Why are we afraid of male sexuality?

krudler

Something I find weird is that a lot of guys have an issue with saying another man is attractive, not sexually to them , but just in general. I dont get it, acknowledging another man is good looking doesnt automatically turn you gay. Its probably says more that you're comfortable with your own sexuality being able to appreciate another mans looks.

Sonics2k

krudler wrote: »

Something I find weird is that a lot of guys have an issue with saying another man is attractive, not sexually to them , but just in general. I dont get it, acknowledging another man is good looking doesnt automatically turn you gay. Its probably says more that you're comfortable with your own sexuality being able to appreciate another mans looks.

That's always bothered me to honestly.

As an example. A good friend of mine refuses to say if another guy is in any form attractive, he seems to be convinced people will assume he's gay if he does so.

It's odd, considering he's not even slightly homophobic, and a lot of our mutual friends are gay.

gargleblaster

Isn't the fear of being labeled a homosexual - and therefore refusing to share any opinions about how attractive another man is - related to the fear of speaking up about the objectification of men? It seems to me that it falls in with that same behavior. Fear of being cast into the outgroup by one's peers.

Otis Driftwood

gargleblaster wrote: »

Isn't the fear of being labeled a homosexual - and therefore refusing to share any opinions about how attractive another man is - related to the fear of speaking up about the objectification of men? It seems to me that it falls in with that same behavior. Fear of being cast into the outgroup by one's peers.

Im sorry but

I really dont care about the objectification of men,not one single bit.

The over whelming majority of men that are being objectified are in the public eye anyway and are making a career off their looks and I say more luck to them.Believe me,if I could make a living off my looks and have women lust after me you better believe I would do it and Id be of the opinion that most men would think the same.

Likewise I have no problem saying if I thought a guy was handsome.

gargleblaster

Now I'm too.

When I mentioned objectification, I was referring to Galvasean's post in which he mentioned porn and movies like 300 and wrestling, and how that affected boys' self-esteem, and didn't anyone care? And later people agreed and said that not enough attention was paid to those issues, and that that might be due in part to the hesitance on the part of most men to say anything about their having any issue with it.

I had thought since no one seems to have yet disagreed with those comments (or if so I missed those posts), that the increasing objectification of men, and its affect on boys' self-esteem, was an issue that most would agree should be addressed.

Have I misunderstood? Or maybe I could have used a better term than "objectification"?

As for whether you have any problem personally saying whether you think a man is handsome, that's neither here nor there. I believe the issue was raised in reference to wondering why some men had a problem with saying it, not anyone on this forum. That's what I was speculating about.

Wolfe Tone

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.

So you are saying I would be raping the hell out of women if there was no consequences?

18AD

krudler wrote: »

indeed, just like the ninjas, mutants, 8 foot men who think they're gods and cgi wolves :pac:

You would n' all.

amacachi

krudler wrote: »

Something I find weird is that a lot of guys have an issue with saying another man is attractive, not sexually to them , but just in general. I dont get it, acknowledging another man is good looking doesnt automatically turn you gay. Its probably says more that you're comfortable with your own sexuality being able to appreciate another mans looks.

Yeah it's something that irks me a bit. I'll admit that in certain situations I've said something along those lines and knew not to do so again in front of certain people. :pac:

Galvasean

Experiment for the men:

Whose more handsome?

George Clooney


or

Gary Busey?


If you said George Clooney

You're gay

If you said Gary Busey

You're gay and have unusual taste

Ah the 14 year old boy mentality. Honestly though, any grown man who claims he can't tell the difference between an attractive man and an unattractive man is probably very insecure.

Yahew

So you are saying I would be raping the hell out of women if there was no consequences?

It really wasn't about you. Not you particularly. Wolfe Tone wasnt on my mind.

I chose the Russian Army though, for a reason. The Soviet Union was dire in many ways, but it wasn't the most misogynist state on Earth at the time, maybe the least. These young Russians didnt rape at home, and they did in war. The indications are that when thre are no consequences more men rape. Maybe the majority.

The other option is to think there is something different about Russian men.

Wolfe Tone

Yahew wrote: »

It really wasn't about you. Not you particularly. Wolfe Tone wasnt on my mind.

I chose the Russian Army though, for a reason. The Soviet Union was dire in many ways, but it wasn't the most misogynist state on Earth at the time, maybe the least. These young Russians didnt rape at home, and they did in war. The indications are that when thre are no consequences more men rape. Maybe the majority.

The other option is to think there is something different about Russian men.

What a load of sh!te

Yahew

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

What a load of sh!te

That's me told.

Maguined

Yahew wrote: »

The indications are that when thre are no consequences more men rape. Maybe the majority.

The other option is to think there is something different about Russian men.

You are not just looking at the removal of consequences though, you are looking at the mental effect war has on people, the constant fear of being killed, the gruesome deaths you witness of those all around you, it can permanently effects anyone who has ever survived it. Especially in such a gruesome war as WW2.

If in peace time like now you removed any consequences of rape I do not think the majority of the male population would all go out and rape women, there would be some sure just like if you removed the consequences of any crime and certainly not a majority like you imply.

Galvasean

FWIW, there is a lot of input about wartime rape in the 'Germaine Greer Comments' if anyone wishes do do some further reading and avoid retreading old ground.

yawha

Men having been away from home for months, maybe years, in a gruesome, miserable, traumatic environment where they kill and witness the killing of their comrades by the enemy, where they cannot form sexual relationships, let alone interact normally with any women, where their hatred for their enemy grows so great that they not only kill, but rape women on their enemy's side, therefore male sexuality when not curtailed, results in rape?

The view that rape is somehow the greatest expression of unrestrained male sexuality is completely wrong and damaging, and yet I feel it's rather prevalent.

gargleblaster

Galvasean wrote: »

Experiment for the men:

Whose more handsome?

I may of course be wrong here, but I took the statements to be more about the unwillingness of some men to comment on the attractiveness of men in general, not the ability to recognize the difference between handsome and unattractive.

metrovelvet

yawha wrote: »

Men having been away from home for months, maybe years, in a gruesome, miserable, traumatic environment where they kill and witness the killing of their comrades by the enemy, where they cannot form sexual relationships, let alone interact normally with any women, where their hatred for their enemy grows so great that they not only kill, but rape women on their enemy's side, therefore male sexuality when not curtailed, results in rape?

The view that rape is somehow the greatest expression of unrestrained male sexuality is completely wrong and damaging, and yet I feel it's rather prevalent.

They also rape other men. Article on the male rape thread.

Wires are getting crossed here.

Galvasean

gargleblaster wrote: »

I may of course be wrong here, but I took the statements to be more about the unwillingness of some men to comment on the attractiveness of men in general, not the ability to recognize the difference between handsome and unattractive.

That was my point. Hence why I said,
"Honestly though, any grown man who claims he can't tell the difference between an attractive man and an unattractive man is probably very insecure."

Wibbs

Galvasean wrote: »

That was my point. Hence why I said,
"Honestly though, any grown man who claims he can't tell the difference between an obviously attractive man and an obviously unattractive man is probably very insecure."

The bit in bold is the thing. Of course oul George Clooney is a dead cert and Gary Busey in your example isn't exactly a handsome chap in that shot(he seems OK to me when younger http://www.bbec.ie/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Gary-Busey-new-230x300.png ). Extremes are easy, it's in the finer nuances it's harder, for me anyway. Someone like Jarvis Cocker was adored by some women http://lh5.ggpht.com/_CBMtIw79-Uk/SbNllMDpIqI/AAAAAAAABwI/37rSxzBI6FE/Jarvis%20Cocker%205.jpg Just a touch of WTF goin on there. There are other examples. That said women tend to have slightly more wide ranging tastes. While men might say starlet X isn't their bag, they'll still likely say they would, whereas you could get a fair oul lineup of women who would go "eeeuuuw, no way" at Brad Pitt. IMHO Beyond some daft fear of being labeled "ghay" it is a little harder for men to rate other men the way women might. Johhny Depp seems to be the exception(like Connery was in previous generations). I've yet to meet a woman who wouldn't when it comes to him. The bastard. Worse he's a very sound bloke by all accounts. The bastard.

Snowie

Galvasean wrote: »

That was my point. Hence why I said,
"Honestly though, any grown man who claims he can't tell the difference between an attractive man and an unattractive man is probably very insecure."

Thats and over exaggeration you don't have to be good looking you don't have to be ugly either women generally like there brains to be stimulated.. If you can do that i don't matter weather your slim fat tall small, deformed, attractive unattractive...

I believe charm sense of humor confidence and the ability to deal with the circumstances oh and a cheeky grin will get you away or a conversation with any lady i think every one has charm they just dont use it..

But looks really dont matter unless your a man looking at a woman...

guitarzero

I remember when I was a kid and getting an idea of sex I thought that women got the wrong end of the deal. I assumed they just took it and endured it. Is there a possibility that rooted deep down lies that first impression fo sex as something we enter into that is unknown (you're never told, you just happen to see it on tv), forbidden (dont say that word - sex), dirty (you're genitalia yuck*) and afraid of it- all the above. For me I always seemed to just stumble across sexual contexts and content, my mind had to just process it itself and nudge me without my consent into something I wasnt entirely at ease with. I was scared shít when I realized that "Wow, k, I'm actually going to have the sex now, ehhhhhhhhhhhhh......", it was kinda weird, all those years back of course :cool:.
I think the very act of mens sex - repeated insertion, is easy to exploit, its almost like an intrusion from a point of view. An area which is private is now under seige and the woman could be seen at the mercy of the man. This area can also be seen as sacred as it gives birth. I'm not saying this is the objective view but I'm just drawing attention to potential feelings around it that may be far back in the womans mind. If a woman feels threatened by sex then thats ok, it may be irrational, but our emotions such as fears, desires etc are perhaps partly generated by completely unreasonable events anyway.
Whether we are aware of it or not we generate stereotypical ideas of people of race, gender etc, trying to protect us through prejudice. When a man does not portray self control in an open setting i.e On the street eyeing her up and down, making strong advancements, then is it not understandable that a woman, being the weaker may not trust his behaviour in an intimate environment? I'm not he's an animal or he WILL misbehave but the woman may think "He's stepping over A line, a social norm, this is dangerous for me as he may step over A line intimately". Like "the dirty old man" that gawking at women is seen as such by women for a reasons which only they know, perhaps not rational. But they may see something desperate, capable of acts of desperation, capable of being out of control. But again, we could be standing on the 110th floor of a building and afraid to look down, even though we wont fall, something is triggering the emotion.
She could have had bad experiences with men in the past, she could have witnessed the media portraying mens sexual gestures as nasty and to be ashamed of. Sharon Ozbournes joking at that guys penis being chopped off, the audience, mostly women seemed pretty amused by it. This media event trivialized the male genitalia to a piece of crap in a disposal bag and millions of women watching. So its easy for particular events and experiences to manipulate, on subtle level, the views of women on men, sadly. I think the best way to approach a topic like this is to show respect. Talk to the woman as though she has value, to tease things out in a way thats not opposing constantly on an issue that can provide us both helluva a good time and hear our emotional and rational side, respecting both sides for an understanding.
Hopefully at least some of this is of some use.

Maple

I think it's because of social conditioning throughout the ages.

The emphasis on a man has been to be strong, in control of his emotions, tough, etc. The expectation has been that he should show no weakness, to have a sense of humour and laugh off any jibes, to maintain this superhuman front. Anything that strays from the norm usually results in him being called gay, asking if he's caught the gay, telling him to run home to his Mammy, boys don't cry,being labelled a wuss and nancy boy.

Sexually, again it's all pressure to step up to the plate and be a man. Physically you have the worry about penis-size, stamina, whether your penis will actually rise to the occasion. The emphasis is again on big and hard, massive hard cock, hard abs, rippling muscles. Again the jokes and social expectations feed back to the bloke-ish humour, be selfish, don't worry about the woman's satisfaction or you have the opposite whereby you're told that if she isn't screaming your name like a banshee and clawing your back with passion, then you're a sexual failure.

Again the emphasis, socially, has been for men to be more obvious and nearly brutish about their sexuality. Both women and men are fed the idea that a man is only out for one thing, and that the only thing he notices about a woman are her tits and ass. There's no subtlety allowed for. We're told that if we do have sex with a man, it cheapens us and he's going to be bragging to his mates about how many times "he gave it to her" and how much she wanted it. It's all forceful, no sensitivity allowed.

There are massive generalisations bandied about by both sexes, sure some men are fcukwits only out for one thing but on the flip side you have some horrible women out there too. People need to start recognising and celebrating men (and women) as individuals. Not everyone person is the same, the stereotypes need to go.

There is great strength in being able to express your emotions and to be given the help to deal with the maelstrom that is a person's head. Women have been campaigning for nearly a hundred years to be treated as equal and not to be seen as the weaker sex. I feel that it's time we recognise the pressure is on both sexes and deal with it accordingly.

LF, I think i've completely derailed your thread with my ramblings, apologies.

metrovelvet

+1 I couldnt agree with you more maple.

There is a whole project from birth around desensitising boys in the west, particularly North America.

gargleblaster

Another +1 for Maple. Very well said.

metrovelvet wrote: »

+1 I couldnt agree with you more maple.

There is a whole project from birth around desensitising boys in the west, particularly North America.

South America, Africa, the Middle East, etc?

Your comment has me wondering now about cultures where it's less prevalent.

Logical Fallacy

Galvasean wrote: »

That was my point. Hence why I said,
"Honestly though, any grown man who claims he can't tell the difference between an attractive man and an unattractive man is probably very insecure."

To be honest i couldn't tell you what kind of man would be considered attractive...i am not attracted to males.

I could tell you what kind of man would probably be considered good looking and who might be considered ugly, but only in the loosest sense of what society favours at the time.

I realise i am being a pedant but there is a big difference between judging someones physical appearance and their attractiveness.

Logical Fallacy

Maple wrote: »

I think it's because of social conditioning throughout the ages.

The emphasis on a man has been to be strong, in control of his emotions, tough, etc. The expectation has been that he should show no weakness, to have a sense of humour and laugh off any jibes, to maintain this superhuman front. Anything that strays from the norm usually results in him being called gay, asking if he's caught the gay, telling him to run home to his Mammy, boys don't cry,being labelled a wuss and nancy boy.

Sexually, again it's all pressure to step up to the plate and be a man. Physically you have the worry about penis-size, stamina, whether your penis will actually rise to the occasion. The emphasis is again on big and hard, massive hard cock, hard abs, rippling muscles. Again the jokes and social expectations feed back to the bloke-ish humour, be selfish, don't worry about the woman's satisfaction or you have the opposite whereby you're told that if she isn't screaming your name like a banshee and clawing your back with passion, then you're a sexual failure.

Again the emphasis, socially, has been for men to be more obvious and nearly brutish about their sexuality. Both women and men are fed the idea that a man is only out for one thing, and that the only thing he notices about a woman are her tits and ass. There's no subtlety allowed for. We're told that if we do have sex with a man, it cheapens us and he's going to be bragging to his mates about how many times "he gave it to her" and how much she wanted it. It's all forceful, no sensitivity allowed.

There are massive generalisations bandied about by both sexes, sure some men are fcukwits only out for one thing but on the flip side you have some horrible women out there too. People need to start recognising and celebrating men (and women) as individuals. Not everyone person is the same, the stereotypes need to go.

There is great strength in being able to express your emotions and to be given the help to deal with the maelstrom that is a person's head. Women have been campaigning for nearly a hundred years to be treated as equal and not to be seen as the weaker sex. I feel that it's time we recognise the pressure is on both sexes and deal with it accordingly.

LF, I think i've completely derailed your thread with my ramblings, apologies.

Not at all Maple, that's exactly the kind of stuff i was hoping for when i started the thread.

Soul Stretcher

Great thread

Sexuality is a vital part of our make-up I believe. A good sex-life enhances your over-all life experience no-end ! (not that I have one at the moment - but I'm ever hopeful ! ha)

I think that the enjoyment of male sexuality is linked to status in Western society. Rory McElroy, Tiger Woods, Brian O'Driscoll (when single !), Roy Keane, Sean Quinn's sons, Ben Dunne when younger, Prince William etc.. I think these guys could have been sleeping with a selection of women at any one time should they have wished.

Women seem to have a genetic/psychological disposition towards men who will be able to support them (e.g. child-birth, rearing kids etc). Successful men have always had an easier time attracting women. And I've noticed if a man is successful with women, then OTHER women find him more attractive - it's like they think "well, he must have something going for him if Miss A, B and C were with him".

Your average working-class unemployed male will have a much harder time accessing the affections of the same number of women.

A lot of "ordinary" men bury their sexuality. Which is a real shame. If a stunning women looked at them "that way" they'd turn around to see who she was looking at.

The fear non-successful men have of their sexuality is like the fear of driving your mother-in-law's brand-new Mercedes - "This is out of my league, I shouldn't be doing this - what happens if I scratch it". Whereas little Donald Trump Jnr or Mr Silver Spoon would see an active sex-life as a birth-right. Which is bull-**** of course - but that is how we are conditioned.

The key to the solution of this problem of neglected male sexuality is to see the non-reality of the problem in the first place. These labels are all concepts or thoughts in our heads. Us men need to just dump our conditioning and follow our feelings and desires in the moment. I think we would all be enjoying ourselves much more if we did. Coz that's what life is. You either enjoy this moment right here right now or you don't. You won't get a second chance at it. All life is is a succession of "now" moments. If we could get out of our inner monologue/conditioning in our heads and into our bodies, I think the world would be a happier place.

Sorry for rambling :pac:

guitarzero

So what should we do then?

Maple

guitarzero wrote: »

So what should we do then?

Men need to stop apologising for having emotions and to learn how to communicate properly about how they are feeling and most importantly feel comfortable doing so. And society has to stop undermining and humiliating a man who does so.

I'm not saying that every single conversation has to be a long and drawn out indepth analysis of how a man is feeling at every single given moment of the day. That would be tedious, irrespective of your sex.

But men need to learn how to stop burying their feelings, and that it's ok to ask someone for some help.

I do accept that men can sometimes be more logical and capable of compartmentalising their feelings and sometimes they actually won't need to discuss a topic indepth, but that if they feel the need to do so they shouldn't not do so for fear of society labelling them as having caught the ghey or telling them to man up.

Women are allowed to be vulnerable, society nearly expects it of them. We need to recognise that men can be vulnerable too.

Mallei

Women are not "afraid" of male sexuality. They are afraid of rape.

When a woman shows wariness towards a man or a situation she is not saying that that particular man will rape her or that the situation will lead to her being raped, but that she is watching out just in case.

It might be unfair (in fact I realise that it is unfair), but there is a desire for male sexuality to be less open, and to be curtailed, because it is male sexuality that tends to affect more people. Yes, women sexually assault men, women rape men, women rape women, but the numbers are not equal. Not even remotely so. 95% of rapes are committed by men and 90% of victims are women. As long as that is the case, society will always be more wary towards male sexuality than female sexuality, and will always perceive any display of it with a touch of caution.

It is true that some women relish male sexuality behind closed doors (what straight female doesn't?), but that doesn't make that woman a hypocrit. She trusts that man, she knows him. She isn't worried about him; worried that he will attack her, will rape her, worried what people will say to blame her when that happens despite the fact that she is the victim. She can enjoy his sexuality, and that doesn't necessarily mean she wants him to play the "big strong man" and do all the work or act like a caveman. It does mean he can express his desires without making her uncomfortable (unless those desires involve farm animals :pac:).

So fellas, we're not attacking your sexuality. We love it! We just don't want it expressed all the time, and in situations where a minority of you might hurt us. It's a real shame that those few spoil it for the rest of us, but as long as they do then you can surely understand our reticence?