"Last week, Harvard government professor Harvey Mansfield told students that the sexual revolution may not have served the best interests of young women. Instead, it had merely "lower[ed]" us to the crass level of men, who pursue sex thoughtlessly and without hopes of marriage. In a talk titled "Feminism and the Autonomy of Women," he suggested that men who grow used to "free samples" in the bedroom are going to leave women high-and-dry when it comes to committed relationships. And then he revealed his insights into the erotic: "[Today's] women play the men's game, which they are bound to lose. Without modesty, there is no romance—it isn't so attractive or so erotic," said the professor. The solution to the problem, clearly, was for women to start saying no a little more often."
What do you all think? Should women quit playing the so called man's game? I thought the articles and speech posed interesting questions. While I certainly wouldn't go as far as the Harvard professor in suggesting that the sexual revolution has made women grim. I think we are starting to see the counterrevolution reembracing some of the more traditional values of marriage and family.
Posted by SingerGuy59 (Member # 5934) on :
There is nothing quite so beautiful as a modest woman who is confident in who she is and has firm boundaries. Someone who has her hand in a higher power and lives her life by guiding principles can be absolutely gorgeous, even when she is only blessed with otherwise average looks.
I totally support what Professor Mansfield seems to be saying. Less is more.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I think that he has some good points. I don't think that casual sex has good long term effects. Of course, my views are coloured strongly by my religious beliefs, so for all of you who think that automatically invalidates my views, feel free to dismiss me.
What I found interesting is the sneering tone in which the article was written. I don't think it was a fair treatment (to their credit, Slate doesn't pretend to be balanced) and I wish I could have the full text of Mansfield's speech.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
*snore*
I for one embrace the fact that I can choose to have the kind of life I want. Marriage and children, just marriage or a single life. A career or no career. I can be modest- or not. I have a choice.
The revolution gave me that choice. It didn't force anything on me, it gave me the possibility to actually do what I want to do without being judged as some kind of faliure to the human race.
quote:crass level of men, who pursue sex thoughtlessly and without hopes of marriage.
I'm insulted on many men's behalf.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Well, you always had that choice. The only thing that changed is how society viewed it.
I know plenty of men who pursue sex thoughtlessly and without hopes of marriage...but I spend much of my time on campus. It is pretty crass, these guys who brag about getting laid. I mean, have some respect, be a gentleman...at least keep it quiet.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Well, you always had that choice.
Not at all. Depending on where in history we place me trying to remain single and follow a career in law, say, I could get burnt at the stake as a witch, thrown in jail, put into a nunnery, shunned and ostracised, insulted, abused into submission, forcibly married off and then raped, locked up as mad...
Does that sound like a choice to you?
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: it gave me the possibility to actually do what I want to do without being judged as some kind of faliure to the human race.
Ironically, this also made you much more likely to fail, since you no longer have the whole of society behind you. Individualism is not all it's cracked up to be.
quote:
quote:crass level of men, who pursue sex thoughtlessly and without hopes of marriage.
I'm insulted on many men's behalf.
Rightly so. However, the only thing that makes this statement insulting is the comma. Remove it, and it becomes quite true and uninsulting.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:this also made you much more likely to fail, since you no longer have the whole of society behind you.
So? You think I want to be protected and saved from making mistakes? You think I need the whole of society behind me in order to have the courage to carry out my dreams?
Also, if I for some reason was unable to make my husband happy, I would have failed. If I for some reason was unable to have children, I would have failed. If I could not look after those children I would have failed. If I could not make a good home, I would have failed. If I did not do what my husband asked I would have failed...
Let me count the ways in which, with the whole of society supporting my decision to be married and have and nurture children, I could have failed.
quote:Rightly so. However, the only thing that makes this statement insulting is the comma. Remove it, and it becomes quite true and uninsulting.
Heh, you're absolutely right .
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by dh:
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: it gave me the possibility to actually do what I want to do without being judged as some kind of faliure to the human race.
Ironically, this also made you much more likely to fail, since you no longer have the whole of society behind you. Individualism is not all it's cracked up to be.
Not really. There just needs to be some sort of balance between the needs of the individual and all of society. Society has often backed things that were wrong, such as imposing unnecessary limits based on something arbitrary. We definetly need all sorts of people instead of just one sort of people doing the same exact thing even if it makes them miserable.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote: So? You think I want to be protected and saved from making mistakes? You think I need the whole of society behind me in order to have the courage to carry out my dreams?
I'm not doubting your courage, merely your ability. And it's nothing personal, it applies to everyone, both man and woman. Everyone is so busy trying to "carry out their dreams" that they don't sit down to carry out what's good for them and their neighbours. You get alot further when everyone is going in more or less the same direction than with everyone going off in their own, frequently opposite direction.
Also, I think you are unfairly stereotyping a society in which marriage is prized. Women were not simply baby-making machines, at least, not to everyone. And is that much worse, I ask you, than simply being treated as a disposable sex object?
Think about. There has never been a perfect, ideal world or system of society, but some are worse than others, and some are frankly less sustainable than others.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote:Society has often backed things that were wrong, such as imposing unnecessary limits based on something arbitrary.
Indeed. As well as selfish "rights" based on something equally arbitrary.
quote: We definetly need all sorts of people instead of just one sort of people doing the same exact thing even if it makes them miserable.
I never disputed that. However, everyone simply looking out for their own self-interest doesn't make them different kind of people, it merely makes them less interesting kind of people.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I wonder how much of what this lecturer is seeing is because it is what he wants to see.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I wonder how much of what this lecturer is seeing is because it is what he wants to see.
I think that is a question we could ask about each and every person on this planet, and in most cases not get back a very comfortable response.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yeah. I wonder about it a lot. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Once again, balance is needed. If people cannot follow their dreams they make the people around them miserable. Society is improved and enriched and shaped by rebels as well as the traditional conservative types.
As for that article what about insisting that men be modest too? I do not like the idea of casual sex. I hate how our culture trivializes sex and turns it into something mondane, i am uncomfortable with the idea of having sex with a stranger, but should i judge people who do that? Perhaps not. Perhaps if the opportunity presented itself, I'd choose the same path. All I know is I'd be reluctant to have sex right away with a guy. I'd want to make sure he at least has respect for me first, but I am not sure if I could wait until marriage as I don't know if I want to get married due to a fear of weddings. (Stupid, I know)
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Women were not simply baby-making machines, at least, not to everyone. And is that much worse, I ask you, than simply being treated as a disposable sex object?
There are several things I want to say:
1. Not every man nowadays, either, thinks of women as sex objects. We established that earlier.
2. In the past, men thought about sex too. I really, really, really doubt anything has changed in that respect. The fact that talk about sex has become more socially acceptable has hardly made sex more of an interest in men's minds, only one that they can express more easily.
I mean, when you read all that old poetry. Shakespeare, Chaucer, Byron, Donne. There was sex on those men's minds!
3. Women have never been just baby-making machines. For thousands of years they have played various roles in the households of the nation, filling whatever gaps men left to do depending on the era.
It is the choice to choose which gaps I fill that I demand.
quote:You get a lot further when everyone is going in more or less the same direction than with everyone going off in their own, frequently opposite direction.
Did I say my dream had to be my own contrary direction? My dream could be anything... It could be to marry and help society work together. It could be to become the Prime Minister and help society work together. It could be to climb Mount Everest or go to the moon. What's important to me is that my dream is not restricted by rules that unjustly tell me I am either not socially adapted for such a role or that I am some kind of raving lunatic or cold-hearted asexual because I think otherwise.
I realise that women are different from men in many ways. I'm not saying that women are the same as men. However, if I happen to be a woman who wants to do something that is traditionally a more "masculine" thing to do I want to be able to do it.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
^ What Teshi said.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
agreed.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Hmm... I cant find any transcribed version of Harveys speech. I would like to read more about it before drawing any conclusions about what he meant. However, I had seen the Leon Kass writings awhile ago on "World O' Crap", http://blogs.salon.com/0002874/2005/10/18.html (warning - slightly vulgar at times) Her synopisis of it was quite funny, but there is a real anger behind the humor. I think most women find the things these men are saying partonizing in the extreme. I guess by most women I mean me. This quote from Leon Kass pretty much sums up what I find objectionable about the message he is trying to spread. "Here is a (partial) list of the recent changes that hamper courtship and marriage: the sexual revolution, made possible especially by effective female contraception; the ideology of feminism and the changing educational and occupational status of women; the destigmatization of bastardy, divorce, infidelity, and abortion;" The list continues on from there, but these things scare me the most. All these things are considered to be negative side affects of the sexual revolution, and they are all the things that have given women almost equal footing in our society. What he seems to be saying (and actually says outright at one point), is that sex is about power, and the sexual revolution was wrong to give that power into the hands of women, where it wasnt meant to be. I find this additude to be disturbingly Patriarchal. Sex is only about power because that is what men like this have made it into. They teach women that sex is something to be withheld and used as both a lure and a cudgel to get what they want. They teach men that sex is something to be avidly pursued, no matter the consequences, and that if they can convince a woman to sleep with them before they are married, they dont need to respect that woman. They speak about true eroticism and modesty, yet they have perverted a beautiful thing into something distinctly nonerotic. I dont know about you, but I dont find sex appealing when it comes with so many strings attached.
Second of all, the sexual revolution wasnt just about womens rights. It was about SEX. It was about educating oneself so that sex wasnt a terrifying, dirty thing only done in the dark. It was about teaching people, not just women, that the human body is a beautiful thing, to be enjoyed and appreciated for all the joys it can experience. It was about showing women that not only was it OK to have an orgasm, it was downright necessary, and just how to go about getting one for yourself. The sexual revolution was meant to bring both women and men onto an equal plane, where sex wasnt used or abused, but simply enjoyed. I for one and damn glad that I am an adult benefiting from the fruits of the sexual revolution.
This is not to say that some of the repercussions werent bad. I agree that, for some people, sex has devolved into something of very little importance. I find most pornography to be extremely degrading to women(unless it's french, then it's all good). I agree that modesty and self confidence go hand in hand. But this is true of humans in general, and a lack of modesty in anyone is a sign of deeper issues that should be addressed. I dont agree, however, that a sexually aggressive and aware woman cannot also be a modest woman. Same goes for men.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
And, yeah, what Teshi said...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Do these folks realize that the attitude they are trying to push is the very thing that caused the sexual revolution in a way? Their insistance on strict rigid morals just leads to more rebellion it seems...
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I thought one of the more interesting things in the article was the new angle being taken on a very old idea. That now sex only in marriage wasn't romanticized and moralized it was being promoted from a it'll make you happy, pragmatic me focus. I don't think that the change in the message will make it more successful because I think it suffers from a lot of the problems of the original, when people try sex outside of marriage it does not tend to reinforce the message that it will make you unhappy and unfulfilled.
I don't know if there is a more successful way to pursue the message. With the deluge of information available today, women are pretty educated and aware of the possible pitfalls of premarital sex yet many choose to embark upon it anyways. I don't think a bunch of middle aged men are going to change their mind no matter how many new ways they think to wrap up the package.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
We've lost the emphasis on responsibility and respect, for yourself and for others.
I do not think that casual sex has caused society to crumble. I do think that casual sex without thought for the repercussions, without thought for accepting the responsibilities of the possible outcomes, without consideration of the feelings of others as well as your own, that I think causes problems.
Equal sexual rights for women should not mean that now women can act as crassly and mindlesly as men. It should mean that now women can approach sexual relations on an equal footing with honorable men.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Trying to remember the quote, but it's something like "Why is it when women want to act like men, they have to act like stupid men?"
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Does it always make people unhappy and unfulfilled? And how? And do these middle age men really have the right to tell people how to live thier lives when it really will just make them want to rebel more... I don't even HAVE premartial sex and an article like that makes me want to do it just to annoy them.... Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:the sexual revolution may not have served the best interests of young women. Instead, it had merely "lower[ed]" us to the crass level of men who pursue sex thoughtlessly
My wife has been saying this for years.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The sexual revolution lowered the restrictions on women that had never existed for men. No more (or greatly lessened) fear of pregnancy. No more need for marriage to receive intimacies. No more need to worry about consequences.
However, the sexual revolution was also a continuation of the movement in the twentieth century to lower many of the restrictions against women in every other aspect of their lives, and it shouldn't be judged as good or bad in any sweeping definition.
The bad part, IMO, is that the sexual revolution was when many people chose to throw off what they saw as a repressive and illogical moral code. Which is fine, and I think necessary, but they failed to acknowledge the need for a replacement code of ethics and responsibility.
By responsibility I don't mean no premarital sex, ever, or even no promiscuity. I mean the responsibility to respect yourself and your partner(s), to be honest in all relationships, to accept whatever consequences result, and to know when to put your own needs aside for the good of others.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote:I do think that casual sex without thought for the repercussions, without thought for accepting the responsibilities of the possible outcomes, without consideration of the feelings of others as well as your own, that I think causes problems.
Forgive me for asking, but is this not the very definition of casual sex? If you take thought beforehand and afterwords and accept all that responsibility, etc... doesn't it then cease to be casual?
quote:And do these middle age men really have the right to tell people how to live thier lives
Yes, they most certainly do. It's called free speech. Everyone is free not to listen, but they definitely have every right to tell everyone what to do, whenever and however they want. It doesn't matter whether they are men or women, young, middle-aged or old. I can't stand it when people utter things like this, saying someone has no right to say something simply because they disagree with you. Everyone has the right to say whatever they want. Let's have that understood once and for all.
quote:The bad part, IMO, is that the sexual revolution was when many people chose to throw off what they saw as a repressive and illogical moral code. Which is fine, and I think necessary, but they failed to acknowledge the need for a replacement code of ethics and responsibility.
It's called throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and it's something that humanity has raised to an art form through long and continuous practice. It's also known as curing the disease by killing the patient.
EDIT for embarassing spelling.
[ October 29, 2005, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: dh ]
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Well, I guess if a man found the fact that I wanted to have sex immodest and unattractive, this would be cause to end the relationship. Also, I find it very odd that Mansfield seems to think that MOST men want women who don't want to have sex. Um . . . yeah. About that. Not so much. I also have to say that I find men who think that it's ok for them to want sex but not for a woman to (Madonna-Whore complex, anyone?) mildly deranged. And kind of creepy.
There are of course men who have strong feelings regarding the circumstances in which sex should occur, but how many really want a partner who doesn't want to have sex? Isn't this why so many people end up in counseling? The end of physical relations, generally as a result of other emotional problems in the relationship? I think a healthy human being is not interested in physicality with someone they do not trust and like, whether it's a hug or intercourse; the level of physicality is dictated by religious and societal strictures, but the desire for physical touch and closeness is universal.
Anyway - I personally would not be remotely interested in a man who was turned off by my sexuality. It would clearly outline substantial differences in world views.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Forgive me for asking, but is this not the very definition of casual sex? If you take thought beforehand and afterwords and accept all that responsibility, etc... doesn't it then cease to be casual?
Casual doesn't have to mean irresponsible. When I think of casual sex I think of sex without marriage or plans for marriage or even necessarily plans beyond, well, sex.
Doesn't bother me a bit were someone to prefer getting new lovers every week, or night, or hour. But I expect that person to choose wisely, to be honest at all times with each of those lovers about themselves and the situation, to be careful, and to be prepared to accept the responsibility for any consequences. If that takes the spontaneity out of it, well, waah.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
What amuses me is that people who want to reduce the amount of non-marital sex always* try to do it by influencing women. Do they figure it's the man's natural role to push and the woman's to put on the brakes until after the ceremony? Why isn't he trying to convince guys that immodest women are unattractive and unerotic, and they should hold out for a sweet, innocent young thang -- since he obviously believes it's true it should be an easy sell! But nope, he's not telling men to stop asking, he's telling women to go back to refusing.
*I'm talking here about people trying to influence the broader culture. Within specific subcultures, such as religions, I know there are groups that emphasis personal responsibility for everyone and teach their boys to wait for marriage as strongly as their girls.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What amuses me is that people who want to reduce the amount of non-marital sex always* try to do it by influencing women.
Even with your footnote, this still isn't true.
One example -- there are groups involved in sex-ed classes that use scare tactics concerning pregnancy and STDs. These groups try to scare both the boys and the girls into abstinance, not just the girls.
If you replace always with often, or maybe even usually, then it becomes a believable statement. But I know for a fact that it is not 100%.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I will happily replace "always" with "usually. . ." it's been a long time since high school, and I admit I wasn't thinking of sex ed classes. But can you come up with an example aimed at adults that targets men? I can think of ones about condom usage that target men on a safer-sex level, but no campaigns, speeches, or crazy people trying to talk them into not having sex at all.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
There seems to be lots of talk (and some government funding, too) in order to "promote marriage", particularly among poor people.
There are even a few folks trying to focus on the idea of "healthy" marriage *affects shock* as opposed to just the idea that being married will move you out of poverty, regardless of the quality/health/stability of that marriage.
But yes - I would have to agree that generally the message about abstinence is aimed more towards women.
(*Thinking aloud* Perhaps because women bear the brunt of the "responsibility" for what may happen? I.e., raising the child and assuming the cost for that task? Or maybe because in a back-handed way *pun intended - and no it wasn't funny* women are recognized as having more power than we think? And that power has been, and continues to be, twisted by a few fearful men - AND women?)
I think balance is needed in the whole conversation. I absolutely think that the focus on abstinence and marriage does not help anyone when it is presented as a tool of power -
*shudders*
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I think it may be because since these freedoms are relatively new for women, women may be less secure in them. Try to tell a guy he shouldn't have non-marital sex and that women will find him more attractive if he is modest, and he will laugh in your face.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Okay - some more food for thought . . .
quote: The United States had one of the highest adolescent pregnancy rates in the mid-1990s, as it did in the early 1980s. A question often raised is whether the high level of adolescent pregnancy in the United States is due to its high level of immigration or to its racial and ethnic composition. Even though the birthrates and pregnancy rates of racial and ethnic subgroups in the United States vary greatly, studies in the early 1980s showed that rates for white teenagers were among the highest when compared with those of other developed countries. This demonstrated that the U.S. differential was due only in part to the higher rates found among minority groups.14 Current information still supports this point: Among white adolescents (excluding those of Hispanic origin), the pregnancy rate was 57 per 1,000 in 1996 (unadjusted for miscarriages). This rate falls into the moderate category, rather than the high category into which the United States as a whole falls.15§ The abortion rate for white teenagers (19 per 1,000) falls into the low category, while the national U.S. adolescent abortion rate of 29 per 1,000 falls into the moderate category.
and later in the article . . .
quote: The rise in the mean age at parenthood and the decline in adolescent childbearing underlie the trend toward smaller families in Europe and the rest of the industrialized world. This trend reflects the increased importance of achieving higher levels of education and training, which is particularly significant in determining the transition to motherhood among females.32
However, a number of factors are likely to have had a greater impact on teenagers. The provision of sexuality education in the schools, which has increased in many countries (often as part of societal efforts to counter the epidemic of HIV and AIDS), is likely to have made a cumulative contribution to improved knowledge of contraception, ability to negotiate contraceptive use and effectiveness of contraceptive use among adolescents.33 Sweden's success in reducing teenage pregnancy rates and birthrates is credited to both improved sexuality education and improved provision of contraceptives to adolescents.34 More generally, the pragmatic European approach to teenage sexual activity, expressed in the form of widespread provision of confidential and accessible contraceptive services to adolescents, is viewed as a central factor in explaining the more rapid declines in teenage childbearing in northern and western European countries, in contrast to slower decreases in the United States.35
The high rate of teenage childbearing among minority and disadvantaged groups, documented in the United States and the United Kingdom, is consistent with the hypothesis that lack of opportunity and socioeconomic disadvantage contribute to teenage childbearing.36 There is also evidence from studies in the United States that better communication between parents and their adolescent children is associated with later sexual initiation and lower teenage childbearing.37 However, more research is needed in the United States and in other developed countries to examine whether trends have occurred in these and other explanatory factors, as well as whether the effects of these factors on teenage behaviors remain important and continue in the same direction.
And interestingly, warning: Shan is thinking out loud again as conjectured earlier (by shan, thinking aloud), because women end up bearing the brunt of responsibility for the results of a sexual activity, the idea of abstinence COUPLED THEREFORE WITH BOTH THE TIME AND THE OPPORTUNITY to increase education, job training, and explore other possibilities for life's journey are held out as a means of moving out of poverty.
quote:A review of recent research on the consequences of early childbearing in the United States concludes that "reduction of early parenthood will not eliminate the powerful effects of growing up in poverty and disadvantage. But it represents a potentially productive strategy for widening the pathways out of poverty or, at the very least, not compounding the handicaps imposed by social disadvantage."38 Avoiding childbearing during adolescence allows young women the chance to complete their schooling and to take advantage of work opportunities, and could have long-term benefits. On the other hand, having a child during the adolescent years may have negative social consequences, especially if the adolescent is unmarried and must rely on financial support from parents, government programs or other sources. Research in Europe has found some similar relationships between teenage childbearing and disadvantage, although the societal impact may be perceived differently where the level of adolescent childbearing is much lower than it is in the United States.39
Of course, this does not mean that the end of the story is with a woman saying "no" and holding out for marriage before she delivers up the goods It means that the woman has been raised in a home and community that value her as a person, with the right, duty, expectation, obligation, whatever you want to call it - to get her education, training, and career. Not to necessarily say yes, get married, get laid, and have a baby - all in deference to the "naughty men" that just can't control their sexual urges, therefore those poor women will have to be responsible for them . . .
*takes deep breath, steps back, reviews the post, and decides to let it stand as is with the acknowledgement that this is a touchy topic not only for self, but others, and apologizes for any offense . . . this is one of those times where Shan works out ghosts from the past*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: but no campaigns, speeches, or crazy people trying to talk them into not having sex at all.
I guess I need to start acting crazier, then.
quote:Try to tell a guy he shouldn't have non-marital sex and that women will find him more attractive if he is modest, and he will laugh in your face.
I wouldn't.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I guess all this makes me wonder if the cliches about men and women are still true. Do men do the initial pursuit to acquire a date and or sexual partner and women the later pursuit to acquire a husband and or suitable father for her children. It seems like the initial pursuit is certainly becoming more balanced but I'm not sure that the pursuit for commitment is.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
But m_p_h, you're a member of one of those specific subcultures I mentioned, who's members stress personal responsibility for both genders. I know I didn't footnote this one, but I was referring again to within the broader American culture.
I guess you could say that I'm being unfair by removing from the sample everyone who doesn't fit my desired outcome. *shrug*
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I expect that the "commitment" part of the pursuit equation will not become more balanced as long as it remains part of a social power structure that leaves women and children as the dependents.
*shrugs*
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But don't some men long for commitment and stability too? There's only so much of fooling around a person can take before they just get exausted and worn out, men and women alike. Perhaps it is considered unmanly to want commitment. That would appeal to me though.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
There are some things the artice touches on that haven't been mentioned in this thread, and I'd like to point two of them out.
The first is the implicit assumption some people (like the professor) seem to be making that sex is the only goal that men ever have. Being "modest" -- that is, not "putting out" or "giving it up" -- is supposed to be enticing to men, convince them to stay with you, stick it out, sign on for the long haul, because... men are only interested in sex. If you give them sex they will lose interest, having gotten what they came for. In this view, the trick to "keeping a man" is to keep him wanting sex from you -- and this means withholding it either entirely or regularly. However, men as a group can't be assumed to have a single goal in every romantic interaction we have. I have a fling because both I and the other person simply want to have sex*, but I get into a relationship because I want to be with the other person. That includes – but is not limited to – having sex. Sex is part of a relationship, but it isn't the point of a relationship.
The second item is the implicit assumption that marriage is always the "goal" a romantic relationship. I don't think this is true. The "goal" of a relationship is to be with someone. That may lead to marriage, but it may not. One of my dad's closest friends has had the same girlfriend for decades -- they live in the same city, but each has their own house and they live roughly a 15-minute drive apart. I don't think their relationship is any less meaningful than those of the married couples I know.
*Even this is a simplification, since there are usually many factors involved.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Those are good points. Especially about men only being interested in sex. Women could be that way too.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I know I didn't footnote this one, but I was referring again to within the broader American culture.
I fit that. I don't advocate that only my narrow sub-culture refrain from extramarital sex -- I advocate that everybody in the broader American culture do that.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Oh no, women never just want sex . . . or a make out session . . . nope. *cough cough*
I actually seem to have a unique talent for finding guys who start talking about marriage like two weeks into a relationship, and I don't mean the esoteric "I want to get married someday" or "you will make some man very lucky" but marriage with me. Soon. Which freaks me out, because they have known me for TWO WEEKS. The whole thing suddenly seems to be more about their desire to get married, period, than it is about being in a relationship and getting to know me. Ergh. I think the focus on women as the ones who are desperately trying to get hitched is a bit off.
I also have to say that the thought of anyone purposefully supressing their sexuality with the express intention of getting their partner to make marriage vows is extraordinarily manipulative and not conducive to long-term marital bliss.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote: I know I didn't footnote this one, but I was referring again to within the broader American culture.
I fit that. I don't advocate that only my narrow sub-culture refrain from extramarital sex -- I advocate that everybody in the broader American culture do that.
Right -- But you, the person expressing the viewpoint, are within your narrow sub-culture. I don't think I'm communicating well, because you are totally not getting what I'm trying to say. :/
Posted by Ophelia (Member # 653) on :
I don't think there's anything wrong with your communication, ElJay.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
"The first is the implicit assumption some people (like the professor) seem to be making that sex is the only goal that men ever have"
This is so true. These articles are just as, if not more so, degrading to men as they are to women. The assumption that men have nothing more on their minds than shallow sex is insulting. It's just as bad as the assumption that women have nothing on their minds other than getting married and making babies. They encourage women to view men as the "enemy", or at least something to be conquered, using whatever tools you have at hand. Same goes for men. These ideas stem from incorrect assumtions, and try to bulwark them with invalid arguments. Any discussion about sex, or lack thereof, is going to be much better off starting from the assumption that men and women are equal in their needs for intimacy, physical relations, and emotional support. I dont know of many religions that actually openly address these issues, instead of just telling people god doesnt want them to do it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Right -- But you, the person expressing the viewpoint, are within your narrow sub-culture. I don't think I'm communicating well, because you are totally not getting what I'm trying to say. :/
In that case, I really don't get what you are trying to say, except that exceptions from the norm don't count because they are exceptions.
[ October 29, 2005, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:It seems like the initial pursuit is certainly becoming more balanced but I'm not sure that the pursuit for commitment is.
Bingo! This is my concern as well. My concern is also that the overall effect is less commitment in society to long-term, stable marriage relationships. I do not *know* that this is the case, but I am *concerned* that it is.
quote:I expect that the "commitment" part of the pursuit equation will not become more balanced as long as it remains part of a social power structure that leaves women and children as the dependents.
But will men ever *biologically* desire the care of children the way women do? Social programs are great, but getting men to take every bit as much care and responsibility for children as women do might be a fruitless battle.
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
I do agree that a lot of people immerse themselves in casual sexuality that can be detrimental to relationships. However, the author shouldn't blame the sexual revolution for that! The feminist sexual revolution didn't just encourage women to enjoy sex, it also wanted women to be more careful about their choices in regards to pregnancy, abortion, birth control. The famous feminist sexual manual of the 70's, "Our Bodies, Ourselves" has sections about enjoying sex and masturbation- but it also sought to teach women about anatomy, papsmears, the different stages of pregnancy, labor and delivery, STDs, healthy eating habits...
I'm by no means a feminist, because I find today's movement to be misleading- but I don't think the author knows the true goals of the sexual revolution (and the many good things it produced).
~M
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
quote:Originally posted by dh: Ironically, this also made you much more likely to fail, since you no longer have the whole of society behind you. Individualism is not all it's cracked up to be.
I must be living on the outskirts of Western society because last I checked it was perfectly acceptable for a woman to make choices about who to have sex with. Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
That is not what I was referring to.
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
quote:Originally posted by dh: Everyone is so busy trying to "carry out their dreams" that they don't sit down to carry out what's good for them and their neighbours. You get alot further when everyone is going in more or less the same direction than with everyone going off in their own, frequently opposite direction.
Also, I think you are unfairly stereotyping a society in which marriage is prized. Women were not simply baby-making machines, at least, not to everyone. And is that much worse, I ask you, than simply being treated as a disposable sex object?
If she's unfairly stereotyping a society in which marriage is prized, why do you insist that her indepedent spirit isolates her from the support of society? That makes no sense.
And I fail to see how working a career in law goes against everyone else's needs.
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
quote:Originally posted by dh: That is not what I was referring to.
What were you referring to? A woman's goal to become a lawyer? I don't see how "society" is so against that either.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I guess it seems to me that--while it surely wasn't a desired outcome--one of the effects of the sexual revolution was that women were free to become more and more the easily attainable sexual objects that baser men desired them to be. Before, in society, such things were strongly discouraged.
I figure this happened, at least in part, because of the fact that as things were changing, one of the last things to even begin changing was the fact that men held all the real power in this world. Women always saught power by aligning themselves with powerful men, and now they were free to do so in more sexually explicit ways.
What bothers me about this is that (I suspect deeply) while women told themselves they were doing it 'cause they wanted to, and they were free, the fact was they were doing it because men still "ruled the world" and it was a way to tap into that power.
I wonder how different things would have been if that balance of power had been the *first* thing to begin changing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Also, I think you are unfairly stereotyping a society in which marriage is prized. Women were not simply baby-making machines, at least, not to everyone. And is that much worse, I ask you, than simply being treated as a disposable sex object?
I submit that both the "baby-making machine" and the "disposable sex object" roles are in fact products of an older way of thinking, and that many women today reject the notion that they have to be one or the other -- or that, for example, enjoying a promiscuous sex life makes them into a "sex object."
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I would also like to submit that the notion that men might never be able to "care" for children the way women do is also the product of an older way of thinking - one that traps both genders, allowing neither to grow and learn and stretch.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:or that, for example, enjoying a promiscuous sex life makes them into a "sex object."
But do they do it because *they* want it, or because they have been raised all their life to believe men want it of them?
quote:I would also like to submit that the notion that men might never be able to "care" for children the way women do is also the product of an older way of thinking - one that traps both genders, allowing neither to grow and learn and stretch.
I still think women have a biological "edge" in desiring to care for children. Pregnancy, giving birth, and lactation are not now things that men can experience.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Women have a biological edge in carrying the fetus to term and giving birth.
Thanks to the formula manufacturers *rolls eyes* lactation is no longer "necessary" for the next steps.
In terms of nurturance and care: it doesn't take a woman - nor is a woman - necessarily better at it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But some of them do want it. Some of them might enjoy it. I doubt I would... I'd just want to be with one person and that's that, but I don't really have the energy to fool around with a lot of people. I just feel that that sort of attitude makes men a bit distant from their children. (Thinks of my own father.) It would be completely unappealing to me if by some fluke I had a husband and he didn't want to get involved with helping out with the kids. (Which is why I hate shows like Everybody Loves Raymond.. Who in the hell would want a man that cannot at least change a single diaper and whines each time you ask him to hang out with the children? That is just so unsexy and unappealing!)
(Though one has to admit that there's a problem with women thinking that in order to be strong feminist types they have to act like the WORSE man acts... hyper obnoxiously macho and that is irratating. Like the attitude that in order for a man to be tough he has to be devoid of compassion... It's terrible either way... People should, ideally, embody both male and female traits... at least I seem to... ^^;;;
[ October 30, 2005, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Y'all are totally missing my point.
1) I never said there weren't exceptions. On *both* sides. I am speaking in generalitites.
2) It doesn't matter whether lactation is necessary. When it happens, it has a biological effect. And pregnancy is far more than carrying a fetus to term. There are chemical, biological processes that happen within the mother bonding, committing her to the child-bearing, child-raising experience.
Recent studies have shown that men have a similar chemical bonding to their children at the time of birth. But not having gone through the actual physical experience, I still strongly believe that women have a biological "edge" in the deep, internal imperative to care for their offspring.
Let's be scientific about this. There are some great daddies in the animal kingdom. But they tend to be amongst the fowls and fishes. When we *just* look at biology, males want to make sure their seed is spread as efficiently as possible. On the other hand, mammal young tend to need quite a bit of nurture--and the mother is *biologically* programmed to take that role. In other words, nature rewards males for being promiscuous and females for rearing young. Why? Because that is how genes get to survive.
Now I am among the first to say that humans are wonderful creatures because we are capable of *choosing* to go against our biological programming. But it is foolish to deny the effects of that programming as well.
Many call me sexist for saying that *biologically* men tend to desire promiscuity and women tend to desire childrearing (and the optimal conditions for such--a stable home and, in our society, a powerful male.) But I think it is foolish to blame these "tendancies" solely on our society. Society may echo and amplify them, but the roots begin in biology.
So maybe we want society to actively fight against these biological imperatives. Certainly I come from a society that encourages the female desire to child-rear but discourages the male desire for promiscuity. One could also say that secondarily it encourages the males to desire child-rearing and discourages the female desire for promiscuity as well. For these things do exist naturally in the sexes. But propose that they are not as biologically powerful.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
This is why I feel like a biological mutant. Because I seem to lack those kind of tendencies... Or, at least I lacked the girlhood desire to have a child and picture my wedding. Perhaps i am programed weirdly.... Should people who are programmed outside of the norm be expected to behave the same way?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:But do they do it because *they* want it, or because they have been raised all their life to believe men want it of them?
Bev, you ask this about women being sex objects, but I've got to ask how much you think societal conditioning applies to women wanting to grow up to be wives and mothers, too.
I hated babysitting. From what I remember of playing with dolls, I was playing pretend with them in adult or at least my-age child situations, not pretending I was their mother and feeding and rocking them, but I don't remember doing much of it at all. Gender stereotypes weren't pushed in our household, and we were certainly never encouraged one way or the other as far as childrearing went.
I decided when I was around 14 that I didn't want kids. Everyone told me that I would change my mind when I reached X age, or when I got my first boyfriend, or when I fell in love. I kept passing X age and they'd just revise their estimate up two years. I went through boyfriends aplenty and fell in love once or twice, and it had absolutely no bearing. I have no desire whatsoever to have children.
I have no doubt that if I was to get pregnant and go through the experience the hormones would kick in and I'd get all gooey about my child and would love it and take care of it and be a great mother. But that is not going to happen, because I have gone to great lengths to ensure that it does not.
So while I agree with you about the chemical, biological process that happens during pregnancy and birth, I don't think the desire to child rear is a biological imparative. I think there is a spectrum, and obviously I am on one far end. I think men have a spectrum as well, I have met some who just ache to be fathers. But since that desire is strongly encouraged in girls, it is intensified all along the spectrum for women, and people who may have ended up somewhat ambilivent without the societal pressure end up wanting kids, and only a very few of us who were on the far edges end up ambilivent. If I was raised in your society, maybe it would have overcome my natural instincts and I would have wanted children. Maybe if you were raised in mine, you would be less sure that women who don't want children are going against their biological programming.
Now, when you get to enjoying a promiscuous sex life -- I was certainly not raised that that was what men wanted of me. Today I think you could say the culture is so steeped in it you can't get away from it, but I don't think that was as true 30 years ago. I was brought up understanding that sex was something adult, married people did. And I didn't start having sex until I was 22, and when I did it was with discussion beforehand, on my terms, with redundant birthcontrol methods.
Am I promiscuous? It depends on your definition. I am careful about who I have sex with, and it is usually within the bounds of a long term, caring relationship. But I have had flings, and I have no problem with that. I believe sex should be consentual, safe, and fun. And I've never sought out particularly "powerful" males to be involved with, either. I have a good job, I make more than enough money to support myself, I own my own house. I have dated guys who were just scraping by, and I have dated guys who were making significantly more money than me. It is not one of my selection criteria.
If I wanted to be married, I could be married several times over by now, starting with my boyfriend from my senior year of high school. In your eyes, maybe I am contributing to the breakdown of society. In my eyes, I am a happy, healthy adult who pays taxes, donates money to charity, and occasionally (but I must admit not recently) volunteers my time to worthy causes. If I am less appealing to some men because they are looking for a virgin to marry and have kids with that's fine, because obviously we would be incompatible in a lot of other ways anyway. Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Syn - you're not a mutant! If you are, I am - and I'm not, so neither are you!
ElJay, thanks for your frankness! It's so nice to know I am not alone in my approach to the world . . .
Edited to remove far too much personal information:
I stand by what I say - I don't think that the ability to care for an infant or child is the sole province of a woman, and I think that that goes beyond the occasional exception.
This is based on personal belief and life experiences.
*shrugs*
[ October 30, 2005, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Shan ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I stand by what I say - I don't think that the ability to care for an infant or child is the sole province of a woman, and I think that that goes beyond the occasional exception.
*sigh* Saying that women have a biological edge over men is a far cry from the above statement.
ElJay, I don't think I disagree with anything you have said here. (That said, I don't think that anything you said outright contradicts what I said.) I still think that the desire to care for offspring tends to have a powerful biological base in women, but I agree with you that it often does not kick in *at all* unless a woman actually goes through the reproductive process. I think to some extent that was the case for me.
I never played with dolls and never particularly wanted kids. I never liked kids much. I didn't coo over babies like many of my friends did. My sister, on the other hand, was very much that way--naturally, instinctually.
My sister and I were raised in the same society. And it is true that our end results appear the same: married with children. But she naturally desired the children aspect far more than I did. (I think marriage would have appealed to me no matter how I was raised. But I could see me having lots of animals rather than kids, were I raised in a different environment.)
I don't know if her inborn mothering desire gives her the advantage over me in being a dedicated mother. Honestly, I think in some ways it does.
Funny thing is that just within the last year I have noticed myself becoming more fond of kids that aren't mine. This has never happened to me before. I don't know why it is happening now, except that maybe the role of "mother" is becoming more a part of me.
quote:maybe I am contributing to the breakdown of society.
Whether or not *anything* is contributing to the breakdown of society depends on how we each define society and what is important to it. The answer would differ from person to person.
The reason why *I* think less long-term, committed relationships in the world is bad is that--in general--it means more children born into broken homes. So long as you are not bringing children into the world in your current circumstances, I don't think you are directly contributing to the breakdown of society. I mean, you aren't a "home-wrecker" or anything. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by dh:
quote: So? You think I want to be protected and saved from making mistakes? You think I need the whole of society behind me in order to have the courage to carry out my dreams?
I'm not doubting your courage, merely your ability. And it's nothing personal, it applies to everyone, both man and woman. Everyone is so busy trying to "carry out their dreams" that they don't sit down to carry out what's good for them and their neighbours. You get alot further when everyone is going in more or less the same direction than with everyone going off in their own, frequently opposite direction.
Well, perhaps you do get further - in that single direction. But surely the strength of a modern society is that it explores all directions simultaneously, finding out which ones work, and never getting trapped in a dead end. Like water, it divides to flow around all obstacles.
Also, since it is not universally agreed which direction society should take, the argument appears a bit unconvincing - you would hardly want to help society go further in a direction you don't agree with, right?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
bev, the place where I think we have a condratiction is that I enjoy my active sex life, and I don't act this way because I believe men want it of me. I suspect you were talking about women who dress provocatively and sleep around because they think that that will make men like them and they are trying to catch a husband. I was trying to show a different scenario for a single, sexually active woman, and one that I think is more common.
I'm not saying that the majority of single sexually active women feel the way I do about children. But that they are conducting their relationships and living their lives in the way they want to, for their own reasons, not because they are brainwashed by society to think that sexually available=good and will get them a husband. Many of us do, indeed, enjoy an active sex life because we want it, and without acting or being treated like sex object, toy, trophy, or possession.
I agree that getting pregnant outside of marriage is, in most cases, not the optimal situation, and I wish every woman and man was completely responsible in making sure it doesn't happen. But that is a far cry from endorsing the idiotic bile spewed by the professor quoted in the first post of this thread. (I know you haven't done that, beverly, although others in this thread have.)
I am not an "easily attainable" sex object, I am not easily attainable in any sense. I do not have sex to align myself with powerful men. I don't give a rat's ass how much power a man has, because I only want to wield power earned on my own. I think we are still in a transitionary period in sexual behavior, as well as in gender relations, and it will be really interesting to see how things shake out when the generation that is now in high school comes to power in this country. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samarkand: Oh no, women never just want sex . . . or a make out session . . . nope. *cough cough*
*shifty eyes*
Oh, and I have had some similar experiences. The men I date for some reason tend to say "I love you" very quickly. As in, after a week. Do you ever have no idea that you're in a relationship until he introduces you to X person with, "This is my girlfriend?" Because that used to happen to me all the time. ALL the time.
-pH
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hey, we have to classify you somehow. "this is person X whom I have dated three times but not yet slept with" would probably not please you either, am I right?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I always introduce him as, "My friend so-and-so." If I have to give him a classification at all. Usually, I just try to say, "This is so-and-so" and let people draw their own conclusions.
-pH
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote:
quote:I stand by what I say - I don't think that the ability to care for an infant or child is the sole province of a woman, and I think that that goes beyond the occasional exception.
*sigh* Saying that women have a biological edge over men is a far cry from the above statement.
And I agreed with you earlier that the act of carrying a fetus to term, and giving birth, was at this time pretty much the sole provice of women. Formula manufacturers have made the lactation part of things not an imperative relegated just to women.
I don't think the ability to do those things (pregnancy, birth, lactation) makes a woman a more viable nurturer of children.
Sorry - I just don't - and what I am understanding from your posts is that you do. And it's okay by me that we disagree. *smile*
Giving birth to my son did not awaken any "goo" feelings in me. Fighting to keep that infant alive throughout his first year on the other hand very much aroused the "mama bear" response. His father is still the one that is far more capable of the tender side of nurture, however. I tend to be the "protector" and "defender" and the one that keeps the ball rolling and things on time and in place.
I don't interpret either of those parts of parenting as intrinsically feminine or masculine - it just results out of our individual and joint life experiences.
*smiles again*
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Many call me sexist for saying that *biologically* men tend to desire promiscuity and women tend to desire childrearing (and the optimal conditions for such--a stable home and, in our society, a powerful male.)
By no means would I call you sexist, but I would say that you're jumping to conclusions. People have to remember that "results" like this tend to come from evolutionary psych, which lacks anything like a firm, empirical methodology.
The other thing we must be careful not to do is confuse 'is' claims with 'ought' claims. Like you said above, Beverly, following our biological urges is often the wrong thing to do, and something we can resist. So we have to ask ourselves whether it's right that women continue to bear the brunt of child-rearing duties and the role of sexual prudes.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I suspect you were talking about women who dress provocatively and sleep around because they think that that will make men like them and they are trying to catch a husband.
No, not necessarily. There could be a lot of things a woman looks to gain from it: attention, feeling loved, even power. It never crossed my mind that women tend to do it to try to get a husband--though I suppose that could be a reason as well.
I also never said that all women do it solely because they think that it is what men want. I know you well enough to not even consider that with you. But that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of women out there who *do* have casual sex for that reason.
quote:But that is a far cry from endorsing the idiotic bile spewed by the professor quoted in the first post of this thread. (I know you haven't done that, beverly, although others in this thread have.)
Honestly, I didn't read the article. But I didn't like the tone in the quotes in this thread. I think if I were to read the article I would find myself hating it, because while I might agree with many of the things he is saying, I would hate the way he is saying them and the way they are twisted with things I totally disagree with.*
quote:I am not an "easily attainable" sex object, I am not easily attainable in any sense. I do not have sex to align myself with powerful men.
Again, I have never thought any differently.
Shan, we may have to just disagree that I think we agree more than you think we agree.
I will restate: I believe that *in general* women have an advantage over men in bonding to offspring because of biological processes involved in reproduction. Like ElJay, I believe there is a spectrum for both. But I don't understand someone not thinking that pregnancy, birth, and lactation give women *in general* an advantage. Please don't draw conclusions of what I think or believe beyond this statement. Feel free to ask me specific questions, but please stop assuming.
quote: So we have to ask ourselves whether it's right that women continue to bear the brunt of child-rearing duties and the role of sexual prudes.
A very good point.
*I just read the article. I was expecting it to be the words of the professor, instead it is a commentary about it. Is there somewhere else that has more of what this professor said?
[ October 30, 2005, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I didn't think I was assuming anything, Bev - merely seeking to understand what you have been saying.
I just don't agree that having biological capability to bring life onto the planet in some way makes women better as nurturers or care givers.
And as I said before, this is based on what I personally have (a) been subjected to as a child and (b) learned as a parent.
"Shan, we may have to just disagree that I think we agree more than you think we agree."
*LOL*
Works for me!
Carry on . . .
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
We cool.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I have a bit to say about this, which I may get to tomorrow. For right now, I just want to say I'm terribly offended. I mean:
quote:it had merely "lower[ed]" us to the crass level of men, who pursue sex thoughtlessly
Yeah, screw you buddy. I put a lot of thought into my sexual pursuits. Sometimes this includes diagrams. Once, on a particularly challenging occasion, it involved a full-blown Power Point presentation.
I don't need some egghead from Harvard deriding my efforts to get a little sumpin sumpin.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
::wipes chocolate and peanuts off screen::
!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The men I date for some reason tend to say "I love you" very quickly. As in, after a week.
Which is more worrisome: that they're just weak-minded and lonely, or that you're that lovable?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Clearly, Squick is a pimp.
And Tom, it should be illegal to be this lovable.
-pH
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I have learned through far too much trial and error the wisdom of the following statement:
"The only consistent feature of all of your dissatisfying relationships is you."
For a long time, I picked the wrong men. It took a lot of serious thought and reflection to work through what I wanted my guy-filter to look like. It's a very, very fine sieve, by the way. And currently stashed in the cupboard, as I found my healthy happiness. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Is your filter a list of traits your ideal guy should possess, or a list of "instant deal-breaker" traits? Or a bit of both? I mean, I have a few specific things I want and/or like, but I don't consider those things a "filter" in the "you must meet these criteria in order to date me" sense.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Ah.
Mostly "things that indicate he is not mentally healthy."
[To be more accurate, these are "psychological traits or habits which do not bring out the best side of me, or with which I am incompatible." I shorten it to "not mentally healthy" in my head.]
No more: - acts with deliberate and denied intent; "hidden agenda" - is unhappy when I am happy and/or the reverse - reacts to frustration with rage instead of an authentic attempt to figure out and solve the problem - etc
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I had a "you must be this tall to ride" rule, but I'm afraid that was about it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I was sure I posted to this thread after CT's post but before Tom's. I think what happened was that I wrote the post in the quick reply box and then pushed "Go" instead of "Add Reply."
Anyway, all I was going to say was that I've never needed that sort of filter, thankfully.
Added: Also, I don't filter for height. I'm 6'3 and have dated/had flings with girls upwards of a foot shorter than me. I'm attracted to tall women, but that is by no means a selection criterion. Height is a bonus when I'm dating someone tall, but it isn't something I actively miss when I'm dating someone shorter.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Also, I don't filter for height.
I should point out that a literal reading of the above line of mine misses the point. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*grin
And that's not a filter I ever needed.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Clearly the figurative meaning of that post is something I'll learn when I'm older.
Added: Since I still don't get it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Do they not have "you must be this tall to ride" signs in theme parks in Canada, twinky? They're generally used to keep out not short people, but young people.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Hm. It's been so long since I went to a Canadian theme park that I honestly couldn't tell you (we're talking in excess of ten years, here). I assume so, but what comes to mind when I see that statement is actually a t-shirt I remember some guy wearing in high school. I never really thought much about what it meant, and I'm not sure that he did, either.
I did go to Cedar Point recently, but of course that's in America. I did see some of those signs there, but being tall I don't really notice them in any case.
I think the other reason I missed your point is that I don't have an age filter, either. I'm not very good at judging age, and I generally don't try; of the girls I've been involved with, I only know the ages of the ones who told me how old they were. The ages in that group, relative to me, ranged from -6 to +10... but I never would have known that without being told.
Posted by Ophelia (Member # 653) on :
quote:They're generally used to keep out not short people, but young people.
I thought it was size-related--those signs are usually only on rides with things like shoulder harnesses that can injure small people due to their placements on the body.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Yeah, if they wanted to keep out young people they'd say, "no one under the age of 10".
But if you're a super tall ten year old you're actually good to go.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think Tom was saying that the net effect is generally that younger people don't get to ride.
Posted by Ophelia (Member # 653) on :
Yes, but that's NOT what they're used to do. It is what generally happens, but it's not the purpose.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I thought it was size-related--those signs are usually only on rides with things like shoulder harnesses that can injure small people due to their placements on the body.
How do you know that isn't why TomD has the same policy?
Posted by Ophelia (Member # 653) on :
Because he said it was to keep out young people. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I think they were more directed towards small people. I always assumed it was because the rides wouldn't properly restrain people below a certain size; they don't want you slipping out and plummeting to your death on their property.
And I have been able to ride everything since about 3rd grade while one of my friends was still borderline in high school. So if the intent is to keep out young kids, it's obviously a flawed system.
pH- Is there anything more annoying than being asked to define your relationship with someone when you're not really sure yourself what it is? With them standing there, no less.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:The first is the implicit assumption some people (like the professor) seem to be making that sex is the only goal that men ever have. Being "modest" -- that is, not "putting out" or "giving it up" -- is supposed to be enticing to men, convince them to stay with you, stick it out, sign on for the long haul, because... men are only interested in sex.
I like girls that view sex the same way I do -- not something that only belongs within the confines of marriage, but also not something to treat lightly.
The girls I know that have a lot of one-night stands (essentially role-reversing) I find crass. I guess that's a double standard, unless you consider that my guy friends who do the same I refer to as "man-whores". Nothing against two rational adults having consensual sex, but for my own emotional well-being I keep it in the context of a relationship.
I do love the occasional hookup, but these don't include sex. DHO, we call it (don't ask).
I tend to be very contrary in things like this. The more casual a girl is with sex, the less I'm attracted to her. The girls that know that every guy wants them and play that up have absolutely no control over me. I see right through them. Which they hate.
Posted by antichris (Member # 8785) on :
Late to the discussion, I know...
quote:Instead, it had merely "lower[ed]" us to the crass level of men, who pursue sex thoughtlessly...
I think I speak for a large number of crass men when I say... I used to put a LOT of thought into pursuing sex.
And on the "this tall to ride this ride" - I used to work at a fairly popular midwestern amusement park. Those signs were pretty much all based on regulations and whatnot from measurements of the saftey harnesses, shoulder straps, etc, etc.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
From the quote, it sounds like this guy is placing way too much emphasis on sex. Sex is great and all; it's also serious and can have many life-altering consequences. But it doesn't belong at the center of everything.
Take marriage, for example. A marriage where sex plays the central role is not a good one. Marriage is first and foremost about two mature indiviudals making a serious commitment to each other, who join together in bonds of love and support to face what life throws at them. Sex is an important part of this and can be a great bonding method, but marriage is so much more than that. Someone who marries you because then they can sex with you isn't going to be a good spouse. I don't know, I find the advice "If you do this, you can trick some guy into joining you in a crappy marriage." to be pretty bad.
Romance is another place were I think you're really missing the point if you're putting sex at the center. Romance is peripherally related to sex, but it's a very different thing. Romance is about two main things: getting away from the mundane world into a sort of fluffy dream state where your partner's fantasies are fulfilled and making it clear that there's no one and no place you'd rather be than with them. The sensations you're trying to evoke are different and I don't see how including or exclusing sex makes or breaks romance. Frankly, I feel a little sad for someone who does. I think they have distorted views of both sex and romance.
There seems to be a pretty strong paradox here. There's something amiss with saying "You should be a strong person so that boys will like you." You don't become strong for someone else. This seems to me more like advocating a sort of superficial psuedo-strength.
Also, I'm not sure how in touch this late middle-aged conservative from Harvard is with contemporary young men or women. The idea that men "pursue sex thoughtlessly and without a thought to marriage" sounds to me more like a description of high school or pop culture college sex-n-hijinks movies than real life. There are guys who fit this description, but by the time the guys I know hit mid 20s, we were all giving serious though to marriage. Most guys in my acquantience realize that swinging bachelorhood gets really empty after a while.
And...err...again, while it may be true in some cases, many girls I know have sex because they want to and they don't find that this makes them weaker or less attractive people. Nor does it seem to hurt their marriage prospects. I've been to crazy amounts of weddings this past year. I know that most of these are between people who have had pre-marital sex (some of them I can't be sure of, but I strongly suspect it.) Heck, I'd had sex with one of the brides back in college myself and one who is getting married next year called me up for a booty call a few times when she was in med school.
The thing is, yes, guys who like strong women (of which I am one...the guys that is, not a strong woman) find strong women more attractive. But outside of certain sections' of the populace mysoginistic fantasies, having sex doesn't actually correlate all that great with weakness. This is not to say that the girls who find their sense of self-worth and power mainly through their sexuality come across as anything other than weak, but the same can be said for the girls who find these things mainly through their virginity.
It is perfectly possible to be a strong, secure woman who chooses to have sex. It's also possible to be strong, secure and choose not to have sex. Of the two, I've personally found the first type to be much more common with most of the "modest" girls being more weak and fearful, but that could be due to many factors besides actual distribution.
---
I don't have a problem with sex as recreation, assuming that the both participants are being responsible as to both the potential physical and emotional consequences. I do this myself. That doesn't mean that I don't give a thought to marriage. I long for marriage, a good marriage, with a person that completes me. Unfortunately, so far they've been in very short supply. Nor does it mean that my relationships are without romance. If I'm dating someone exclusively, I do my best to make them feel like the queen of the world. But what I don't do is equate sex with these things, nor do I assign it some magical power by which I or my partner are degraded by it.
edit: Because it needed to be said: I pimp because I care.
[ November 01, 2005, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
bev,
quote:Let's be scientific about this.
Errr..you didn't actually do this. In fact, the evolutionary psychology background that you're working from not only isn't science, it can't be science. In final analysis, it's all just story-telling. It may sound sciencesque, but unless it makes predictions which can be tested, it is not scientific nor is it possible to verify. EP specifically doesn't do this.
Even leaving that aside, resposnble evolutionary psychologists freely admit that they are talking about statistical trends and not stricly bounded types. Within those trends, you can get a great deal of variation. Some women may not have any capacity for nuturing at all and some men may have everything they need to be a mother except a uterus. I myself absolutely love kids and feel a strong need to nuture just about everybody (while still remaining all man, rrrarr!).
Nor are these tendencies (assuming they exist), deterministic. Men may be more inclined to sleep around, for example, but you seem to be assigning to this a power far in excess of many more well defined biological urges. There is a huge role played by social and (if you swing that way, which I do) personal factors in these behavior. For that matter, pointing to isolated things we may get from evolutionary forces generally tends to ignore all the other relevant things we may get from evolution (much like saying that we are designed to be selfish and ignoring that there's at least as strong a drive towards intra-species cooperation in our evolutionary history).
---
Also, sex feels good. Done right, it feels really good, both physically and possibly emotionally. I think if you're looking for reasons why girls want to have sex and ignore the waves of mind-melting pleasure that can result, you're going to come up with a very incomplete picture.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: pH- Is there anything more annoying than being asked to define your relationship with someone when you're not really sure yourself what it is? With them standing there, no less.
Oh, man. I HATE that. The people I know up here have so far been tactful enough to reserve such questions for when the guys aren't around, but there's nothing more awkward than, "So, are you two together?"
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
*shifty eyes*![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)