This comment thread is the “No Hostility” thread. Please read this and this for the ground rules. The “Regular Parallel” thread can be found here.
This started out as a reply to a comment by Blobby, but got longer and more rambling. I’ve also talked about some stuff that I’ve not been able to, until now. So I thought I’d better turn it into a post. Blobby (“quoting Newbreed”):
“The way I see feminist rhetorics, men always have themselves to blame when women reject them … the attitude is that dateless men are supposed to blame only themselves, and figure out how it works on their own, and solve it on their own. From this I conclude that feminists take a neo liberal stance on dating.”
What’s wrong with “feminism isn’t a dating service”? That’s completely true.
Nor is Liberalism an employment service. Nevertheless leftists generally take the view that society ought to do something to help the unemployed.
One person rejecting another rarely has anything to do with politics. Would it make sense to you if women & girls blamed masculism (or socialism, or capitalism) if they’re rejected sexually?
Dateless men don’t have to “blame” anyone. Why is there any need for blame? This sounds like something that should be explored with a good psychotherapist (and that’s not an insult, psychotherapy can be very helpful & doesn’t mean a person is abnormal or wrong in any way.
There’s a good chance that I’ve had more psychotherapy than everyone else here put together1. It was helpful in certain areas. It was harmful in others. But none of it helped me with this issue. Mainly because I never raised it with my therapists, nor any of them with me.
Why didn’t I raise it, despite it being a core issue for me? Because I was so ashamed. Ashamed of my inability to form intimate relationships with women. Ashamed of being a virgin. Ashamed of having sexual desires at all.
So why was I unable to form such relationships? And why did I feel so ashamed? The answer to the first question has both individual and social components. As an individual, I am an Aspie, with all the social functional deficits associated with the condition. Socially, as a child I was abandoned to the bullying such deficits inevitably attract, by almost all of the adults responsible for my protection, and suffered (and continue to suffer) the functional sequelae of that abuse. The social deficits themselves were never addressed, nor as far as I’m aware, even recognised as such.
I learned, pretty early in my adolescence, that any expression of sexuality on my part would be unwelcome, (Perhaps because I was expressing it in a socially unacceptable way, more likely because I was a socially unacceptable person expressing sexuality in any way), and so I internalised the idea that I could never express my sexuality at all, which was “problem solved”, as far as everyone else was concerned.
Is it really surprising then that I should feel ashamed of having sexual needs and feelings when every social message that I had ever received was that my desires were unacceptable and that my needs were invalid?
You’ve raised a very personal, sensitive & complex matter, one that anyone is unlikely to find any solution to in an anonymous internet discussion with people who are both unaccountable and – most likely – untrained).
I profoundly disagree. I’m now 46 old. Since hitting rock-bottom in my mid-twenties, my mental health has improved an enormous amount, though I am still a long way from achieving anything remotely resembling normal functionality, and doubt I ever will. Four things have contributed to this improvement.
First, and least, was all that psychotherapy aged 25. It was a mixed blessing. The incompetent way it was ended resulted in severe but relatively short-term trauma (i.e., it resulted in years of suffering, but not decades.) The benefit of the therapy seems less significant to me now than it did then, but it has have a long-term positive effect. Moreover that effect was of the enabling kind. It enabled better things to happen to me later. It was definitely the turning of the corner for me.
Second chronologically, third in importance, came at the age of about 30, when I first learned about Asperger’s syndrome. Suddenly things started to make sense. Suddenly I had an explanation for everything I had experienced, which, until then, had seemed like the whole world was a vast conspiracy against me.
Third, and most important, was actually achieving a sexual relationship for the first time at age 32. It took weeks before I was able to get and keep an erection, months before I could orgasm with her in the same room, and two years of desperate, frantic fucking, before I could come that way. For the first time In my life, I felt complete. For the first time in my life, I felt release from that desperate urge. For the first time, my need had been met.
Fourth chronologically and second most important: The writings of an unaccountable untrained anonymous2 person on the internet. He’s no longer anonymous to me. Most of you know him as “Hugh Ristik”.
Hugh’s writings have done for me, in respect of relationships and dating, what learning about Asperger’s Sydrome did in a more general context. He’s enabled me to understand my own experiences and observations. His are the only explanations of how dating dynamics play out that actually match my experiences and observations of the real world. I can’t begin to express what a relief it is, to be able to make sense of it all.
So where does Feminism come into this? It’s been a source of some good ideas, and of many that aren’t. One good idea is the recognition that shame at being a virgin is a consequence of the gender norm that a man has to have sex with a woman in order to be a man. Yes it is, and that was the source of some of my shame and pain.
But it was not the sole, nor even the primary source of these feelings. The shame, and some of the pain came, as I said above, from the social rejection and invalidation of my sexual desires and needs. A lot of the pain came simply from the fact that those needs went unmet.
There are an awful lot of people on the net who are describing similar experiences to mine. Overwhelmingly they are male. Women frequently talk about the difficulties they have in finding suitable partners, but rarely, if ever, have I heard a woman say that she reached the age of thirty or forty without ever having the opportunity to have any partners at all. Additional evidence that this is basically a male problem can be seen in the existence of several industries that cater to (or exploit) different elements of the problem and which are overwhelmingly targeted at men. Pornography and prostitution, phone sex and services that offer a “party on the phone” and the like (which is a clear pitch toward a more general social deficit, rather than a merely sexual one). And of course, commercial PUA teaching.
Why this overwhelming gender disparity? Is it because men are inherently more likely to suffer the kinds of social deficits that lead to this kind of deprivation? There may be an element of that. More men than women are diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome. But the ratio is not huge, so I don’t think this can be the whole answer.
Instead I would argue for the existence of a female privilege. Included within women’s invisible knapsack of provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, etc., are some that make it much easier for them to form intimate relationships. (Describing these social dynamics in detail would be a digression to far for this post)
So yeah. Privilege. That’s another good idea from feminism, as is the associated idea that privileged people can’t see their own privilege. If only they weren’t so damn resistant to applying this insight to themselves!
So that’s the good from feminism. What about the bad? In my experience of trying to talk with feminists about the social dynamics that operate against men, and about the hurt this causes, and of seeing others talk about this, the response from feminists is overwhelmingly to dismiss the speaker as a Nice Guy(TM) who is expressing sexual entitlement. Please read those two posts. They quote extensively from real discussions with real feminists. And they’re not just extreme feminists. These are the kinds of feminist you will meet on just about any feminist forum.
When feminists say that asserting my unmet needs is an expression of entitlement, that is another way of saying that they are invalid. Exactly the same toxic message that caused the damage in the first place.
This is why statements like “My idea(l) of feminism is that it was supposed to be something that would liberate men as well” are met with such a negative response. We’ve heard it all before, often from feminists who, in the very next sentence, reproduce the same social dynamics that oppressed us in the first place.
I’m not saying that Blobby is like this, nor am I saying that she is reponsible for the words and deeds of other feminists. My goal here is to help her understand why she sees what she sees in the comments here, and why she sees what see she sees on antifeminist and MRA blogs, where it is usually expressed with more overt anger and less logical coherency and factual fidelity. What many of us here, and many of them have in common is that we have been hurt by feminism. Not by her idea(l) of feminism, but by feminism as it really is.
Great post, Daran. I admire your courage in writing about the areas of your life that I assume feel painful and vulnerable to you.
What I see from feminists regarding men with relationship difficulties is often no different than what I see from non-feminist women or even men, which is strange given that they are supposed to be more sensitive to gender issues, a fact they are proud of. Basically, the consensus is that, if men have relationship difficulties, it is because their personality sucks, that they are uncaring people who are just awful to be around.
I have seen feminists give advice to lonely men who haven’t ever had relationships to spend more time with friends and families to polish their personality. The assumption, again, is that if men are alone it’s because, on a deep level, they deserve to be. Other advices I’ve seen is to “stop trying to get the supermodels” or to “treat women as human beings”, assuming that any heterosexual man who doesn’t have a girlfriend is guilty of ignoring average women for supermodels and of being a jerk to women everywhere.
The assumptions are because of the fact that society tends to judge men’s worth by their success with women. It leads also to virgin-shaming, because if you judge a man’s worth by their relationships, one who has had none must be a really defective human being, right?
As to feminism’s dating advice, actually they do exist… but they are all “don’t”s. “If you have any doubt that a woman is interested in you, she’s not, don’t talk to her”, “Don’t express interest to a woman unless you are attracted by their personality” (how are you supposed to know a woman’s personality unless you first express interest to her and get to know her?). All of these advices exist mainly to reduce the possibility of uncomfortable situations to women and care not at all about the effects on men.
Ironically, following all those advices would make men act like the traditional woman in dating, being essentially passive and waiting for other people to give them strong signals of interest and attention before doing anything. What’s worse is that the fact is that it only makes men who listen to gender issues and feminists less likely to succeed in relationships, thus leading women to have a worse pool of suitors. The jerks who are just looking for a piece of ass don’t give a damn about feminists, so they’re still out in the game being as obnoxious as ever while the guys who care are encouraged to adopt tactics that do not work and are told not to put themselves out there. Feminist “advices” thus reinforce and compound social problems of men who are by nature or nurture already shy and passive.
Might I point out though that feminism is much more receptive to lonely women because of social norms. Why do you think body image issues are so important in feminist discourse and why they put so much effort in blasting publicly social norms of beauty? Exactly. Because many women are lonely and feel they are lonely because they don’t conform to norms of beauty. Feminists took up the fight for them, or sometimes are them. These women are the equivalent of the men who are lonely because they are shy and it doesn’t fit with the role society assigns to males. In fact, the answer to lonely men that they should try meeting more average women can instead be seen as a way to reorient the debate to women’s problems instead of men’s, from “some men are lonely, why is that” to “some women are lonely because beauty standards are too high and strict”.
“Women frequently talk about the difficulties they have in finding suitable partners, ”
..and in the ensuing discussions realtionships are privileged over casual sex. And relationships are privelged over sex for its own sake as a relic of the patriarchal cultural conditioning feminist get along with everyone else. The problem is that so few interrogate that enculturation that it has become part of modern femionism, and wehen you point this out to younger feminsits they often launch into all kinds of evasive maneuvers – oh, a man trying to define feminism? No, honey, a man trying to get you to define it, to define your terms and then stick by them.
Modern feminism has become prettynthoroughly crypto-patriarchal. Its victimology, sex negativism (however much these feminst aver that they are sex positive, it take only about two or three exchanges before the monkey shows its tail), demionization of anything makle – it is all thoroughly Victorian, and older than that, since Victorianism was a conscious revival of vary old chivalric norms.
Feminism has become a revoution betrayed. Daisy Deadhead wrote a pretty blunt and very harsh post on how modern feminists have sold out to the State, to Daddy. It was in connection with the assange kerfuffle but it goes much deeoper than that. she is dead on the money. Since I don’t know the state of platy between this blog and hers, I won’t link, but you might want to go look at the post.
There is a real divide between feminists over this, with the non-crypto-patriarchalists in the tiny minority, and this may also be part of the divide between feminists and womanists, as Daisy alludes to. She points out that for all the [Victorian damsel in distress] talk of oppression, *privileged * young white women are really quite comfortable with patriarchal power structures, having so little experience of the actual oppression those structures employ to privilege these women, so when they meet with opposition or reverses they reflexively turn to this power for protection and reinforcement.
On a personal note Daran, your reference to the healing you found in coming to understand Asperger’s really resonated with me. For me it was finding out about ADHD in my 40′s, and only because I was doing a course to becoem a teacher. I had some really bad experiences in school in elementary school due to stupid teachers, and it’s been a problem as at chronic low level all my life. I could be angry with these people for their ignorance, for catering to the more bovine, docile, manageable kids, but that’s self-defeating and they may really have been doing their best anyway. However, I now have now tolerance for people’s superstions around this these days. tehy have no excuse. Calling ADD people undisciplined is as ignorant as calling kids evil for writing with their left hands – it’s primitive and superstitious and ignorant. But learning what the real situation was was hugely helpful for me.
Daran: “I am an Aspie, with all the social functional deficits associated with the condition. Socially, as a child I was abandoned to the bullying such deficits inevitably attract, by almost all of the adults responsible for my protection, and suffered (and continue to suffer) the functional sequelae of that abuse. The social deficits themselves were never addressed, nor as far as I’m aware, even recognised as such.”
Do you really want to look at them as social deficits, Daran? I ask this because, as an autistic person myself, the only problem I have with being social is misinterpretation of my intentions even when I play the part of whatever “Normal” is these days. Mostly due to how much soul searching I’ve done with other autistic people older than me, who have been supported in how they think and process information. I’ve decided that what is categorized as deficits is identical to what “Normal” people have when inexperienced in social situations. Yet, for some reason, autistic people are suddenly lavished with higher standards of conduct. When they display awkwardness, it’s immediatly seen as some affliction the person has when in reality, they process information differently and are trying their best with what they’ve been given as support in their personal structures. Worse is, in your personal support structure, if even your parents or loved ones can’t figure it out then of course you’re going to be left with no other option but to label it a deficit.
Just thought I’d throw in a little food for thought. Plus, I myself work with autistic people and children on a regular basis.
Just a metalhead: Don’t forget another common piece of advice. “Be yourself”. About as vague and worthless as the other ones you site.
Anecdote about people that are considered non-functional autistics (can’t dress self, make food etc live alone).
A professor in Quebec province who is autistic herself, has done a study showing that autistic people are not necessarily less intelligent, even in standardized IQ tests (which are not exactly measuring intelligence, but are often seen as such by schools and laymen).
Raven’s Matrix being used showed that autistic people got even better results on average than non-autistic controls. They finished the test faster too, like they didn’t need as much (or any) reflection to answer.
Raven’s Matrix is more pure-logic oriented and less linguistic oriented. And while I’m okay with language enough to function as an aspie who’s a stickler for grammatical convention (I don’t tolerate myself or others falling into shorthand internet-speak out of lazyness), I still don’t get stuff like anagrams and word puzzles (like the one in the Simpsons where Lisa meets super-intelligent-wealthy-family-girl) the way I immediately ‘get’ Sudoku puzzles.
My IQ is “estimated” at around 130, but if I was to divide it into logic and language, I’d have 150 logic and 110 language probably. If our society was more literary enclined, my language IQ would simply be average – analyzing everything gives me an edge it seems.
“Do you really want to look at them as social deficits, Daran?”
Yeah, no shit. Obviously you certainly did experience them as deficits; they even resulted in physical violence. But what i would gove sometimes to be unaware of people. Says the ADHD guy looking over the fence at the grass the Aspie guy is on.
Hey Daran,
Where are HughRistik’s writings that have helped you the most? Are they still online? Not that I (still) need similar help, it’s just I enjoy reading his writings.
Metalhead, nice expose of feminist hypocrisy….
I knew a girl with aspergers once. I really liked her. She was easy to talk to, honest and didn’t play games.
Yes^4 on everything you said Metalhead except for the last paragraph. I am a feminist, but I am also a queer woman who has had less dating success with feminine women than my peers. When I try to talk about the privilege that women have in dating and why traditional dating advice isn’t helpful, my queer female friends and feminist friends immediately reject the discussion. I only recently came to the realization that most of the feminist dating advice directed at men is indeed meant to help women avoid awkward (not necessarily dangerous) situations. They are trying to design a dating dance where the women being approached have all of the benefits and privileges.
And yes to you too Jim; sex positive female feminists are very comfortable with the idea of women having casual sex with highly desirable partners, but most of the straight and queer ones don’t want to support (a majority of) men who are seeking casual sex with women. Does not compute! This is particularly true if the men specify that they are looking for certain traits (Just find sexual partners who don’t fit into conventional beauty standards. Stop being picky!). It’s a reverse of the complaints about women ignoring men who are perfectly average with stable and mild personalities. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a feminist called out on this in feminist groups.
And I support you Daran. I am very happy for your journey and that you were able to have your sexual needs met; everyone deserves to consistently have that. I too was shocked to see a statement that said something like “teaching men to successfully interact with women is not the goal of feminism” on a feminist blog post on violence against women and the PUA community. “Patriarchy hurts men too.” Gender equality and equity anyone? I hope the feminist community gets its butt turned around on these issues quickly.
I look forward to more discussion about these issues.
Daran said:
I’m very happy that I was able to bring about this result. Isn’t it amazing how much certain difficulties can be helped just by having a plausible explanation for what the hell is going on?
Like AnlamK, I’d be curious to know which of my writings were helpful.
I will also note that many men without Asperger’s encounter similar difficulties that Daran has, if not in the same degree.
Let’s not forget the obvious comment that feminists usually affix to these kinds of discussions. ‘What about the menz?’. I wonder if this would be accepted labeling in any other situation. Homosexuals having trouble in the world? Well, ‘what about the fagz’? And no, I don’t condone any kind of discrimination on homosexuals. But when it seems it’s even a major problem for feminists that fundamentalist christian dating sites don’t cater to homo- and bisexual (women), then this only shows the double standard of the ‘everyone fend for themselves’ attitude that is supposed to rule the meat market.
Hugh Ristik:
Gosh, that is so true.
This one in particular, which resonates so much with my own experience. Other than that, I don’t have a particular post or comment in mind. It’s generally your description of the process as it goes wrong for nice guys, and in general terms, how to do it differently.
AnlamK:
Welcome to our blog, AnlamK. Hugh’s postings to this blog can be found here. Obviously he’s blogged about many things, so our categories on Relationships and Dating and the Seduction Community may also be helpful. There is also a Seduction Community Portal.
Many of Hugh’s comments on other blogs have been helpful.
Welcome to our blog, Guestina, and thank you for your kind remarks. I would be very interested to know about your lack of dating success, in particular, what were the causes, and how did it affect you?
Guestina, thanks for your comment. I just wanted to point iout that in all this miasma there is a debate going on among feminists, and thanks for pointing out how that debate is….. unfinished….. with repsect to applying all its implications eqaully across gender lines.
And you touch on something else. You would think that a movement that so celberated queer women – “feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice” – would show them a little more respect in their actual lives. Maybe that was all just straight womnen aiming one at straight men, not the first time they have appropriated someone else’s pain for their own purposes, but maybe this is just the solipsism that comes from seeing the personal as political, and not some evil thing. a necessary step in the development of the movement and of the person.
Qgrrl ran into this on Feminste on a thread devoted to SSM. She told about specific leagl disabilities sh and her partner suffered under, and for her trouble she was treated to a bunch of high-minded sanctimonious cant about how SSM ignored the needs of trans people. Nothing but ego-falttering moral exhibitionism.
But when the commentariate on Feministe gets something right, they are unstoppable.
Hi Jim,
There has always been hetero-normativity in feminism. Feminism rocks because it was able to examine itself and create a term for that privilege. It took me a second to realize that SSM meant same-sex marriage. I don’t know the context of that argument on Feminste, but I know that the feminist same-sex marriage debate is a whole other hot mess. There’s a queer women’s movie called Itty Bitty Titty Committee and this group of women go out and do a counter-protest of a protest for same-sex marriage. An IBTC member uses a loudspeaker to ask why the LGB(T?) community wishes to take part in a fundamentalist and oppressive patriarchal structure. The next scene in the movie shows the IBTC watching a news clip with the blurb “Radical feminists protest against gay rights.”
I can guess that the context of the debate on Feminste was something like “How can you want marriage benefits when trans people are still such a vulnerable community?”
There’s also A LOT of feminist criticism of the sexist culture of lesbian butch-femme relationships and how butch lesbians don’t respect feminine women. *Rolls eyes* Whole. Other. Story… with amazing parallels to heterosexual dating. Spoiler alert: the butches who are most desirable and successful with women are equivalent to “jerks” and may even call themselves players.
Daran,
The causes of my lack of dating success are difficult to pinpoint. For the record, I know that it is wrong to blame women for not wanting the same things that I do/did. In other words, I don’t blame potential female partners. Until I was 22 (about two years ago) I did not understand the strong, linear and positive correlation between understanding social norms and dating success. I thought I could get by on other things that society supposedly values. It’s actually kind of funny to think about, but conventional dating advice leaves out so many of the important social norms and focuses on many aspects that actually have nothing to do with dating success. The authors (sometimes friends and family) either thought that the most important social norms were the most obvious, or the authors don’t mention that doing X in way Y leads to Z. People do X and don’t understand why Z didn’t happen. The previous two sentences often get the “Women aren’t codes you need to break in order to get sex!” comment. I’m so tired of those posts on feminist blogs.
The strange thing is that it’s hard to list anything other than ignorance of social norms. I want to say that I’m different (odd, don’t mind keeping to myself, queer) but there are odd, introverted AND/or queer people who have lots of success in dating. Not understand social norms could have caused me to be seen as odd and may have caused me to be alright with entertaining myself. The one thing I’d say is that internalized homophobia may compound my difficulties. I suspect that in addition to having trouble approaching women who are probably queer, I’m having trouble approaching women in non-queer spaces because of a belief that it’s somehow an insult to see if a “straight looking” woman might be interested in other women.
How did it affect me? Saying that I have less dating success than my peers sums it up pretty well and this post is already long. I’m still fighting the feeling that I’ll just have to wait until I’m older and women in my age range are more interested in what I have to offer. I also realized the only way I could have the success I wanted would be to start challenging conventional and feminist ideas about dating. For example, I now accept that I have to approach women and lead the conversation. The expectation that men will make the approach and control the interaction is extremely sexist; women are passive in this dance. It’s anti-feminist and women frequently complain about creepy guys approaching them. But approaching and accepting that I’m going to have to do all of the work to make them attracted to me is the only way to increase my dating options.
Guestina – that business about the counter-demonstrations is so reminiscent of the crap Andrew Sulivan and others ran into almost 20 years ago when they first started arguing for legal SSM. a lot of people had high personal stakes in remaining outsiders – some kind of identity thing – and fought the SSMers tooth and nail.
Your observations of the sexist privilege in dating absolutely echoes posts here going back for several years.
I personally don’t have a problem with people being heteronormative; for me it’s about like English speakers being Anglonormative or whatever, and we do have to realize that we are a small minority among them. My own homophobia held me back from coming out until late, but then I blew the doors off the hinges. That’s toxic heteronormativity. There’s a difference.
@Daran…
This piece and the discussion it’s created is excellent.
I’m just sitting back enjoying. I reckon I’ve learned more from this one than any previously in this place.
Could somebody please pass the potato chips?
“Could somebody please pass the potato chips?”
Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!!!!!!!! Not you people too! You call them “potato chips” and not “crisps”? Is there NOWHERE beyond our reach?
They’re crisps in the UK. Chips are what is served alongside fish.
Guestina:
I basically agree with this substantively. I’d struggle to say that “feminism rocks”, though, because of their completely lack of self-examination when it comes to female privilege.
This is news to me. I’m aware that marriage has been criticised as a patriarchal institution, but my experience is that feminists more or less unanimously support same-sex marriage, as do at least two of the three bloggers here. (I don’t recall if Hugh has expressed a view on the matter. On the other hand, I don’t pay as much attention to Radical Feminism as I do to the mainstream, so perhaps I’ve missed this undercurrent.
If we had a link, we wouldn’t have to guess.
This is really interesting. I knew none of this, neither the dynamics of lesbian relationships nor the feminist critique.
You shouldn’t have to say that. It shouldn’t be the default assumption that anyone unsuccessful in dating women must blame them. And it isn’t the default assumption here.
My conceptual model is that people who have high levels of dating success exhibit a constellation of traits and behaviours which most members of the potential partner class find attractive, while unsuccessful people exhibit a constellation of unattractive traits.
I totally agree with you about the uselessness of conventional dating advice.
Yes, I’ve also noticed the tendency of feminists frame the position of dating-unsuccessful men as just trying to get sex. To be sure, many men frame it that way themselves, but it’s an annoying straw man for those of us who don’t.
And yes, women can be codes, even in contexts where the possibility of sex is out of the question. For example, sometimes in conversation, a woman will deliberately touch me, on the arm or on the leg. I get that this is a sign of approval, but beyond that, it may as well be a masonic handshake. Am I supposed to respond in some way, and if so, how?
Here are my thoughts. Are you fem or butch? Or do you feel that neither paradigm fits? Is your preferred partner type fem or butch, both or neither?
When you say “there are odd, introverted AND/or queer people who have lots of success in dating”, does that observation apply to the kinds of relationship you want? For example, if you’re a butch who would like to partner a fem, do you see odd introverted and/or queer butches who have lots of success in dating fems?
An analogous situation for me would be to try to attribute my lack of success to being “nice”. Except there are plenty of nice men who are successful.
“Nice” is not a single trait, but a group of characteristics. The same is true of “odd introverted and/or queer”. There must be a difference between what you’re doing, and what successful “odd introverted and/or queer” do. You need to figure out what that is.
I’ve never made a romantic approach to a woman in my life. Every women, except the first I’ve ever had a relationship with has initiated the contact.
Has it had no effect on your state of mind?
Also how much is “less dating sucess”. When I was your age I was in a relationship. It started when I was 21 and was my first. She was a porcelain goddess who wanted to be worshiped, and I gave her that. Sex was out of the question, I was not even allowed to desire her sexually. Odd (or perhaps not) that the woman I ended up with was such a perfect match for the internalised misandry I described in my post:
My second ever relationship came at age 28 when I was asked out by a nineteen-year-old woman. I treated her the same way. I yearned for her, but the possibility that she might welcome interest from me never entered my head. We drifted apart after some months, without so much as a move from me.
I have never been able to shake off that internalised misandry.
And what if they don’t? All you will have is wasted years.
The sentence beginning “The expectation that men…” makes no sense in context, unless you are identifying as a “man”, or at least that you see your position as analogous to men’s. Am I right?
“Approaching” can increase your dating options whether you are (analogous to) a “man” or a “woman”. I also comes at considerable cost. Which is why passivity is a viable strategy for those able to attract sufficiently many approaches.
“do all of the work to make them attracted to me”. Well, to be fair, if you’re attracted to them, its probably because they’ve done some work of their own. Your problem (again assuming that your position is analogous to “men”) is not so much that it’s “work”. The problem is you probably don’t really know what to do. There is next to no useful information in the mainstream on how to be attractive to women.
Depending upon how close you think the analogy is between your position and het men’s, (and if you can stomach the endemic misogyny) you might consider looking to the Seduction Community for practical advice.
“If we had a link, we wouldn’t have to guess.”
This is the one I was referring to:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/a.....losophers/
That’s a very interesting thread. Thanks.
I think it’s a good example of what people mean when they say that feminists have serious disagreements with each other. But that thread is an example of how some of the problematic foundational tenets of feminism don’t get debated. Dogmatically condemning marriage as patriarchal doesn’t do much to expose it as patriarchal, and doesn’t do much to examine the sexism of this or that form of marriage, and does nothing to address various feminists’ own sexist formulations as they relate to marriage.
Daran,
I wish I could re-post what you said every time there’s a feminist discussion of nice guys seeking help in the seduction community.
Deliberate touching on the arm and leg? My default is to ignore ambiguous (to me) gestures. It’s tough to override that default.
I identify as butch. I’m usually read as a lesbian, but not as butch. I only date feminine people. I often identify with mainstream male audiences because I’m in a subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup and finding certain types of advice that target men is easier than finding advice that targets butch lesbians. It’s also easier to type “men” instead of “people who are attracted to women”. Since I’m a subgroup^3 I can’t quickly point to someone like me who has had more dating success. In fact, I probably won’t see them because I don’t like the queer women’s bar and club scene. My definition of success in dating would mean opting out clubs. I attend clubs; they probably have partners and aren’t at clubs. So I don’t have evidence that people like me are being successful in the dating scene. I do like your advice about emulating the people who are successful.
How has having less dating success affected my state of mind? It varies from day to day. I wish I spent less time worrying about it, but it couldn’t cause depression because there are too many other things going on in my life. There’s a spiral of declining self-worth that might accompany being unhappy about being single for a long time, but I don’t think the spiral has eaten my soul completely.
How much is less dating success? I’ve known I was attracted to women for about 10 years and I’ve gone out on dates with fewer than three dozen women. I’ve had one girlfriend for about six months. And I’ve gone out with four or five women for more than a month. Queer female friends who are close to my age (my peers) laugh at the number of sexual partners I’ve had. I grin and don’t let them know how much it bothers me.
The next section of your response made me wonder if you ever decided to try to approach more strangers, do things to get more women to approach you or get more female friends to see you as someone they’d like to go out on a date with?
The line about them doing work to get me to notice them is a good point. I subscribe to a few newsletters designed for heterosexual men looking to date more women. They help me develop new strategies and goals. It helps to get in the habit of automatically making the advice gender neutral.
On feminists against same-sex marriage:
I agree with their views, but don’t think people who call themselves feminists should be going out and rallying against SSM. Government recognition of marriage in the U.S.A. is problematic because it gives people in couples priorities and privileges over single people. People in the feminist community get uneasy when they see queer people with partners striving for status over people without partners. But the point is to give more people rights. Us single people will just have to wait our turns
. Anyway, how cool is it that feminists are having this conversation about marriage benefits? I love it; I love feminism. The large number of men turning to the seduction community for answers about dating has not been adequately addressed by mainstream feminism YET. I forgot to mention that there is a popular feminist book called “Yes Means Yes”. There’s a chapter called “Why Nice Guys Finish Last” in which Julia Serano writes about her college experience. She is a trans woman who was living as a heterosexual man at the time. There’s a part where she describes comforting a female friend who asks “Why aren’t there any men who (insert “nice” characteristic)?” Serano would then point out a man in their common group of friends and the female friend would say “I don’t think of him in a romantic way.” Serano also talks about one guy getting fed up with his lack of success and having a complete personality change. She attributes it to the simple fact that he was a young heterosexual man interested in attracting heterosexual females. Here are a couple of links to discussions about the chapter:
http://www.amplifyyourvoice.or.....Girl-to-Do
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/0.....means-yes/ (search “Serano” to find the review)
Yeah; feminists mostly hate it. Other Serano stuff I’ve come across is about the exclusion of trans women from women’s spaces and communities.
It’s always entertaining to read Hugo’s writings. We have this extremely privileged man, obviously he has never experienced what it is like to know that you are at the bottom of the bottom rung of the social ladder, knowing that one will never be sexually attractive to anyone. Add to this that he has never known what it is like to be bullied for most of one’s life. Yet he tells men like me, that we should acknowledge our privilege. Yet he never seems to think about his own privileges.
I am starting more and more to adopt a mindset of, fine you want to play hard and unforgiving market economy, ok but then it applies when you are on the losing side as well.
I’m not stopping you. Just link back to the source if you do.
You might get some grief from feminists, though.
Especially when you have absolutely no idea how to.
Tell me about the pairings you see in the queer community in general. Do feminine people generally prefer to date butches? If so, then perhaps being insufficiently butch in presentation is part of your problem
It’s interesting that there’s no word for that. I suggest “gynosexual”, and “androsexual” for people attracted to men.
The problem with mainstream advice that targets men is that it doesn’t work.
I don’t like the het bar and club scene either. One of Hugh’s criticism of the seduction community is that it’s too focussed on that scene, and consequently its observations of female mating preferences and behaviours are based upon an unrepresentative sample.
Also look around for people who are unsuccessful. Probably you don’t even notice them normally. What, if anything, do they have in common with each other. What do they have in common with you?
I’m glad to hear that.
Sorry, but my reaction to that was WTF!!!
When I was your age, I had had dates with precisely one women, the porcelain statue I talked about. I’m now forty-five, and I can add to my tally, one date, one one-night-stand, one sexless relationship with someone who wasn’t a porcelain statue but that was how I treated her. One long-term unromantic fuck-buddy relationship and precisely one full romantic-and-sexual relationship.
Three dozen women by the age of twenty-four is dating success beyond my wildest dreams.
You mean, they think its very few?
Yes.
No. The insight that I got from Hugh lead me to decide to give up the wish. The mountain I’d have to clime was too high, and the costs too great. My interest in PUA is accademic. I do not try to apply its teachings.
But you’re not me. You’re much younger than I was when I first learned about this stuff. Don’t wait.
I’d be interested to know which ones, and which you find useful.
To feminists dating-unsucessful men and PUAs are a bunch of creepy, entitled, misogynist potential-rapists. I do appreciate Clarisse’s efforts to promulgate a more nuanced view, but I really don’t see that changing to any great degree in the foreseeable future.
Thanks, I’ll check them out.
Trans women’s status in feminism to disputed. To some Radfems, they’re privileged men in women’s clothing trying to appropriate women’s spaces. The mainstream view appears to be that they’re an oppressed minority.
Cis het men are viewed as privileged by both radical and mainstream feminists. Had a cis het man written that, feminist hate for it would have been that much greater.
NewBreed: I do think Hugo thinks about his privileges (in general) a lot . However, I’m not sure if he considers being naturally able to be very successful with women as a privilege many other men do not share; would he do this, orthodoxy says he should listen to what unsuccessful men say about their experiences instead of preaching to them about how entitled they are.
elementary_watson
I wonder if they have even reflected rationally about the fact that it would be a lot easier to make men actually listen to the speech about male privileges if the feminist movement started acknowledging their own principles first, instead of just causing everyone to go into defensive mode at first drop of ‘male privilege’.
EW and NewBreed, have you see this?
Daran I have read it now. The only thing Hugo really says is ‘I’m an extremely privileged person but I won’t let that bother me and I won’t care. But you others should acknowledge all your privileges’.
I have a favourite analogue to this mindset. I happen to be 6″6′, I have taken jujutsu, tae-kwondo, ninjutsu and karate for more than a decade. Why should I stop and reflect on why women feel unsafe in the public space? It doesn’t effect me. Of course this kind of mindset is rightfully called entitlement and ignorance in the feminist community. So why should Hugo not acknowledge his own privilege when I am expected to be able to acknowledge that not everyone is confident that they can outfight almost anyone assaulting them?
Eagle33:
I understand where you’re coming from. I don’t view Aspergers as a disorder (and it really pisses me off to hear of people “suffering” from Aspergers. There’s no suffering that isn’t inflicted by others). Instead, its clustering of personality and cognitive traits. I don’t think it unreasonable to view as deficits, for example, the difficulty I have in understanding speech against background noise that most people do not have trouble with, or the difficulty I have in remembering people’s names or linking their face to their person. (I find many films extremely difficult to understand, because so often I can’t tell if the person I saw doing X a few minutes ago is the same as the person now on screen.)
But I think neurotypical people have their own set of deficits. For example I have exceptionally good (by neurotypical standards) pattern memory. This comes in useful in drumming where I can remember every part of every tune I ever learned, can retain that knowledge for years without having to continually reinforce it by practicing, and can absorb and retain new tunes almost instantly.
If I had, I hadn’t written what I wrote, Daran.
What I find interesting is this passage:
So, a gentle suggestion by someone one who didn’t present herself as adversarial made it easier to acknowledge a blind spot on privilege he had. There is a lesson to be learned here …
I don’t see that at all:
How on earth can you read “I won’t let that bother me and I won’t care” into that???
That’s one way of looking at it.
Another is that, on the topic of relationship-challenged men the words of a feminist woman carry more weight with him that those of the men themselves.
True enough, Daran, but my impression is that the words of a feminist woman carries more weight with Hugo than the words of a non-feminist man on any gender-related issue.
Moreover, while I can see why you are calling out NewBreed’s reaction, I think his response is actually more reasonable than it might appear at first blush, given the general context of Hugo’s approach to gender. If you carefully read Hugo’s words which you quoted, you’ll notice that he’s not saying he’ll listen more to men. What he’s saying is he’ll lecture* to them using different words, presumably with more sensitivity or something. He might claim to be interested in “egalitarianism” in this quote, but I’ve found that Hugo has almost no genuine empathy for men if they are adversely affected by dynamics that privilege women in any way.
(*OK, he doesn’t specifically use the word “lecture,” but if you’re familiar with his oeuvre at all, you know that’s exactly what he does.)
You know what Daran while I can appreciate that Hugo seems to be “getting it” I find this almost sad (and perhaps hypocritical if you think about it a bit more):
I can relate to not seeing things clearly until one of your own explains it but I think it may say a but about him that it took “a fellow feminist” to point out a blind spot that outsiders have mentioned before.
I didn’t didn’t say that Hugo is “getting it”. I agree with ballgame that there’s no indication in the quoted passage of any willingness to listen to men. In fact, its very noticeably all about Hugo.
That said I do think there are some glimmers of self-awareness there, and no, he’s not satisfied by what he’s become aware of, contrary to NewBreed’s reaction.
Oh no Daran I’m not trying to say that you said he’s getting it. That’s all me saying that. In fact I think its a matter of me saying seems to be “getting it” where you say some glimmers of self-awareness. Perhaps my wording was not so on the mark with what you were getting at (and I think that’s because of my quotation marks, which were meant to poke at feminists that go on and on about “getting it” when it comes to awareness).
ballgame:
True enough, Daran, but my impression is that the words of a feminist woman carries more weight with Hugo than the words of a non-feminist man on any gender-related issue.
Yep. I get the feeling that in the end what you’ll end up with is Hugo, rather than listening to men, marinating on it, and then talking to other men about it, will instead wait for feminists (male or female) to pick up on the things that non feminist men talk about, get it from them, marinate on it, spin it or relabel it to make it sound like the point(s) originated from feminists (if that hasn’t been done so already), and then talking (or lecturing) other men about it.
That way non feminist men still look like uneducated woman haters, male feminists look like they are proving themselves to the movement, and female feminists look like they are on the cutting edge of the gender discourse.
Daran
“And of course, it’s true too that I’m more willing to acknowledge a blind spot when it’s pointed out to me by a fellow feminist whose work I know and admire. ”
This is pure lip service. He says that he will acknowledge. Yet he doesn’t do a thing that proves that he acknowledges this privilege. Does he listen to those men who don’t hold his level of privilege? Does he actually reflect on what they have to say?
No instead he just goes on to say that it isn’t his problem.
I don’t think it reflects too poorly on Hugo that it took a “fellow feminist” to make him acknowledge that the ability to casually be sexual with women is quite a privilege. Of course, if reject all Bulverism it shouldn’t matter one bit *who* makes an argument as long as the argument is sound; that said, if an organisation I most often agree with on a set of issues says something contrary to my views on such an issue (let’s call it statement A), I would give it more consideration than when such a statements comes from people who, in my perception, always are shouting A from the rooftops.
I think it is human that a voice from the ingroup carries more power to make one reconsider one’s views than a voice from the outgroup.
So EW. Some feminists seem to think that one way for men to reconsider their views on gender is through contact with male feminists (a combination of being a part of the “in group” of male and the supposed enlightenment of being feminist). Also we are supposed to believe that such contact would lead to men coming down from the privileged positions and take a real look at how the “out group” (women) really are faring.
Based on that should it stand to reason that being shown this by a fellow feminist would spark the notion in his mind that perhaps he should actually see how other men who aren’t him are faring rather then telling us how we are faring? If it does then more power to him (and I think it would do him a lot of good). If it doesn’t then (and not to put words in his mouth but I really think that it won’t) it might be worth looking at why.
(Mind you I’m one of those people that think intent matters…to an extent so maybe I’m reading more into this than what’s called for.)
EW:
Of course it’s humam. All of feminism’s failing are human failings
ballgame:
This is not just any gender-related issue. This is specifically about the experiences of a particular group of men. The complaint is not that Clarisse’s voice carries more weight than those men’s, when it should carry the same weight. The complaint is that, on this topic. Those men’s voices should be regarded as authoritative.
NewBreed, personal change is rarely a sudden conversion on the road to Damascus. It starts with these glimmers of self-awareness, and tends to be stop-starty process with episodes of progress and backsliding.
But if you’re absolutely determined that no change is possible, then you will surely interpret anything he might say as a confirmation of that view.
You might be right. Maybe Hugo will start listening, or at least reflect on his own privilege. Maybe I am just overreacting to reading in on feminist debates that talk a lot about male privilege and male entitlement, while at the same time demanding that men make place for women in high paying jobs without calling this female entitlement. Maybe things will change. Because as it is now I’m standing firm. The feminist movement wants raw free market economy it’s getting raw free market economy, even when women belong to the losing side.
[Blockquoting added. NewBreed, please use blockquote tags or quotation marks if you're quoting comments by others. See this. Thanks. —ballgame]
That’s more than average.
In 5 years since transitioning, I’ve gone out with 3 men. Admittedly, I’m with man #3 since almost 2 years ago.
My boyfriend has gone out with 5 women, he’s 41.
If someone is trying to tell you that 36+ in 10 years is little, then they’re comparing you with Gene Simmons (sex with 1000+ women) or something, not the norm or the average.
Schala, Daran,
My comparison group, or peers, is 17-33 year old queer (not necessarily butch) women who have interacted with my friends or myself. I’m not counting all people who are near my age or were once my age.
I also think that Schala had some confusion about what going out on dates with nearly 40 women in 10 years means. Going out on dates with women literally means going out on at least one first date with 36ish women. Daran, I’m surprised you were able to experience so much by only having had around five first dates.
Proving details might show what my peers see and tease me about. In a 10 year span, years 1,3,5,7 and 9 look like this: I go on 1st and 2nd dates with four women. I feel dating is synonymous with seeing someone; if I won’t be seeing them after the 2nd date then I was never dating them. Years 2,4,6, 8 and 10 look like this: I go on dates with four women and am able to go further than a 3rd date with one of the women. Most of my first dates are very casual and I tend to not tell my friends about them. They rarely see me in casual or serious dating situations.
Daran,
A simple strategy for dealing with a touch on the shoulder as a signal of approval would be to pause, say “thanks” while touching the other person’s hand and go on with the conversation as if you had ignored their touch. I sometimes manage to smile while making intense eye contact, nod and continue the conversation. I’d like to know how many times I can ignore ambiguous signals without the other person losing interest in me as a competent social being.
The dating preferences of queer feminine women in my community are all over the place. I do feel like I’m not physically butch enough sometimes, but the physical presentation link is questionable. Plus, sending people into a “What is it?!” gender panic could significantly hurt my chances for employment right now.
Looking at the people who are experiencing a similar lack of success is a good idea. Um, I can’t find them… One person comes to mind and I think that ze does a good job of framing hir situation without resentment and appearing to have a positive attitude. I also suspect ze has Nice Guy TM tendencies. People in my situation are tough to find because queers are dealing with a smaller dating pool. Also, I can’t opt out of clubs and bars because there are very few places to meet young queer women. I’m thinking the best thing is to approach more women in non-queer spaces in addition to approaching more women in queer spaces.
The newsletters are from David DeAngelo, Hunter Riley, Roosh V and Ross Jeffries. I’m more familiar with the first two than the last two.
I brought up Serano’s other work because I expect her to continue to explore trans issues rather than the radical feminist views she expresses in “Why Nice Guys Finish Last”. She could be backing down from the harsh criticism or she could feel more strongly about being an advocate for trans communities. She may have also changed her opinions since she began dating men in addition to women. She wrote that piece as a trans woman with a long-term female partner.
Okay well, my history.
Birth to 23: considered male by most (even though some passerbys might not have known for certain – I’ve been asked if I was a boy or a girl before, during that time)
23-28 (now): considered female by pretty much all since hitting 24, if someone questions my sex, they probably are trans themselves (and have a pretty good “transdar”).
Dated a girl at 16 for 3 months. Nothing serious. Break-up with no attachment. It seems it was more of a “I want to be with someone” rather than “I’m attracted to you”. She was somewhat physically attractive to me, but that’s aesthetics (not how I’m sexually attracted). I like long hair too, on the same level.
Met a guy from OkCupid at 24, after only 3 months of hormones (we dated right on my birthday then). We went out 3-4 days around, going places. After about a week, he invited me to his place. I refused as I felt I wasn’t ready for possible sex being on the menu, and knew I would have no possibility of coming back that night (would have needed to wait for morning). We stopped contact then. He was my first guy I kissed.
Saw a guy one night at 25, and again a month later. Didn’t go out (it was at his place), never became his girlfriend. He was polyamorous and was seeking ‘fun on the side’ at the time. Once I figured he was, I just stopped contact. First sexual experience (oral).
Met my boyfriend as I was almost 26 (a month short), but we were not together until almost a year later (then almost 27). I met him at work. We’re still together. And we live together since around the time I became 27 years old.
That’s all my history.
My boyfriend met his first girlfriend at 19, and married her eventually (now divorced), and met 3 other women before meeting me, at 38. He’ll be 41 in 3 days. I’m #5 on his list. He’s my first boyfriend I can actually call this way (others didn’t enter relationship-status to me). All his relationships were mid to long term ones (6 year marriage).
Having even 1 mid-term relationship a year is pretty successful if you’re seeking more than one-night stands.
Consider that my first 2 men didn’t count, and my only woman I wasn’t even romantically or sexually attached…and you get: my first and only boyfriend at 26.
As for Serano, I think she gets it to an extent, but I doubt that her concept of trans-misogyny (which I liked when her book came out – I bought it) is all there is to trans discrimination aimed at trans women.
We might be punished for being feminine, might be punished for claiming femaleness, but I don’t think it’s the same as feminity or femaleness in general being punished – especially in the context of this happening in the West, where femaleness is rarely “punished” in this way, while maleness is grounds for assuming guilt and/or the worst things about people.
I think it’s more about reinforcing the trope of inflexibility of male gender roles (because those people think being trans is a “lifestyle choice”, not a legitimate identity), and heavily punishing the “worst offenders” as examples so others don’t “do the same”.
And there’s my personal theory that it includes a belief that trans women are “usurping” the pedestalized position that should only be reserved for “real” women. Those who condemn trans women the most are also the more in favor of rigid gender roles for men (and possibly women), homophobia (especially as directed against gay men) and chivalry.
Guestina, I’ve enjoyed hearing your perspective on dating.
I’ve long felt that many female feminists don’t really understand what the masculine initiator role actually requires with women, and the difficulties involved. When I try to explain it, they act like I’m making things up, or they accuse me of trying to speak for women. I’m glad to know that women can also encounter similar challenges dating women.
It reminds a bit of Norah Vincent, the lesbian journalist who dressed up as a man, and discovered that dating women in the masculine role was much more difficult and grueling than she had imagined. Here are some fascinating quotes from her.
Serano’s essay is a good read, though it gives me a bit of bitterness reading it because I’m a cis man who has been making the same points for years. I have to wonder if she would get called a “Nice Guy(TM)” if she made those points with a male moniker on a feminist blog.
Yes, their focus on dating has tunnel vision on one goal: reducing the risks of harm and discomfort for women, rather than creating a workable system for both men and women to find partners. This is like creating a police state to solve crime, or banning cars to prevent accidents.
The result is that scrupulous people in the masculine/butch roles select themselves out of the dating market, leaving only unscrupulous people for women to date. Some feminists would destroy heterosexuality in order to save it.
For an example of a strange feminist view, see this quote from Thomas at Yes Means Yes:
I’m not sure on what planet a man can reliably expect women to take the initiative, if he chooses not to. Only highly attractive men have this choice, outside unusual subcultures. I have this choice, but it’s not the norm, and only certain rare types of women like initiating. Most of the time, if the man doesn’t take the initiative, things will just fizzle, or she will reject him… and go date a guy who will take the initiative, probably with less scruples than the man she rejected.
If that were true there would be a lot more cases of women talking about how they initiated and were successful wouldn’t there? And I notice that he seems to lie all of the blame on the guy’s gender map and appears to ignore that a lot of women abide by that same mapping. The guy isn’t the problem the f’d up system that has him believing that he must be the initiator is. He may as well say that a given woman who has a poor body image because she doesn’t have “the ideal body” can lay all the blame on individual people that pick on her about it. The problem isn’t those individuals its the f’d up system that says there’s an “ideal body” that women must aspire to keep.
Danny
The more I look at those kinds of quotes from male feminists I realize that they are speaking from extremely privileged positions. They are good-looking, have no trouble with social interactions and regularly get suggestions. This is a very obvious dissonance to the talk about recognizing one own’s privileges, and acknowledging that not everyone holds those same abilities.
I can’t say whether anyone is entitled or deserving of sex, but nobody deserves abuse or rape. When I was 18 my desire to fit into that perceived norm of being a sexually active young adult male overwhelmed any apprehension about being in an emotionally and physically abusive relationship. Years later it escalated to marital rape and boy howdy, that sure did reduce my desire for coitus, as well as my feeling of safety around other people.
I think you may have a point NewBreed. And it doesn’t help that those male feminists then get held up by female feminists as the “real man” that the rest of us are supposed to aspire to. Kinda like a (point to guys like Hugo) “Seeeee! He’s a guy that’s not having any problems. What’s wrong with the rest of you?”
You are so honesty and so brave for beint it, I admire you.
This what we men need, we are hidding what hurt us because we are ashame to recognize we get hurt, and that’s because what hurt us will hurt us more if we do! But that’s in the short term and individual spectrum, if we frame it the reight way, and collectivly support each other we can make good progress on the long term and collective spectrum.
I deeply support and empatize with you!
Hello, I happened upon this article of yours. I’d like to add one point if I may. The fact that there is sexual entertainment available to men (like porn, strip clubs, phone sex, brothels, etc.) doesn’t automatically mean that it’s only men, as opposed to women as well, who have a dearth of real-life sexual outlets that the paid entertainment is then catering to. Rather, I’ve found the case to be that it’s still so socially unacceptable for women to pursue such entertainment, that no one bothers offering such entertainment to a female audience, because they cannot fathom there being a female audience for it. This is problematic, though – I, as a butch lesbian, have, for instance, been refused entry into strip clubs because they don’t let unaccompanied women in. So, if I may, I would like to suggest that the lack of sexual entertainment geared toward women doesn’t suggest that women are getting their sexual needs met in non-entertainment scenarios, rather it just suggests that even the women who are disgruntled virgins like myself can’t even hope to get the dignity of the sexual entertainment that men take for granted. Also, brothels where there are legal brothels, like this famous one in Cologne, Germany that’s like 8 storeys tall called Pascha, have big signs saying No Women Customers. I would’ve liked to have gone there, but I can’t because I’m female. I’m not going to be snarky and say that these are all male privledges, per se, but I will say that there are a lot of women out there like me who not only don’t get their needs met sexually, but also don’t have recourse to the paid sexually-themed entertainment that het men have access to.
“The fact that there is sexual entertainment available to men (like porn, strip clubs, phone sex, brothels, etc.)”
Every one of those is available to women, and usually cheaper. On top of that it is more socially approved – women who travel to Jamaica for “romance” with local men, for whom this is a form of subsistence work, don’t face any of the opprobrium or even law enforcement scrutiny that men do. In fact this is even celebrated in films – How Stella Got Her Groove Back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.....roove_Back
Ginkgo:
Damn straight. When women do it its “empowering” and “freeing” but when men do it its “abusive” “exploitative”.
Lycere I can see where you are coming from and I don’t want to make light of your frustration but at the same time I can’t help but see the reality that men who don’t have their sexual needs men are subject to all sorts of ridicule. Hell even calling them “needs” could get a guy accused of having “sexual entitlement” in that he thinks women owe him sex.
And speaking of paid sexually themed entertainment notice that a lot of the efforts to crack down on prostitution call for criminalizing the hiring of prostitutes.
The one time I went to a strip club years ago it was myself one other guy and two women. One of the strippers came over for lap dancing. She danced for one of the women and she said that since she was a woman she was allowed to touch her back.
I myself didn’t become sexually active until i was thirty. I honestly considered hiring a sex worker do you know why I didn’t? Because there was HIGH chance that I could be arrested for it. Back in my early 20s I was propositioned by a prostitute and do you know why I didn’t? Because there was a HIGH chance that I could be arrested for it (and at that time I was in college on financial aid, which would be instantly lost if you get arrested for ANYTHING).
“Lycere I can see where you are coming from and I don’t want to make light of your frustration but at the same time I can’t help but see the reality that men who don’t have their sexual needs men are subject to all sorts of ridicule”
To include handling it themselves. There is no female equivalent of “wanker” or “jerk off” when it comes to derision and contempt