Why are we afraid of male sexuality?

Logical Fallacy

The below appeared on the Guardian website today and i have to say it did make a degree of sense to me when i read it. Especially with the mention of the huge incidents of suicide among young males and the mantra that "Girls have problems...boys are problems".

It really does seem to be a case that men expressing their sexual desires or even implying that they may have been sexually successful is no longer allowed, particularly on the internet. The second a bloke implies any kind of sexual success you have people lining up to say how it has to be all lies and fancy.

One of the things that has really been getting on my nerves lately in the wake of the Giggs, Woods and DSK's of the world is that you have folk who are more than happy to use these men as a model for all males in an attempt to run down the entire gender. Countless articles will appear on line and be supported aimed at men and explaining why fidelity is a good thing...and indeed, even how not to rape someone as if men are so confused that they cannot tell the difference between consensual and forced sex.

Is it really turning into open season on men's sexuality?

Is there anything good to be said about male sexuality? That might seem a daft question. Apparently it brings a lot of pleasure and excitement to the lives of men and women alike, it's inspired some of the greatest art, music and literature through the ages and has played a fairly substantial role in sustaining our species and populating the planet. Nonetheless you'll need to search very, very hard to find any positive appraisal of male heterosexuality.

Since the era of the permissive society and the mainstreaming of modern feminism, western society has gone a long way towards liberating women's sexuality. Younger women have, to an unprecedented extent, been encouraged to believe they can be as sexual as they like and to experience and express their desires as they wish. Even the age-old proscriptions on female promiscuity have been largely broken down, exemplified by the glorious flowering of the SlutWalk movement.

Simultaneously, and perhaps not coincidentally, male sexuality has been increasingly seen as a problem. You can hear it in the gentle, dismissive mockery that says men are simple creatures who "only want one thing" or, at the extreme, outright vilification. The male gaze threatens, male desire is aggressive. Our primal instincts are pathologised with the jargon of gender studies. Righteous and necessary efforts to reduce sexual crimes have had the unwelcome effect of teaching generations of men that our sexuality can be dangerous and frightening.

Don't believe me? Look back at the Bailey review into the early sexualisation of children, and the surrounding media hoo-ha. Leaving aside any concerns about the veracity and accuracy of the report itself (and I have plenty myself) it is striking that acres of print were devoted to the impacts of these social trends on girls, their self-esteem and body image; their developing sexuality; their safety and security. Barely a word was spoken about boys, beyond fears that they are being turned into beasts.

Again and again the message came out: girls have problems. Boys are problems. And yet does anyone doubt that there should be concerns about how easy access to porn impacts upon boys' sexual development, their self-esteem, their body image or performance anxieties? It's not as if young men bask in perfect mental health and happiness – young men commit suicide at nearly four times the rate of young women, and sex and relationships rank high on their list of concerns.

At the other end of the age range, sexually active older women are now widely eroticised (albeit often with a rather misogynistic undertone) as "cougars" or (forgive me) "Milfs" while their male equivalents are disparaged as dirty old men. Observer columnist Viv Groskop recently went further, opining about any older man who has sex outside marriage, even the mild-mannered old janitor John Major, saying "Unfortunately it's not against the law to be an old lecher. Maybe it should be. Or at the very least you shouldn't be rewarded with the highest office in the land."

Perhaps the greatest concern for men and women alike should be the way male sexuality and sexual expressiveness balances on a narrow tightrope of acceptability. One step off the wire and you tumble into the realm of perversion. As feminist blogger Clarisse Thorn noted last year, any man who hits on a woman and gets it wrong risks being branded a "creep" – sometimes deservedly so, of course, but often for no greater sin than being insufficiently attractive or socially skilled, or having misread a perceived signal of invitation. I've never heard of a woman being stigmatised or disparaged for expressing an attraction to big men, rough men, geeky men or whatever. A man who expresses similar desires for women who don't conform to standard norms of beauty is a perv, a fetishist, a weirdo.

All of these prejudices are rehearsed and reiterated by men and women alike, they reside in the intangible web of social norms, conventions and culture, but they can and must be challenged and changed. If we can begin to openly and joyously celebrate the positives to male sexuality, it might become easier for men to be happy and confident sexual partners, and in turn become better lovers, and sometimes better people.

Male sexuality is no less diverse, complex and wonderful than women's or, for that matter, no more base, coarse and animalistic. Sure, most men might be slightly more likely to let our gaze linger on eye-catching curves, and slightly less likely to giggle about our lovers' proclivities with our friends, but in the grand picture women and men are surprisingly similar, in this respect as in so many others. Women have been entirely justified in asking that we blokes respect their rights, autonomy and wishes, that we respect them as sexual beings. It shouldn't be too much to ask for a little of the same in return.

Yahew

Hmm. I disagree. One thing that feminists have right is that male sexuality must be curtailed.

Sonics2k

Yahew wrote: »

Hmm. I disagree. One thing that feminists have right is that male sexuality must be curtailed.

What. Why?

eco2live

Yahew wrote: »

Hmm. I disagree. One thing that feminists have right is that male sexuality must be curtailed.

That worked out well for the priests

Logical Fallacy

Yahew wrote: »

Hmm. I disagree. One thing that feminists have right is that male sexuality must be curtailed.

Do you have any kind of reason or logic for thinking that?

Dravokivich

After reading through the article I'm honestly not too sure what the author meant by:

All of these prejudices are rehearsed and reiterated by men and women alike, they reside in the intangible web of social norms, conventions and culture, but they can and must be challenged and changed. If we can begin to openly and joyously celebrate the positives to male sexuality, it might become easier for men to be happy and confident sexual partners, and in turn become better lovers, and sometimes better people.

But yeah, I think I get the general gist of the piece. Men interested in sex through no fault of their own are assumed to be sexual predators/deviants, which is complete bollox.

Is it really turning into open season on men's sexuality?

In regards to this... hmm... I think the way sex "as a trophy" is acknowledged is somewhat reversed... Before a woman used to be seen as little more then a thing to be enticed by and to co-erce a bloke into sex. Women often being left as outcasts within society when they were found to be promisous, but never anything said against a man for it. Often you'd hear the line "The kinda girls your mother would warn you about." Seems to be seen as the other way around now according to that article.

err... if that doesn't really make sense, sex was a shame born by women, now by men.

So yes, its possible, but I haven't seen it.

Yahew

eco2live wrote: »

Yahew wrote: »

Hmm. I disagree. One thing that feminists have right is that male sexuality must be curtailed.

That worked out well for the priests

Not eliminated.

Yahew

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Yahew wrote: »

Hmm. I disagree. One thing that feminists have right is that male sexuality must be curtailed.

Do you have any kind of reason or logic for thinking that?

Why should women, or society be scared of male sexuality? Historically uncurtailed male sexuality has been pretty vicious. Take war and rape for instance.

Dravokivich

Yahew wrote: »

Why should women, or society be scared of male sexuality? Historically uncurtailed male sexuality has been pretty vicious. Take war and rape for instance.

or, take killings in war as an example of how men are murderous maniacs...

ahem *chough*

Logical Fallacy

Yahew wrote: »

Why should women, or society be scared of male sexuality? Historically uncurtailed male sexuality has been pretty vicious. Take war and rape for instance.

Yahew wrote: »

Why should women, or society be scared of male sexuality? Historically uncurtailed male sexuality has been pretty vicious. Take war and rape for instance.

You seem to be happy to bundle loving sexual relationships in with rape, unless i am taking you up wrong?

I am also unsure how curtailing male sexuality in general would help to deal with those issues given that the vast majority of men will never commit a rape over the course of their lives.

It is interesting as an argument could be made that the fact that some men will rape is used to try and make all men ashamed of their sexuality...which seems to be the angle you are working.

I have to say, you are not really going anywhere for me with these one line answers. I'd like to see how you feel male sexuality could be, or should be, curtailed instead?

eco2live wrote: »

That worked out well for the priests

To go off topic for a moment, i imagine it makes more sense to consider that the very nature of the Chruch's set up offered a good cover for pedophiles as opposed to not being able to have sex turned normal men into kiddy fiddlers.

Aurum

Dravokivich wrote: »

or, take killings in war as an example of how men are murderous maniacs...

ahem *chough*

I don't think that anyone could argue that women are incapable of being murderous maniacs or that a very large percentage of men are exceedingly violent. However, you don't need to take more than a cursory glance at history to ascertain that the vast majority of those perpetrating the maniacal murdering during the last two thousand years or so were men.

metrovelvet

Aurum wrote: »

I don't think that anyone could argue that women are incapable of being murderous maniacs or that a very large percentage of men are exceedingly violent. However, you don't need to take more than a cursory glance at history to ascertain that the vast majority of those perpetrating the maniacal murdering during the last two thousand years or so were men.

If women werent stuck in kitchens we may have done it too. Who knows.

Saying that...I think we are afraid of it because a) it's powerful b) it has permission to be manifest in a way women's is not c) historically it has been celebrated in a bravado way d) there have been an awful lot of dark sides to it.

Now... I would also say that very generally speaking women are also afraid of their own sexuality, of their orgasm, of their sirens, of their allure.

And... my sum total of all this.... is there is a pleasure deficit in the west.

Dravokivich

Aurum wrote: »

I don't think that anyone could argue that women are incapable of being murderous maniacs or that a very large percentage of men are exceedingly violent. However, you don't need to take more than a cursory glance at history to ascertain that the vast majority of those perpetrating the maniacal murdering during the last two thousand years or so were men.

Yes, solely because being in an army/raid party was seen as a role to be held by men, whether it be offensive or defensive. Overall, gender roles have changed the last 100 years with the shift in attitude within society (Western at least). So it's very hard to compare a man now, to a man of the previous 2,000 years. You are not comparing like for like in that instance.

With regards to the article in the OP, women are shown to have a strong sexual presence about themselves and in general it appears to be well received. Strangely enough the sexual presence of todays man is not (or even the presence of a man for that matter). My reply that you quoted, was a reaction that I intended to be outlandish in direct reference to Yahew's comment. They are citing a vague historical reference. I'm not asking for examples of it, but it did need to be shown that it is a ridiculas point to argue as a reason for the man of today to be ashamed of their sexual presence and withold it.

Yahew

Dravokivich wrote: »

or, take killings in war as an example of how men are murderous maniacs...

ahem *chough*

In history one woman who sexual appetites were remarkable. Thats an anecdote, not a statistic.

Yahew

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

You seem to be happy to bundle loving sexual relationships in with rape, unless i am taking you up wrong?

Where in God's green Earth did you read that into anything I said in this thread?

Yahew

Ok, most of my postings were from a phone, and hence short. Although you would think them uncontroversial. Historically human tribes raided other human tribes, killed the men and raped the women. There was little or no morality involved. With war came rape. With power, rape, or forced concubinage, or force marriage.

Why? You have to ask what traditionally restricts male sexual violence, and the answer is - other men. Women have brothers, fathers, sons and husbands and these men dont look favourably on their women being raped ( although in some middle eastern societies, the blame and dishonour of rape even now - as then - falls on the women).

In modern society men are socialised for 14-18 years in school. Even then some men rape. When society breaks down, even in States of the Enlightenment, men rape. When the Russians invaded Germany they raped children, adults, and octogenarian women.

now thats a powerful force, and it needs to be restricted.

Yahew

Dravokivich wrote: »

Yes, solely because being in an army/raid party was seen as a role to be held by men, whether it be offensive or defensive. Overall, gender roles have changed the last 100 years with the shift in attitude within society (Western at least). So it's very hard to compare a man now, to a man of the previous 2,000 years. You are not comparing like for like in that instance.

The modern man is not in any way evolutionary different from his predecessor. In every kitten there is a feral cat, and in every modern human an ancient. We are modern because of the environment, not our genes.

Dravokivich

Yahew wrote: »

In history one woman who sexual appetites were remarkable. Thats an anecdote, not a statistic.

Yahew wrote: »

Ok, most of my postings were from a phone, and hence short. Although you would think them uncontroversial. Historically human tribes raided other human tribes, killed the men and raped the women. There was little or no morality involved. With war came rape. With power, rape, or forced concubinage, or force marriage.

Why? You have to ask what traditionally restricts male sexual violence, and the answer is - other men. Women have brothers, fathers, sons and husbands and these men dont look favourably on their women being raped ( although in some middle eastern societies, the blame and dishonour of rape even now - as then - falls on the women).

In modern society men are socialised for 14-18 years in school. Even then some men rape. When society breaks down, even in States of the Enlightenment, men rape. When the Russians invaded Germany they raped children, adults, and octogenarian women.

now thats a powerful force, and it needs to be restricted.

Anecdotes / Statistics, then you present extremes as if they are normality.

Sexuality =/= Rapist

kiffer

... I feel my sexuality has been damaged by listening to women too much...
Spend time with women in a friendly context and you'll hear no end of stories about creeps and weirdoes who had the gall to approach them with out being sufficiantly attractive(*) to warrent approval, very rarely do they talk about how a charming man who smiled and held a door open for them, but you'll hear all about the creepy guy who held the door for them and grinned, and he was probably doing it to look at their bums and so on, and how men are pigs...

If you're already starting from shy possition this leaves you with a pretty bad idea of what women think of men...
Then in attempting to avoid creepy behaviour you end up avoiding showing attraction to anyone, and you end up getting nowhere with women...

Edit: Snip, said tomuch.

Ophiopogon

Yahew wrote: »

The modern man is not in any way evolutionary different from his predecessor. In every kitten there is a feral cat, and in every modern human an ancient. We are modern because of the environment, not our genes.

So in every man there is a rapist??

kiffer

Ophiopogon wrote: »

So in every man there is a rapist??

I think this thread might need some popcorn... It's going to get flamey...

I think there maybe an over inflated view of how much forced sex early humans had...

Logical Fallacy

Yahew wrote: »

Where in God's green Earth did you read that into anything I said in this thread?

The fact that the thread is about male sexuality, you are talking about rape and curtailing male sexuality to deal with rape.

To be honest your entire batch of posting within this thread is really just a prime example of how impossible it is for people to view male sexuality without instantly turning things into a rape discussion.

Yahew wrote: »

Ok, most of my postings were from a phone, and hence short. Although you would think them uncontroversial. Historically human tribes raided other human tribes, killed the men and raped the women. There was little or no morality involved. With war came rape. With power, rape, or forced concubinage, or force marriage.

Why? You have to ask what traditionally restricts male sexual violence, and the answer is - other men. Women have brothers, fathers, sons and husbands and these men dont look favourably on their women being raped ( although in some middle eastern societies, the blame and dishonour of rape even now - as then - falls on the women).

In modern society men are socialised for 14-18 years in school. Even then some men rape. When society breaks down, even in States of the Enlightenment, men rape. When the Russians invaded Germany they raped children, adults, and octogenarian women.

now thats a powerful force, and it needs to be restricted.

Once again, you are hinging entirely on one aspect of male sexuality...and even then the vast majority of people will say that rape is not about sex, but about control. Would you agree or disagree with that assessment of drive behind a rapist's actions?

Once again, i shall ask you, how does curtailing male sexuality in all it's broad forms help with regard to lessening the instances of rape?

I think it doesn't...i think the two are very seperate discussions and i think rape is completely outside the norms of sexuality for the vast majority of men.

I do understand however that this fact is not quite as attention grabbing as saying that all men are potential rapists in my best Germaine Greer voice.

It is kind of interesting that even when you are pointing out that men can also be responsible for stopping rape...you need to infer that this is only happening because the men view women as their property and don't want them spoiled or broken.

To be honest, right now, this thread is already dead and the point is largely proven.

It's just not possible to discuss male sexuality without the spectre of an act committed by a statistical view being held against the many.

18AD

Yahew wrote: »

We are modern because of the environment, not our genes.

An environment created mostly by other people, other genetic beings. You can't separate environment and genetics. That's the whole dance of evolution, innit?

Ophiopogon wrote:

So in every man there is a rapist??

Yup. And poet, dancer, muscian, physicist, psychopath... potentially. :eek:

Sonics2k

Yahew wrote: »

Ok, most of my postings were from a phone, and hence short. Although you would think them uncontroversial. Historically human tribes raided other human tribes, killed the men and raped the women. There was little or no morality involved. With war came rape. With power, rape, or forced concubinage, or force marriage.

Why? You have to ask what traditionally restricts male sexual violence, and the answer is - other men. Women have brothers, fathers, sons and husbands and these men dont look favourably on their women being raped ( although in some middle eastern societies, the blame and dishonour of rape even now - as then - falls on the women).

In modern society men are socialised for 14-18 years in school. Even then some men rape. When society breaks down, even in States of the Enlightenment, men rape. When the Russians invaded Germany they raped children, adults, and octogenarian women.

now thats a powerful force, and it needs to be restricted.

We also threw people to Lions for personal amusement.
We thought the world was flat.
We believed a group of Gods lived on a mountain, and were basically an ancient day-time soap.

Just because some men have raped people throughout our History, does not mean that all men are rapists and would do the same.

Quite frankly, you're speaking nonsense.

Yahew

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

The fact that the thread is about male sexuality, you are talking about rape and curtailing male sexuality to deal with rape.

The thread title is

Why are we afraid of male sexuality.


I gave some reasons. Women have a right to fear it. If you ask what they fear - rape would be the main thing. There are other things - the rise in male orientated porn which is fairly humourless, certainly loveless, and often demeaning. ( And which I sometimes consume).

Once again, you are hinging entirely on one aspect of male sexuality...and even then the vast majority of people will say that rape is not about sex, but about control. Would you agree or disagree with that assessment of drive behind a rapist's actions?

No, and I am not a feminist. The feminist argument about rape being primarily or only about control is nonsense. If it were, people would just boss people about, and be done with it.

Once again, i shall ask you, how does curtailing male sexuality in all it's broad forms help with regard to lessening the instances of rape?

I am answering the title. I said nothing of curtailing all sexuality. You are reading what you want. I said in my first post that "Hmm. I disagree. One thing that feminists have right is that male sexuality must be curtailed.". That does not mean eliminated. In general our sexual urges are curtailed by modern society. As they should be. See, however, what the powerful do in situations where they can get away with it.

I think it doesn't...i think the two are very seperate discussions and i think rape is completely outside the norms of sexuality for the vast majority of men.

It is because of the very curtailment I am talking about, a curtailment which collapses in times of war.

I do understand however that this fact is not quite as attention grabbing as saying that all men are potential rapists in my best Germaine Greer voice.

All men are. And all women are potential murderers.

It is kind of interesting that even when you are pointing out that men can also be responsible for stopping rape...you need to infer that this is only happening because the men view women as their property and don't want them spoiled or broken.

Firstly, I can only imply something. YOu would have to infer from my argument. And you do seem to do a lot of inferring and, once again, have plucked from nowhere something I didn't say nor imply.

To be honest, right now, this thread is already dead and the point is largely proven. It's just not possible to discuss male sexuality without the spectre of an act committed by a statistical view being held against the many.

You seem to be deliberately missing the point that I believe that male sexuality both needs to be, and is, curtailed in civilized societies ( and not just the West, either). Apparently you don't want an argument but a thread for the agreeing with you.

The title, however, is "Why are we afraid of male sexuality" and the answer, for women, is - amongst other things - potential rape. Men are physically stronger, so rape is always there. The elephant in the room. Let me tell you a story. Was out jogging in a wet sodden park today and a woman was behind me. Then another woman joined her. And then another woman. Dunno if they knew each other but we were all of the same pace so I was chased by three women. Didnt bother me a bit. Quite pleasant. now imagine the sexes were reversed and I was a woman behind whom three men had started to form in a darkening isolated park. That woman would veer off, even though the men would most likely have no intent.

you cant title this thread the way you have and not expect an answer. Why are "we" afraid of male sexuality. Because, to the opposite sex., it is more dangerous than female sexuality

Dravokivich

Yahew wrote: »

the rise in male orientated porn which is fairly humourless, certainly loveless, and often demeaning. ( And which I sometimes consume).

This is a matter of taste.

Yahew wrote: »

All men are.

I would not consider myself a potential rapist. Nor would I consider any of the men here as a potential rapist. I have no reason to think as such.

Yahew wrote: »

you cant title this thread the way you have and not expect an answer. Why are "we" afraid of male sexuality. Because, to the opposite sex., it is more dangerous than female sexuality

The issue I perceived from reading the article is why does women's sexuality get associated with a sense of pride while men's has to be associated with shame/disgust?

LegacyUser

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Especially with the mention of the huge incidents of suicide among young males and the mantra that "Girls have problems...boys are problems".

I read somewhere recently that suicide attempts are spread evenly across the sexes in Ireland, it's just that men are much much more likely to succeed due to choosing more violent methods. This isn't meant as a tit-for-tat statement, it's just it's always pondered why male suicide rates are much higher in this country and there be may no more difficult an answer than: they are better at succeeding.

Otis Driftwood

Can you provide a link for that?

Dravokivich

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Can you provide a link for that?

Micky Dolenz made reference to it on a discussion about suicide on AH.

LegacyUser

Here:

http://suicideprevention.ie/pages/?id=52&tid=13

Of course, it's possible that women choose more "cry for help" methods, maybe there is still a greater intention in men for it to be successful than in women.

metrovelvet

equal numbers wrote: »

I read somewhere recently that suicide attempts are spread evenly across the sexes in Ireland, it's just that men are much much more likely to succeed due to choosing more violent methods. This isn't meant as a tit-for-tat statement, it's just it's always pondered why male suicide rates are much higher in this country and there be may no more difficult an answer than: they are better at succeeding.

A social worker in a hospice explained the same thing to me. The attempts are equal numbers with men and women, but the methods men choose are likely to be more successful because women choose methods which will not deface them, like pills, which have a less likely chance to work.