she-dernatinus
Fapstronaut
Oh no, not the quotes from personal correspondance. I wonder though which quotes you're refering to. Seriously, meshuga this is how you think of me ?
This is basically what the radfems like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon have been saying all along. It doesn't make sense to me why so many feminists view things like pornography so uncritically. I support much of the sexual revolution and what it was about. But it did open a lot of cans-of-worms that were best left unopened. Such as the pressure a lot of young people- especially women and AFAB folks- feel to measure their worth according to how attractive they are. Or how commodified female and AFAB bodies have become in advertising. It's important to keep the positive aspects of the sexual revolution- more freedom to explore oneself sexually, shifting the paradigm of sexuality from morality to biology, taking away the shame people have felt of sexual things for millenia because of outdated ideas, etc- and leave aside the bad ones.
she-dernatinus
Fapstronaut
For that we should have left monogramy to begin with. Monogamy is a structuration of sexual relationships and the only requirement to prove whether monogamy is still a dominant norm is to ask how having more than one partner at a time would be viewed, if the answer is cheating and damnation then we still are as monogamous as ever. We can't return to something we have never truly abondoned.
I believe reframing the revolution and correcting it is the way to go. And for the matriarchy I believe it's not really needed, it will be effective to be honest but we can still pursue our goals within egalitarianism.
FormerLeatherneck
Fapstronaut
Too bad she doesn’t like Glorious Masculinity, because Masculinity is Glorious! Example: a Man being able to move heavy furniture and appliances by himself up to his upstairs apartment, and he is just one Man!
she-dernatinus
Fapstronaut
Completely agree with most of this !
smh_fam
Fapstronaut
Well the current post-modernist view is something to the effect of "all cultural customs, norms and morals are really just arbitrary forms of oppression that were created by the oppressors for the express purpose of oppressing the oppressed".
Pornography was historically forbidden by those in power, therefore it must actually be a really good thing, and anybody who disagrees is just taking the side of the oppressor because of their culturally instilled misogyny. That's the logic taught by today's western colleges anyway.
D
Deleted Account
Guest
I'm no expert in evolutionary biology or anthropology, but it would seem to me that the consequences of sexual adventurism (without contraceptives being available, which they generally weren't before modern times) are much greater for the female. She is the one who is going to get pregnant and have to face the ordeal of giving birth, not to mention suckle and care for the infant. Obviously males don't face that outcome, so there's an asymmetry, isn't there? The consequences of sexual adventurism are not the same for men and women, through biological necessity - nothing to do with cultural standards (which I think is a point that Louise Perry makes in her book.)
she-dernatinus
Fapstronaut
These conditions are universal and it didn't stop women in matriarchal societies from engaging in serial monogamies, and it also didn't stop the emergence of polyandries in some cases (because even polyandry existed when the circumstances where favourable enough to allow it). In these societies women are more adventurous, at least in comparison to how women in our societies where before contraception became widely available.
My point is that Perry should have made some anthropological research before drawing the conclusion that these behaviours are the sole result of biological differences instead of cultural standards.
she-dernatinus
Fapstronaut
Those consequences you mentioned are only relevant within a patriarchal and patrilineal context. Under those historical circumstances women didn't have much opportunities when it came to financial autonomy, property rights, political participation…etc. So it only made sense that their best bet was to rely on a man who can afford her needs as she can't rely on her father to do so for her whole life, knowing these conditions it's only expected that women will accept polygamy as they won't have any other option.
Women developping hypergamous tendencies was a byproduct of their social circumstances and gender roles they found themselves restricted into, as opposed to this behaviour being dictated by 'female instinct' which is the manosphere's main talking point. When women massively entered the work force, gained ownership rights, and access to political participation their mate selection criteria started to shift to being less and less materialistic
Logically speaking, most societies that allowed polygamies (including mine) didn't experience the emergence of violent, angry, murderous incels who take 'revenge' on society for 'letting them down'. That's because while polygamy was allowed, it didn't mean that rich men where going to end with a number of women important enough to generate a systemic problem and leave the majority of the male population with minimal opportunities for finding mates.
That's for a multitude of reasons. One of them being that in order to have a harem, the man in question needed to be from the higher classes of society. Usually a ruler whose most selected partners, including concubines, come from upper class families and/or are attractive enough to grap his attention. Nonetheless, it's not because the man could afford having a harem that any random woman will interest him, or that he would end up astronomically minimizing other men's chances to find mates. Unless of course he, as well as most rich men, had astronomically high numbers of partners.
Aside from rulers, wealthy men will often follow similar patterns while being polygamous; their partners will usually be from the same social class as them or be highly attractive, and on top of that these men would be contrained finanacially by the duty to equally provide their partners' requirements. This meant that most wealthy men will end up with a very restricted number of women. Add to this the small number of wealthy men in comparison to middle class and poor men, the female population being (for the most part of history) slightly higher in comparison to the male population, and how some cultures explicitly restrict the number of partners polygamous men are allowed to have (4 in the islamic religion). And you get the result that polygamy on it's own won't automatically result in a substantial 'shortage' of female partners and leave majority of men forced into celibacy.
If monogamy was adopted, it was because polygamy was an inherently problematic arrangement, but not problematic in the sense that it left sgnificant numbers of men without partners but more in the sense of resulting in highly toxic and conflicted households where the interests of its members are consistently at odds. I live in a society where polygamy was practiced (and it still is but in a much more small percentage) and I know for a fact that if polygamy can be called problematic it's for these reasons and not the reasons you stated.
Last edited:
she-dernatinus
Fapstronaut
Concerning the sexually frustrated men who turn violent as a 'result' of said frustration, here's a fact worth mentioning: sexual frustration on its own doesn't guarantee that the individual experiencing it will turn resentful, violent or murderous. It's more related to the way the individual processes his feelings of frustration and the kind of mechanism he adopts to overcome them. If the individual deeply believes society 'owes' him a partner and feels entiteled to this mindset, any instance where his expectations aren't fulfilled will trigger disapointment, then anger and possibly even violence.
The emergence of incels can easily be explained by these evident factors, which are also a byproduct of the way culture shapes masculinity and codifies male sexuality and male sexual experiences as accomplishment and personal elevation. Something the vast majority of men internalised to varying degrees while growing. Knowing this, it's only natural to expect many men equating the 'inability' to reach such 'achievements' with a shameful personal shortcoming and a 'stain' on their 'masculine' worth.
This vision only becomes magnified and more pronounced in the particular case of online spaces and echo-chambers encompassing like-minded individuals, probably struggling with similar issues and who won't understand the full nuance and complexity of socio-cultural issues enough to pinpoint the origin of their problem. What will happen instead is that they will focus on their feelings of disapointment, anger and violated masculine self-worth, which will lead to exacerbating hate and anger until they finally reach the stage where they'll strongly feel the need to exteriorize these emotions.
Meshuga
Fapstronaut
If you really want to follow this line of inquiry, we can in a different space. This thread is about Perry’s book, and the Sexual Revolution, so reputations of sundry people and groups isn’t on topic. If the question is rhetorical, though, if you already know your answer and think you understand me better than I do, I won’t waste either of our time.
My question was
I understand “this problem” could have referred to rape, but that follow up sentence clarified I’m talking about the Sexual Revolution. The problem of rape is a separate issue, though I recognize it was Perry who drew that connection.
That sounds like personal work to me. It also sounds like you are making assumptions. The solution I thought feminists might have for advancing the Revolution was to place more women in charge of depicting female sexuality in popular media. That way, women can portray themselves as they prefer. However, women have portrayed female sexuality in power dynamics some consider to be unhealthy. This proposal suggests the single ethic of consent, like Perry says, isn’t sufficient.
I am assuming the ethic you support is implied in your statement. To correct the Sexual Revolution, we have to cut out misogyny and unhealthy power dynamics. Who decides what is misogynistic, or unhealthy? It obviously can’t be men, it can’t be the women who have internalized misogyny and like unhealthy power dynamics. Who is qualified to tell us what is good sexual expression, and what is bad?
Then there is the piece of “acknowledging that women are just as visual as men.” Why does this matter?
she-dernatinus
Fapstronaut
Both your questions can be answered this way: it all boils down to the impact on one's place in society, relationship dynamics between sexes, and overt or covert connotations associated with your overall gender. These are recurring criteria used to frame the underlying significations and potential degree of hostility any form of sexual expression might induce.
It does matter, because part of the reasons women are still sexually objectified by the media is the persistent (albeit wrong) belief that women aren't visual. There would be no effective reform regarding sexual expressions in the media as long as this idea isn't challenged, and shown to be inconsistent with scientific findings.
This idea fuels a lot of apologism for sex offenders, so of course challenging it will put back the discussions related to these issues on their rightous tracks. It will no longer be about an individual with an 'inherent', 'strong' urge that was unable to resist overwhelming temptation but about two individuals with similar instincts and sexual demeanors where one's entitlement to the other's body is what really drove them to act. When you codify any act as the result of an 'irresistible' urge, it becomes already half-way excused.
Last edited:
she-dernatinus
Fapstronaut
I am really curious as to what led you to this conclusion.
Meshuga
Fapstronaut
Because it’s off topic.
I didn’t ask how, I asked who. Who decides what sexual expressions are appropriate?
It wasn’t a rhetorical, Hilary Clinton “Why does it matter?,” it was a good faith, “I don’t intuitively understand why that matters, so could you please explain?”
Women aren’t objectified in media because we believe they aren’t visually motivated. They’re objectified because we believe men are. Under the auspices of the Sexual Revolution as it is currently promoted by the majority, the guiding concept is “more sex is better” and the only restriction is consent, age, and for some, power imbalance. If we acknowledge women are visually motivated, the only difference we’ll see in media is more beefcake which, if you notice, we do have. About 30% of box office sales for “Thor: Love & Thunder” were due to Chris Hemsworth’s sculpted ass cheeks. In 1995 there was a film about female strippers called “Showgirls,” and it bombed. In 2012 there was a film about male strippers called “Magic Mike.” It was a blockbuster. I think media has caught on that women are visually motivated.
Similarly, women being visual has no impact on the legal side. The complaints you have refer to the belief that men are visually motivated, it has nothing to do with women.
she-dernatinus
Fapstronaut
I think I explained why I think it's important and how it can impact the public discourse. Just read my answer again please. It's like you are asking me to re-explain what I already explained.
The apologism I was referring to is more related to how sex offenses might be interpreted by the general public, and the messages that are going to be popularized as a result.
Last edited:
she-dernatinus
Fapstronaut
Meshuga, please think before answering. Knowing how is always the initial step, knowing who is determined by knowing how.
I agree that the media caught up with this, but the public discourse didn't shift much regarding this subject and the idea that men are the 'visual' ones remains the most popular.
It's not because the media started to notice how women are also visual, that this fact is already accepted by the public opinion. This sort of thing doesn't happen overnight or when a form of media decides to use unorthodox themes and finds them to be successful.
Last edited:
Meshuga
Fapstronaut
For the third time, who do you think is responsible for setting sexual ethics?
she-dernatinus
Fapstronaut
For the third time, it's knowing how that truly matters. Each side can provide their the arguments based on the former guidelines, after that it will depend on who's more consisitent.
onceaking
Fapstronaut
I'm confused as to why you're quoting my signature here.