as sex objects, at least part of the time; look at the behaviour of gay men. It's just that men also want to be looked on as independent people, too. "Classical" feminism does itself a disservice by saying it's wrong for women to want it all-being viewed as both sex objects and independent strong-willed people. Younger feminists have gotten that. It seems to me that the point of a smarter humanism is to allow both men and women to be both sex objects and independent beings by turns.
The article documents women who are trying to do the actual research to determine what part of female sexuality is biologically determined and what part is culturally conditioned. Many of the comments by Ms. Barnett and others here show no such humility, nor a desire to know more. It may feel good to feel aggrieved and blame the other sex for everything, but reveling in it does not shed light on the subject, nor make for a happier life for either sex; unless complaining about things is your definition of happiness.
The article documents women who are trying to do the actual research to determine what part of female sexuality is biologically determined and what part is culturally conditioned. Many of the comments by Ms. Barnett and others here show no such humility, nor a desire to know more. It may feel good to feel aggrieved and blame the other sex for everything, but reveling in it does not shed light on the subject, nor make for a happier life for either sex; unless complaining about things is your definition of happiness.
26
@24: Good point (about gay men). Of course, as Erica will tell you, nobody in all of human history suffers like 2009's American women suffer.
@11: Summers outlined "three hypotheses," the second of which--that is, the one he considered of medium significance in explaining the gender gap--was that of "different ability."
Of crucial significance is that Summers described these as hypotheses--suppositions not yet proven. Erica, and those like her, never temper their own views in the same way. Research (the topic of the Times article, as you may recall) is to be disregarded and criticized if it does not describe the world as Erica wishes it was.
If that's not anti-science, I don't know what is.
@11: Summers outlined "three hypotheses," the second of which--that is, the one he considered of medium significance in explaining the gender gap--was that of "different ability."
Of crucial significance is that Summers described these as hypotheses--suppositions not yet proven. Erica, and those like her, never temper their own views in the same way. Research (the topic of the Times article, as you may recall) is to be disregarded and criticized if it does not describe the world as Erica wishes it was.
If that's not anti-science, I don't know what is.
28
Meh-- the problem with feminism is the ironic belief that anything "feminine" is a cultural imposition of society. Do feminists not realize that this implicitly makes anything "feminine" bad, or at best fake? Why can't men and women be different without assigning value judgments to those differences. People can be different without being unequal. It is these values of making the feminine "negative" and the masculine "positive" that are the true impositions of society, and classical feminism only perpetuates these cultural value judgments. A true feminist would embrace what makes them "unmale" without assigning a value or hierarchy to those traits. Anyone with the the most rudimentary knowledge of modern biology, neuroscience, or evolutionary history should know that men and women are biologically, genetically, and chemically different than men. That's just a fact. That this leads to differences between the sexes in terms of behavior, much less sexual behavior, is so obvious its ridiculous.
29
If any of you morons had actually visited a feminist site, you would realize that not ALL feminists have the same reaction to the article. Some liked it, some didn't, some liked parts of it and not others. Personally I'm somewhere in the middle. Please don't generalize us into a crazy, man hating, bra burning horde. It makes you look stupid, and no one actually discussing the issues will take you seriously.
BTW we are not all women.
BTW we are not all women.
30
#28, Behavioral differences between men and women are like physical differences but much less drastic. For example, men are taller than women on average, but there are MANY tall women and short men. Women have larger hip bones, but there are MANY women with thin hips and men with wide hips. Testosterone causes fat to distribut on the belly and back, but MANY women have bellies and padded backs. It's all a matter of average distribution and everything is a crossover. And, after menopause (male and female), these differences almost disappear. The only differences that really remain are the inborn physical differentiations (genitals mainly), but there is no similar structural difference in the brain between men and women. The only physical differences in the brain are influenced by hormones and they cross over greatly between women and men. There is absolutely no basis that women and men are behaviorally different outside of cultural roles, only that averages and distribution of traits are slightly different.
31
I OBJECT TO THE USE OF "MORON" AS AN INSULT AS IT IS GENDER-BASED. WOMYN ARE CAPABLE OF BEING ASNINE AS WELL, YOU KNOW!
32
@30 - Do you know if gender-related hormone balances (testosterone, estrogen, etc.) have any influence on the brain? I would be interested to read any studies you might know about.
33
Erica,
I read this NYT article too and there were definitely a few moments where I felt the urge to protest. Your concerns are valid and this research should not be accepted at face value without some discussion of the underlying cultural assumptions on which we base our science. That said, I wish you had gone ahead and written what you were planning on writing without letting this intellectually lazy screed from Pandagon stand in for your opinions.
I'm no expert, but I am a former psychology and philosophy student who once did some graduate level coursework on feminist theory. That said, Amanda's criticisms seem to be ad hominem ideological arguments that fail to take into account what "science" is and what it isn't. From the article, it is my understanding that this study measured two things: degree of physical arousal as recorded by a somewhat arbitrary but consistent method of physical measurement and reported level of arousal. There is no causality implied here; indeed that is something that this kind of study could never provide. My gut-level hunch is that the discrepancy between what makes women wet and what they will willingly admit makes them wet has some basis in socialization, but that is a hypothesis for an entirely different sort of study.
"Culture," "society" and the "media" do lots of shitty things, but they are not responsible for sexualizing women's bodies. Please blame that one on the Universe/God/evolution. Even the artwork of strictly matriarchal paleolithic societies features sexualized representations of female figures. Why? Probably because female bodies are inextricably linked to the mysterious creation of life itself. Get over it.
Feminism is a useful tool for leveling well-thought criticism at the assumptions (which basically amount to religious faith) underlying our belief in the power of empiricism. I am distraught by this post because this kind of crap is exactly what gives feminism a bad name.
More...
I read this NYT article too and there were definitely a few moments where I felt the urge to protest. Your concerns are valid and this research should not be accepted at face value without some discussion of the underlying cultural assumptions on which we base our science. That said, I wish you had gone ahead and written what you were planning on writing without letting this intellectually lazy screed from Pandagon stand in for your opinions.
I'm no expert, but I am a former psychology and philosophy student who once did some graduate level coursework on feminist theory. That said, Amanda's criticisms seem to be ad hominem ideological arguments that fail to take into account what "science" is and what it isn't. From the article, it is my understanding that this study measured two things: degree of physical arousal as recorded by a somewhat arbitrary but consistent method of physical measurement and reported level of arousal. There is no causality implied here; indeed that is something that this kind of study could never provide. My gut-level hunch is that the discrepancy between what makes women wet and what they will willingly admit makes them wet has some basis in socialization, but that is a hypothesis for an entirely different sort of study.
"Culture," "society" and the "media" do lots of shitty things, but they are not responsible for sexualizing women's bodies. Please blame that one on the Universe/God/evolution. Even the artwork of strictly matriarchal paleolithic societies features sexualized representations of female figures. Why? Probably because female bodies are inextricably linked to the mysterious creation of life itself. Get over it.
Feminism is a useful tool for leveling well-thought criticism at the assumptions (which basically amount to religious faith) underlying our belief in the power of empiricism. I am distraught by this post because this kind of crap is exactly what gives feminism a bad name.
35
@25 is on the right track here in my view.
The recent Slog thread:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
on the status of bisexuals in the the GLBT community comes to mind in this light too. Sexuality is a very nuanced, mutable thing for us humans. It comes with its general biologicaly determined aspects, all of which are individually varied in the ways that people differ one from another physically, and its culturally influenced aspects, likewise individually nuanced. The trouble is we can't yet embrace this and feel compelled overall to lock ourselves and each other into the standard catagories and to raise hell if anyone diverges.
The article is about current research, and by no means pretends to speak the revealed truth. It's but another passage in a long conversation were going to be having from here on in about the neuro-evolutionary aspects of human behavior.
The recent Slog thread:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
on the status of bisexuals in the the GLBT community comes to mind in this light too. Sexuality is a very nuanced, mutable thing for us humans. It comes with its general biologicaly determined aspects, all of which are individually varied in the ways that people differ one from another physically, and its culturally influenced aspects, likewise individually nuanced. The trouble is we can't yet embrace this and feel compelled overall to lock ourselves and each other into the standard catagories and to raise hell if anyone diverges.
The article is about current research, and by no means pretends to speak the revealed truth. It's but another passage in a long conversation were going to be having from here on in about the neuro-evolutionary aspects of human behavior.
37
Yeah, that's not true.
First of all, some of the most powerful people in media are women, and the way many of those women stay in power is by controlling the media's perception and presentation of what's attractive.
Second of all, men love to be viewed as sex objects. Just most of us aren't very good at it. An overweight woman can still have good curves and an hourglass figure. A skinny woman can be statuesque. A short woman can be petite. A tall woman can be an amazon. A fat guy with a small dick pretty much doesn't stand a chance; there is no cultural standard of beauty by which that guy can hope to be objectified. And please notice that those descriptors aren't qualified: fat and small dick are pretty much all you need to know to know that the guy in question cannot be objectified. There is no male fat-with-small-dick aesthetic equivalent of body-positive descriptors like "Reubenesque". If he's gay and hairy he might be able to score on the Bear market, but otherwise forget about it. Likewise a guy who's 5'2" will never be regarded, as a sex object, as anything other than defective. He may be good-looking and have an enormous penis that he uses with great skill and cunning, but there is no affirming cultural narrative for his height. Look at Tom Cruise -- his height is only something to be made fun of. With the exception of a small cadre of fetishists, society does not regard Tom Cruise's small stature as a positive the way it regard's Kristen Bell's height as an aspect of her charm.
And most guys would give pretty much everything they have to be objectified the way Brad Pitt is objectified. If they tell you different they're lying. But mostly guys don't have that option -- because women don't give it to them -- so no, most guys don't pursue objectification much. But if women gave them more options -- more versions of male sex that they approve of -- guys would probably be more than happy to be objectified.
My experience is that most women -- and feminists in particular -- are basically incapable of even hearing this point. It's like a fucking dog whistle or something.
Okay, that's out of my system. Please carry on with your boring Manichaean circle jerk.
More...
we live in a male-dominated society where men who control our media-saturated culture put forward women’s bodies as sex objects while often avidly downplaying the sexual representation of male bodies, because they think it’s demeaning to be looked at as a sex object. (And it is).
Yeah, that's not true.
First of all, some of the most powerful people in media are women, and the way many of those women stay in power is by controlling the media's perception and presentation of what's attractive.
Second of all, men love to be viewed as sex objects. Just most of us aren't very good at it. An overweight woman can still have good curves and an hourglass figure. A skinny woman can be statuesque. A short woman can be petite. A tall woman can be an amazon. A fat guy with a small dick pretty much doesn't stand a chance; there is no cultural standard of beauty by which that guy can hope to be objectified. And please notice that those descriptors aren't qualified: fat and small dick are pretty much all you need to know to know that the guy in question cannot be objectified. There is no male fat-with-small-dick aesthetic equivalent of body-positive descriptors like "Reubenesque". If he's gay and hairy he might be able to score on the Bear market, but otherwise forget about it. Likewise a guy who's 5'2" will never be regarded, as a sex object, as anything other than defective. He may be good-looking and have an enormous penis that he uses with great skill and cunning, but there is no affirming cultural narrative for his height. Look at Tom Cruise -- his height is only something to be made fun of. With the exception of a small cadre of fetishists, society does not regard Tom Cruise's small stature as a positive the way it regard's Kristen Bell's height as an aspect of her charm.
And most guys would give pretty much everything they have to be objectified the way Brad Pitt is objectified. If they tell you different they're lying. But mostly guys don't have that option -- because women don't give it to them -- so no, most guys don't pursue objectification much. But if women gave them more options -- more versions of male sex that they approve of -- guys would probably be more than happy to be objectified.
My experience is that most women -- and feminists in particular -- are basically incapable of even hearing this point. It's like a fucking dog whistle or something.
Okay, that's out of my system. Please carry on with your boring Manichaean circle jerk.
38
So Erica, do you suffer from lack of desire? If so, is your lack of desire because you have a selfish and sexually lazy partner? What do you find wrong with your partner?
39
Why is it that some women will argue that we have a society and media that exploit women for their bodies? From my point of view the same thing is done with men. There are many examples of how men are exploited for their bodies as well. But what about our animal instincts in all of this? I do think that men and women are compelled to a totally different natural imperative that, put together, compliment each other. Male humans, for the most part, have a higher sex drive as regards to the number of possible mates in a day, week, year and therefore more offspring to pass his DNA. Women, it seems to me, are instinctually driven to a partnership (barter)for sex that provide for her and her young. That could make visual clues to mate worthiness pretty strong in both. There is an ideal of women's body "sexiness" that relates to her strength as a mate and mother. Add to that higher rates of "insufficient desire" that keep her bound to the male. Men's "sexiness" includes visual signals of mate worthiness like strength (arms, shoulders, legs),and sports ability (as it relates to our past as hunters). I just believe there are some things about human sexuality that will always be because it is an inborn response for species survival. Culturally, though, I think Americans are prone to extremes in everything, including sex.
40
Can somebody explain to me the theory that considers female desire "narcissistic"? WTF?
Good book on human sexuality w.r.t. other animals: "Why is Sex Fun?" by Jared Diamond (of "Guns, Germs, and Steel" fame.)
Good book on human sexuality w.r.t. other animals: "Why is Sex Fun?" by Jared Diamond (of "Guns, Germs, and Steel" fame.)
41
Judah, women tune your argument out because it's insulting and stupid. ("like a fucking dog whistle"? Fuck off.)
Understand this: being seen as sexy is different from being objectified. To be objectified is to be treated as though you have no brain, and exist ONLY for the sexual gratification of others. It does not give you more power but LESS. Brad Pitt gets plenty of great parts, and is respected for his acting, not just his looks. THAT'S why men admire him. I have never met a man who enjoyed being treated in a condescending or dismissive way. And that's the result of objectification.
And I'd love to see that ratio of powerful women to powerful men in the media. Love to.
Understand this: being seen as sexy is different from being objectified. To be objectified is to be treated as though you have no brain, and exist ONLY for the sexual gratification of others. It does not give you more power but LESS. Brad Pitt gets plenty of great parts, and is respected for his acting, not just his looks. THAT'S why men admire him. I have never met a man who enjoyed being treated in a condescending or dismissive way. And that's the result of objectification.
And I'd love to see that ratio of powerful women to powerful men in the media. Love to.
42
@30:
Sorry, but "Dr." or no, you're an idiot.
"The only physical differences in the brain are influenced by hormones and they cross over greatly between women and men."
True. Male and female brains only develop differently because of the masculinizing effects of hormones like estrogen during early development. But this is like saying that the only physical differences between male and female bodies are also due to hormones--a true statement, to be sure, but a useless one (unless you are trying to claim that men and women have no significant physical differences, either).
"There is absolutely no basis that women and men are behaviorally different outside of cultural roles, only that averages and distribution of traits are slightly different."
What is this supposed to mean? That men and women don't behave differently except for where, in statistically significant ways, they do?
Or, to put it another way, putting "Dr." in your handle and making a bunch of confusingly misleading assertions doesn't help your argument at all.
Sorry, but "Dr." or no, you're an idiot.
"The only physical differences in the brain are influenced by hormones and they cross over greatly between women and men."
True. Male and female brains only develop differently because of the masculinizing effects of hormones like estrogen during early development. But this is like saying that the only physical differences between male and female bodies are also due to hormones--a true statement, to be sure, but a useless one (unless you are trying to claim that men and women have no significant physical differences, either).
"There is absolutely no basis that women and men are behaviorally different outside of cultural roles, only that averages and distribution of traits are slightly different."
What is this supposed to mean? That men and women don't behave differently except for where, in statistically significant ways, they do?
Or, to put it another way, putting "Dr." in your handle and making a bunch of confusingly misleading assertions doesn't help your argument at all.
43
@32: Of course they do. Anyone who's taken a single undergraduate course in neuroscience would tell you that. That hormones play a significant role in fetal development (and that the different levels in male and female fetuses result in different development) is a well-established fact.
Even a quick look on Wikipediawould have enlightened "Dr. Lady."
I guess there are two things here that amaze me. One is that someone would turn to blatant dishonesty to make a point here (OK, it is the Internet, but still). The other is that the above facts are so poorly known that such a lie would not be recognized by other commenters.
Even a quick look on Wikipediawould have enlightened "Dr. Lady."
I guess there are two things here that amaze me. One is that someone would turn to blatant dishonesty to make a point here (OK, it is the Internet, but still). The other is that the above facts are so poorly known that such a lie would not be recognized by other commenters.
44
@41: I was trying to make a similar point to my boyfriend. I actually do agree with Judah's point that there are far narrower descriptors of physical male attractiveness, but there is considerable leeway when it comes to factoring in qualities like intelligence, charm, or humour -- making many men attractive in spite of physical shortfalls.
There are celebrity examples of this phenomenon (Willem Dafoe for his Goblin looks? Jon Stewart for his height?) as well as everyday ones (hi, middle-aged daddish professor I still madly lust after!). I know of few women who enjoy that kind of status, who can create this kind of sexual "demand" exclusively through the merits of their personality. They might be admired, but they would not be regarded as "sexy."
There are celebrity examples of this phenomenon (Willem Dafoe for his Goblin looks? Jon Stewart for his height?) as well as everyday ones (hi, middle-aged daddish professor I still madly lust after!). I know of few women who enjoy that kind of status, who can create this kind of sexual "demand" exclusively through the merits of their personality. They might be admired, but they would not be regarded as "sexy."
45
@44:
Seems like that would imply a very limited male sexuality more than anything. Women are able to be aroused by substantive qualities of the person (accomplishments, personality, etc), whereas men fall victim to much simpler models of attraction. There's an obvious (and popular) evolutionary psych explanation to offer here, but it smacks a bit of post hoc rationalization, I think.
But even so, it presents a plausible alternative to the notion that this is due solely to patriarchal biases (to older, powerful men imposing the notion that older, powerful men can be sexy upon the rest of us). I actually find it hard to believe that culture could have that much say over desire (given the variety of taboo turn-ons that are nonetheless quite common), and that our collective worship of youth and physical perfection wouldn't extend to our views of men, if culture were all there is to it.
I guess my point is that the evolutionary psych hypothesis, while a bit pat of an answer, seems nonetheless to be far more plausible than the strict nurture-over-nature view. (And of course, sexual behavior is one place where one would assume selective pressures have a strong influence.)
Not that I don't think there are still gender equality issues in our society, or that most people want to be treated as "brainless objects." But not all differences are necessarily due to inequality of opportunity, either; when we've managed to eliminate all social unfairness, we will, without a doubt, still find that men and women at times behave differently.
Seems like that would imply a very limited male sexuality more than anything. Women are able to be aroused by substantive qualities of the person (accomplishments, personality, etc), whereas men fall victim to much simpler models of attraction. There's an obvious (and popular) evolutionary psych explanation to offer here, but it smacks a bit of post hoc rationalization, I think.
But even so, it presents a plausible alternative to the notion that this is due solely to patriarchal biases (to older, powerful men imposing the notion that older, powerful men can be sexy upon the rest of us). I actually find it hard to believe that culture could have that much say over desire (given the variety of taboo turn-ons that are nonetheless quite common), and that our collective worship of youth and physical perfection wouldn't extend to our views of men, if culture were all there is to it.
I guess my point is that the evolutionary psych hypothesis, while a bit pat of an answer, seems nonetheless to be far more plausible than the strict nurture-over-nature view. (And of course, sexual behavior is one place where one would assume selective pressures have a strong influence.)
Not that I don't think there are still gender equality issues in our society, or that most people want to be treated as "brainless objects." But not all differences are necessarily due to inequality of opportunity, either; when we've managed to eliminate all social unfairness, we will, without a doubt, still find that men and women at times behave differently.
46
Here's the definition of objectify:
Objectification doesn't imply contempt, it just implies disinterest with regard to traits other than sexual gratification. Which is actually healthier than the alternative; sexual attraction to a physical presentation is, more or less by definition, objectification. Being aware of that is more socially appropriate than pretending you're attracted to Natalie Portman because she's really smart when, in reality, you can't know the first thing about her as anything besides an object.
You didn't actually rebut any of my points -- you just applied your own definition of the word and ran with your dogma. You know how I can tell?
Because that statement right there is so patently ridiculous that only a raging idealogue could present it with a straight face. Some people admire Brad for his acting and some of them don't, but the reason men admire him and want to emulate him is because we all wish we could be objectified like him.
To be objectified is to be treated as though you have no brain, and exist ONLY for the sexual gratification of others
Here's the definition of objectify:
1 : to treat as an object or cause to have objective reality
Objectification doesn't imply contempt, it just implies disinterest with regard to traits other than sexual gratification. Which is actually healthier than the alternative; sexual attraction to a physical presentation is, more or less by definition, objectification. Being aware of that is more socially appropriate than pretending you're attracted to Natalie Portman because she's really smart when, in reality, you can't know the first thing about her as anything besides an object.
You didn't actually rebut any of my points -- you just applied your own definition of the word and ran with your dogma. You know how I can tell?
Brad Pitt gets plenty of great parts, and is respected for his acting, not just his looks. THAT'S why men admire him.
Because that statement right there is so patently ridiculous that only a raging idealogue could present it with a straight face. Some people admire Brad for his acting and some of them don't, but the reason men admire him and want to emulate him is because we all wish we could be objectified like him.
47
But Dan, you cannot separate the human from the culture. It's obvious that women and men have inherent biological difference (assuming that the terms "men" and "women" are discrete categories, which of course they are not, but we're dealing with generalizations here). But how those differences translate to behaviour is strongly dependent on culture. And culture, all too frequently, determines how we interpret scientific knowledge. In short, we prefer science that backs up our culturally received beliefs.
And so I am surprised by your either/or reasoning when you say:
"I guess my point is that the evolutionary psych hypothesis, while a bit pat of an answer, seems nonetheless to be far more plausible than the strict nurture-over-nature view."
Strange that you'd argue against one extreme with another. And exactly how many cultural critics take a "strict nurture-over-nature view" anyway?
The fact remains that proponents of evolutionary psychology are on the defense because many of their claims don't stand up to rigorous scientific standards. That needs to be addressed (as opposed to what seems most "plausible").
Case in point: see the recent interview with David J. Buller in Scientific American. I'll leave you with an excerpt:
JRM: Which conclusion of Evolutionary Psychology do you think has most captivated the public?
DB: Probably the issue of mate preferences, this whole idea that males have this ineluctable preference to mate with nubile females, and that females have this ineluctable preference to mate with high status males. As soon as you see those claims you can immediately think of a number of confirming examples of it. The evolutionary psychologist David Buss is very fond of pointing to Hollywood stars and saying, "See, these people illustrate the truth of our claims." But when you look at the broader range of evidence that's out there I think it doesn't really support these claims.
As I point out in one section about male preferences, there's a tendency to focus on older males who reenter the mating market after divorce, and evolutionary psychologists take this to be pretty firmly clinching evidence in favor of their hypothesis. But that neglects over half of older males who remain mated to older women. Look at Paul Newman--a very high status male, but [he] has remained monogamously married to a woman his own age. Those are choices that males make, and you can't just exclude one half of the population from the data against which you're going to test your hypothesis.
My hypothesis is that in most men, the adaptation is a preference for similarly-aged mates--adjusted for sex differences in the ages at which reproductive maturity are reached--rather than an adaptation to prefer nubility. This preference tends to contribute to the selection of a nubile mate because most marrying men are young. The difference between my hypothesis and Evolutionary Psychology's claim can't be seen when looking at the mate choices of young males. It's only when we look at older males that the two hypotheses differ in their predictions. As I argue at some length in chapter five, I think the evidence on the whole favors my hypothesis.
More...
And so I am surprised by your either/or reasoning when you say:
"I guess my point is that the evolutionary psych hypothesis, while a bit pat of an answer, seems nonetheless to be far more plausible than the strict nurture-over-nature view."
Strange that you'd argue against one extreme with another. And exactly how many cultural critics take a "strict nurture-over-nature view" anyway?
The fact remains that proponents of evolutionary psychology are on the defense because many of their claims don't stand up to rigorous scientific standards. That needs to be addressed (as opposed to what seems most "plausible").
Case in point: see the recent interview with David J. Buller in Scientific American. I'll leave you with an excerpt:
JRM: Which conclusion of Evolutionary Psychology do you think has most captivated the public?
DB: Probably the issue of mate preferences, this whole idea that males have this ineluctable preference to mate with nubile females, and that females have this ineluctable preference to mate with high status males. As soon as you see those claims you can immediately think of a number of confirming examples of it. The evolutionary psychologist David Buss is very fond of pointing to Hollywood stars and saying, "See, these people illustrate the truth of our claims." But when you look at the broader range of evidence that's out there I think it doesn't really support these claims.
As I point out in one section about male preferences, there's a tendency to focus on older males who reenter the mating market after divorce, and evolutionary psychologists take this to be pretty firmly clinching evidence in favor of their hypothesis. But that neglects over half of older males who remain mated to older women. Look at Paul Newman--a very high status male, but [he] has remained monogamously married to a woman his own age. Those are choices that males make, and you can't just exclude one half of the population from the data against which you're going to test your hypothesis.
My hypothesis is that in most men, the adaptation is a preference for similarly-aged mates--adjusted for sex differences in the ages at which reproductive maturity are reached--rather than an adaptation to prefer nubility. This preference tends to contribute to the selection of a nubile mate because most marrying men are young. The difference between my hypothesis and Evolutionary Psychology's claim can't be seen when looking at the mate choices of young males. It's only when we look at older males that the two hypotheses differ in their predictions. As I argue at some length in chapter five, I think the evidence on the whole favors my hypothesis.
48
Judah, do you have any idea what you are saying? Really -- you're not stupid (just stubborn as hell) so come on!
First, please note my words:
"I have never met a man who enjoyed being treated in a condescending or dismissive way. And that's the result of objectification." The result, see?
Do you honestly think I am making this up? Why on earth would women have a problem with being objectified if it were as gratifying as you make it out to be? We would have to be stupid, utterly misguided. Is that your point?
You are playing semantics, and it is pathetic. And I am the "raging ideologue"?
Look, I don't really even want to get back to this flawed article (for one, I don't agree that being objectified is always demeaning, or at least that that's necessarily a bad thing -- it can be very sexy in bed. But in the public sphere, and one-sided as you admit it is, it's hugely problematic), but I'm going to leave you with something to chew on, apropos your earlier point -- " But if women gave them more options -- more versions of male sex that they approve of -- guys would probably be more than happy to be objectified."
Let's go with your definition of objectification for the moment, which seems to be sexual adulation with no disadvantages attached. From the article:
"I can testify that it took me years to get past my cultural training that put all of men’s allowable physical appeal above the neck. “He has nice eyes/hair,” was the extent of girl talk about men’s physical characteristics. Now I’m happy to talk about men’s legs or ass or what have you, but I think that puts me on the far side of the “slutty” scale in our culture, still."
So if, as you seem to be arguing, objectification is a good thing, and women's FAILURE to objectify men is the problem, not men's objectification of women, then where does that leave women? We risk losing cultural currency doing as you say, Judah.
This is all, of course, assuming that objectification has no disadvantages, that it exists as you narrowly define it, not out in the actual world where people live real lives.
More...
First, please note my words:
"I have never met a man who enjoyed being treated in a condescending or dismissive way. And that's the result of objectification." The result, see?
Do you honestly think I am making this up? Why on earth would women have a problem with being objectified if it were as gratifying as you make it out to be? We would have to be stupid, utterly misguided. Is that your point?
You are playing semantics, and it is pathetic. And I am the "raging ideologue"?
Look, I don't really even want to get back to this flawed article (for one, I don't agree that being objectified is always demeaning, or at least that that's necessarily a bad thing -- it can be very sexy in bed. But in the public sphere, and one-sided as you admit it is, it's hugely problematic), but I'm going to leave you with something to chew on, apropos your earlier point -- " But if women gave them more options -- more versions of male sex that they approve of -- guys would probably be more than happy to be objectified."
Let's go with your definition of objectification for the moment, which seems to be sexual adulation with no disadvantages attached. From the article:
"I can testify that it took me years to get past my cultural training that put all of men’s allowable physical appeal above the neck. “He has nice eyes/hair,” was the extent of girl talk about men’s physical characteristics. Now I’m happy to talk about men’s legs or ass or what have you, but I think that puts me on the far side of the “slutty” scale in our culture, still."
So if, as you seem to be arguing, objectification is a good thing, and women's FAILURE to objectify men is the problem, not men's objectification of women, then where does that leave women? We risk losing cultural currency doing as you say, Judah.
This is all, of course, assuming that objectification has no disadvantages, that it exists as you narrowly define it, not out in the actual world where people live real lives.
49
Also, Dan @42, I'll clarify what @30 meant, because you've misunderstood. She wrote:
"There is absolutely no basis that women and men are behaviorally different outside of cultural roles, only that averages and distribution of traits are slightly different."
This does not mean: "men and women don't behave differently except for where, in statistically significant ways, they do".
It means that there is no evidence that women, as a category, and men, as a category, are behaviorally different outside of cultural roles.
Some women are different from some men, but there are more differences within each category than between the two of them.
One final thing: It's impossible not to notice that both you and Judah use insults in your arguments. You call @30 an "idiot", when in fact you didn't understand her. Judah claims women are "incapable of hearing" his point, like "a fucking dog whistle". Well, your contempt can be heard loud and clear. Wanna know how it comes across? You are both attempting to use rational arguments to justify your emotions.
If y'all have issues with women, maybe you should go deal with them, and come back when you're clear-headed.
"There is absolutely no basis that women and men are behaviorally different outside of cultural roles, only that averages and distribution of traits are slightly different."
This does not mean: "men and women don't behave differently except for where, in statistically significant ways, they do".
It means that there is no evidence that women, as a category, and men, as a category, are behaviorally different outside of cultural roles.
Some women are different from some men, but there are more differences within each category than between the two of them.
One final thing: It's impossible not to notice that both you and Judah use insults in your arguments. You call @30 an "idiot", when in fact you didn't understand her. Judah claims women are "incapable of hearing" his point, like "a fucking dog whistle". Well, your contempt can be heard loud and clear. Wanna know how it comes across? You are both attempting to use rational arguments to justify your emotions.
If y'all have issues with women, maybe you should go deal with them, and come back when you're clear-headed.
50
"Women" don't have a problem with being objectified. Some women have a problem with being objectified. Many -- indeed, evidence would suggest that a vast silent majority -- don't mind it and some actually enjoy it. One of the mistakes common to a certain type of feminist is to assume that their agenda is the agenda of women generally, instead of just being the product of their own narrow experience.
Seriously Irena -- women have had a voting majority in the United States for 88 years, but this is still the society we live in. Maybe all those suburban women packed into shopping malls just have a different definition of "empowerment" than you do. Not to suggest that everyone's out there is happy or that even big-haired women with Wonderbras don't have and express legitimate complaints about institutionalized sexism, but your underling assumption that women are huddled masses yearning to be free -- on your terms -- is incredibly arrogant.
So you're sitting here "educating" me about women and their plight. What do you think, that I don't know any women? That I've never spoken to women I'm close to about these issues? That my opinion is based on a totally internal perspective, uninformed by any dialogue with women or any consideration of women's actual lives and experiences? That I've never read books about feminism or critical feminist theory?
And by the way, what exactly is so insulting about the phrase, "like a fucking dog whistle"? You get that only dogs can hear dog whistles, right? So not being able to hear one just means you're not a dog? I was just using the simile to say that my point seems to exist on a frequency that feminists -- or, really, certain kinds of feminists -- can't hear, but since your argument seems to take for granted that I couldn't possibly have an informed opinion about sexual objectification because I'm a man, I'm not clear on what you think is so insulting about the idea of high-frequency deafness.
Ah yes, "issues with women". And any white person who disagrees with the NOI is a racist, and any goy who think Zionism might be a bad idea has issues with Jews (and Jews who have a problem with it are self-hating) and so on. It couldn't be that intelligent people disagree with you for rational reasons. It's that we have issues with women.
Try this: go look the word idealogue up in a dictionary. Seriously.
More...
Why on earth would women have a problem with being objectified if it were as gratifying as you make it out to be?
"Women" don't have a problem with being objectified. Some women have a problem with being objectified. Many -- indeed, evidence would suggest that a vast silent majority -- don't mind it and some actually enjoy it. One of the mistakes common to a certain type of feminist is to assume that their agenda is the agenda of women generally, instead of just being the product of their own narrow experience.
Seriously Irena -- women have had a voting majority in the United States for 88 years, but this is still the society we live in. Maybe all those suburban women packed into shopping malls just have a different definition of "empowerment" than you do. Not to suggest that everyone's out there is happy or that even big-haired women with Wonderbras don't have and express legitimate complaints about institutionalized sexism, but your underling assumption that women are huddled masses yearning to be free -- on your terms -- is incredibly arrogant.
So you're sitting here "educating" me about women and their plight. What do you think, that I don't know any women? That I've never spoken to women I'm close to about these issues? That my opinion is based on a totally internal perspective, uninformed by any dialogue with women or any consideration of women's actual lives and experiences? That I've never read books about feminism or critical feminist theory?
And by the way, what exactly is so insulting about the phrase, "like a fucking dog whistle"? You get that only dogs can hear dog whistles, right? So not being able to hear one just means you're not a dog? I was just using the simile to say that my point seems to exist on a frequency that feminists -- or, really, certain kinds of feminists -- can't hear, but since your argument seems to take for granted that I couldn't possibly have an informed opinion about sexual objectification because I'm a man, I'm not clear on what you think is so insulting about the idea of high-frequency deafness.
If y'all have issues with women, maybe you should go deal with them, and come back when you're clear-headed.
Ah yes, "issues with women". And any white person who disagrees with the NOI is a racist, and any goy who think Zionism might be a bad idea has issues with Jews (and Jews who have a problem with it are self-hating) and so on. It couldn't be that intelligent people disagree with you for rational reasons. It's that we have issues with women.
Try this: go look the word idealogue up in a dictionary. Seriously.
52
Oh Judah, where do I start?
First you said "most women" are "basically incapable" of hearing you (there's your insulting and sexist generalization), and now you've backpedaled to say that "Many"--perhaps even "a vast silent majority"--don't mind or even enjoy being objectified. So what does that mean to you, beyond the very uninformative dictionary definition?
If you know as much about feminist critical theory as you seem to imply, then you know that the word needs to be defined in terms of its historical context and its social and political implications. As I pointed out (you know, me, the ideologue who by definition doesn't understand nuance): "I don't agree that being objectified is always demeaning, or at least that that's necessarily a bad thing -- it can be very sexy in bed. But in the public sphere, and one-sided as you admit it is, it's hugely problematic".
Since you know so much about feminism and issues that affect women--pardon me, SOME women--you understand why it's problematic. But in case you'd like a refresher, try googling "sexual objectification". Ignore the bloggers; pay attention to what writers, academics, and researchers have to say. Here's a nugget:
"Research has suggested that the psychological effects of objectification on men are similar to those of women, leading to negative body image among men, as well as fears of inadequate sexual performance, leading to increased use of drugs like Viagra"
Hmm. Seems as though my definition of the term isn't based on my "own narrow experience" after all. Or is it possible that you were making assumptions about me?
One final thing. I never once assumed that you "couldn't possibly have an informed opinion about sexual objectification because [you're] a man". Plenty of men have informed opinions about it. It is just obviously clear that you don't.
Which is a shame.
More...
First you said "most women" are "basically incapable" of hearing you (there's your insulting and sexist generalization), and now you've backpedaled to say that "Many"--perhaps even "a vast silent majority"--don't mind or even enjoy being objectified. So what does that mean to you, beyond the very uninformative dictionary definition?
If you know as much about feminist critical theory as you seem to imply, then you know that the word needs to be defined in terms of its historical context and its social and political implications. As I pointed out (you know, me, the ideologue who by definition doesn't understand nuance): "I don't agree that being objectified is always demeaning, or at least that that's necessarily a bad thing -- it can be very sexy in bed. But in the public sphere, and one-sided as you admit it is, it's hugely problematic".
Since you know so much about feminism and issues that affect women--pardon me, SOME women--you understand why it's problematic. But in case you'd like a refresher, try googling "sexual objectification". Ignore the bloggers; pay attention to what writers, academics, and researchers have to say. Here's a nugget:
"Research has suggested that the psychological effects of objectification on men are similar to those of women, leading to negative body image among men, as well as fears of inadequate sexual performance, leading to increased use of drugs like Viagra"
Hmm. Seems as though my definition of the term isn't based on my "own narrow experience" after all. Or is it possible that you were making assumptions about me?
One final thing. I never once assumed that you "couldn't possibly have an informed opinion about sexual objectification because [you're] a man". Plenty of men have informed opinions about it. It is just obviously clear that you don't.
Which is a shame.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Stephen Fry v. the Catholic Church by Dan Savage
-
Straight Up by Dan Savage
-
Neologism Needed by Dan Savage
-
Palin's Cheat Sheet by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Toilet Brush Off by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
Tea Party Crowd Believes That Only Good Spellers Should Vote by Dan Savage
-
How's That Hopey, Changey Stuff Working Out For Childhood Obesity? by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
The Green Police Super Bowl Commercial by Charles Mudede
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (52) RSS