Love vs. Lust (split off from Things that make you go 'hunh?')

[Jeff Wrangler]

This topic was split off from the 5/09 TOTW, because it became a substantial discussion that deserves its own space.

–LauraGigs

Excellent point about Ennis having his eyes closed, Jeff - if his eyes are closed than it's not really "face to face" and all the symbolism that entails.

Yes, exactly. If Ennis has his eyes closed while he's making love with Jack, it's like he's not really acknowledging that it's Jack he's making love with, just as the story says that at the time of the dozy embrace, he couldn't really acknowledge that it was Jack he held.

[LauraGigs]

You know, I've always had a problem with that line in the SS.  How can you make love with a man all summer — with his strong limbs, firm hairy chest, whiskers and man-smell — and still stay in some kind of denial about doing so? 

"Ennis woke in red dawn with his pants around his knees, a top-grade headache, and Jack butted against him; without saying anything about it both knew how it would go for the rest of the summer, sheep be damned.
As it did go. They never talked about the sex, let it happen, at first only in the tent at night, then in the full daylight with the hot sun striking down, and at evening in the fire glow, quick, rough, laughing and snorting, no lack of noises..."

Then:
"Nothing marred it, even the knowledge that Ennis would not then embrace him face to face because he did not want to see nor feel that it was Jack he held."

I mean, wtf?

[Kerry]

You know, I've always had a problem with that line in the SS.  How can you make love with a man all summer — with his strong limbs, firm hairy chest, whiskers and man-smell — and still stay in some kind of denial about doing so? 

I met a guy back in 1995. We hit it off right away. Alas, he lives a straight lifestyle in a small country town up the coast, a seven-hour drive away from where I live in Sydney. In order for us to see each other, I have to make that long drive (sound familiar?). He rarely visits the city because he doesn't like the city, thinks the air is dirty (it is) and all the drivers are crazy (they are). He visited me just a couple of weeks ago. It was great seeing him, particularly because the last time we saw each other was 12 months previously. Even though he is now slightly more animated and contributory sexually than he was back in 1995 (when he'd just lie there and let me do all the work - not that I'm complaining!), he still, to this day, never talks about our sexual experience, nor concede that we've been doing "it" for over 14 years now. He is very Ennis-like in so many ways.

Some people seem to have no problem compartmentalizing their experiences and emotions. I would venture to say that many gay men have had sex with a man at some time in their lives who did not look at them, did not touch them, and kept their head turned away during the entire proceedings. Such men seem to think that if they don't actually touch the man who's pleasuring them (i.e., giving them a BJ), they haven't really had sex with a man. It wouldn't work for me - horses for courses, I guess.

[serious crayons]

Thank you for that explanation, Kerry. I've always had trouble with that line, too. I've thought of it as practically a "mistake" in the story. But with your help, it now makes more sense.

[Jeff Wrangler]

You know, I've always had a problem with that line in the SS.  How can you make love with a man all summer — with his strong limbs, firm hairy chest, whiskers and man-smell — and still stay in some kind of denial about doing so? 

"Ennis woke in red dawn with his pants around his knees, a top-grade headache, and Jack butted against him; without saying anything about it both knew how it would go for the rest of the summer, sheep be damned.
As it did go. They never talked about the sex, let it happen, at first only in the tent at night, then in the full daylight with the hot sun striking down, and at evening in the fire glow, quick, rough, laughing and snorting, no lack of noises..."

Then:
"Nothing marred it, even the knowledge that Ennis would not then embrace him face to face because he did not want to see nor feel that it was Jack he held."

I mean, wtf?

Trust a gay man who came out in his late 20s. It's not nearly as difficult as it seems. I'm never surprised at the human capacity for self-deception and denial. Forgive me if I'm sharing too much, but I was jerking off to gay porn for years before I acknowledged to myself that I'm gay.

Plus, in Ennis' case, I've always understood from the story that he was the "active" partner in their sex. Fucking is something that a man does. It's not making love--which I think is what we see in the second tent scene in the film--it's just fucking. Plus, consider AP's description, all that "laughing and snorting" and so forth. That's not making love. That's just two horny 19-year-olds rutting.

Maybe it's easier for men--gay or straight--to "compartmentalize" a difference between "having sex" and "making love"? Think of straight guys with prostitutes; no one "makes love" to a prostitute. They just "have sex" with them.

[serious crayons]

Forgive me if I'm sharing too much, but I was jerking off to gay porn for years before I acknowledged to myself that I'm gay.

I'll forgive you for sharing, if you forgive me for prying. What was going through your mind? Can you be any more specific about what you thought about your own sexuality? What did you call it, if not gay? I'm sorry, I know it's absolutely none of my business, but now that you've brought it up I do find it interesting.

Maybe it's easier for men--gay or straight--to "compartmentalize" a difference between "having sex" and "making love"?

Yes, I think this is definitely true. I think men have no problem having sex with just about anyone. Whereas women tend (not always, but often) either to feel more emotionally involved in the first place, or to feel that way afterward. Evolutionarily, of course, this makes sense.

[Mandy21]

Yes, Jeff, I respect your opinion and the things you've had to say here, but your statement above kind of shocked me.  Is there something going on in your life right now that would cause you say such bitter things?  It's kind of scary.  Did you just break up with someone or something like that?  I think more highly of men, both straight and gay, than the way you're describing them to be.  I hope you're okay?

[LauraGigs]

I would venture to say that many gay men have had sex with a man at some time in their lives who did not look at them, did not touch them, and kept their head turned away during the entire proceedings.

Man.  That's really crappy!   

[LauraGigs]

Plus, in Ennis' case, I've always understood from the story that he was the "active" partner in their sex. Fucking is something that a man does. It's not making love--which I think is what we see in the second tent scene in the film--it's just fucking. Plus, consider AP's description, all that "laughing and snorting" and so forth. That's not making love. That's just two horny 19-year-olds rutting.

That doesn't seem bitter to me.  I think I understand where you're coming from here, Jeff.  I appreciate you and Kerry's candor and all.  When I asked "How can you make love with a man all summer..." I didn't necessarily mean all hearts-and-flowers; I basically meant fuck, LOL.

Actually these answers clarify that whole thing for me a great deal!  It makes sense: Ennis can rationalize being fuck-buddies with Jack while together on Brokeback because after all, they're alone, horny, etc.  No girls around, just a one-shot deal until the job ends and all.  But the dozy embrace is something different: "a shared and sexless hunger" wherein Ennis is being more vulnerable even — because it's about affection and comfort, not just getting off.

And of course Jack, though quite sad, coped with their job's sudden end better than Ennis, because he hadn't been denying the core truth of their relationship to himself.

[Ellemeno]

Re the strand being discussed -

This is the opposite of a thing that made me go "hunh?"  -  In the flashback, when Ennis comes up behind Jack and only snuggles his lapel, I think it's very poignant.  It's so intimate, but only Jack's coat, and not Jack himself, gets to feel it.

[LauraGigs]

Ennis has jack in a tight wrap.  There's Ennis's hand brushing Jack's chin. And I think Ennis is kind of scratching the coat under the lapel, so Jack can feel that.

[Kerry]

Man.  That's really crappy!!   

Yep, it sure is crappy. Happens with women too. Many years ago, a dear friend of mine fell on hard times. She had relocated to Sydney from London with her lesbian partner and infant daughter. They opened a small seaside business together, which soon folded because the partner became very homesick and returned to the UK, leaving my friend alone with her daughter and a business she couldn't run alone. For many various reasons, the only way out that my friend could see was for her to go on the game. It was a very bad time for her, but she somehow made it work for her and managed to turn her life around. She entertained gentleman callers in her home (by the hour and half-hour) while her daughter was at school. She was young back then and stylish and discreet with it. Her awfully proper, peaches and cream English persona prevented her neighbours from ever suspecting why so many "friends" called on her during the day. But I digress. Get back to the point, Kerry. We were like sisters back then and she shared a great deal with me. I remember she once told me that she would never kiss her clients. It was a little rule she made for herself. She had somehow worked out that she did sex  for survival, to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads.  But kissing involved love, which she saw as having nothing to do with what she was doing to survive. As it was, she ended up breaking her no-kissing rule big time. Not only did she start kissing one of her clients, she married him! He was very rich though.  

[Jeff Wrangler]

I'll forgive you for sharing, if you forgive me for prying. What was going through your mind? Can you be any more specific about what you thought about your own sexuality? What did you call it, if not gay? I'm sorry, I know it's absolutely none of my business, but now that you've brought it up I do find it interesting.

Geez, Katherine, it's not that it's none of your business, but you're asking me about thoughts and feelings from 30 years ago!  As best I can recall, I didn't "call" it anything. But I do need to clarify one very important point: I've always been a man of words rather than of images. When I say that I was jerking off to gay porn, I wasn't looking at pictures of naked men with hard-ons. Mainly I was reading stories from a little, Reader's Digest-sized gay magazine that was published back in them there olden days called First Hand. It was mainly text with a few line-drawing illustrations. So I was jerking off to stories, not to pictures. As best I can remember I just thought they were hot stories and didn't allow myself to think about the implications of what I was doing. I was still young enough then that I just thought I hadn't met the right girl. 

[Jeff Wrangler]

Yes, Jeff, I respect your opinion and the things you've had to say here, but your statement above kind of shocked me.  Is there something going on in your life right now that would cause you say such bitter things?  It's kind of scary.  Did you just break up with someone or something like that?  I think more highly of men, both straight and gay, than the way you're describing them to be.  I hope you're okay?

 

Mandy, I have to thank you for your concern, but beyond that I don't know what to say because you don't say what, specifically, I said that you think is "bitter." No offense, but if you "think more highly of men, both straight and gay, than the way" I described them in my post, then I'm afraid you don't know men very well.

For me "making love" implies something slow and tender. Sure, men both gay and straight are capable of that, but that's not what Annie Proulx describes. Or not how I understand her words, not when you think about the "laughing and snorting," anyway.

I'm also afraid I won't be around for a while to say anything more about this because in less than 12 hours now I'm leaving on a two-week cross-country trip (see "Wrangler's Rambles" in Chez Tremblay).

[Jeff Wrangler]

That doesn't seem bitter to me.  I think I understand where you're coming from here, Jeff.  I appreciate you and Kerry's candor and all.  When I asked "How can you make love with a man all summer..." I didn't necessarily mean all hearts-and-flowers; I basically meant fuck, LOL.

  

And of course Jack, though quite sad, coped with their job's sudden end better than Ennis, because he hadn't been denying the core truth of their relationship to himself.

I think that's why Ennis was so confused as they came down off the mountain--because he was denying the truth about himself and about what existed between himself and Jack.

[serious crayons]

Yep, it sure is crappy. Happens with women too. Many years ago, a dear friend of mine fell on hard times. She had relocated to Sydney from London with her lesbian partner and infant daughter. They opened a small seaside business together, which soon folded because the partner became very homesick and returned to the UK, leaving my friend alone with her daughter and a business she couldn't run alone. For many various reasons, the only way out that my friend could see was for her to go on the game. It was a very bad time for her, but she somehow made it work for her and managed to turn her life around. She entertained gentleman callers in her home (by the hour and half-hour) while her daughter was at school. She was young back then and stylish and discreet with it. Her awfully proper, peaches and cream English persona prevented her neighbours from ever suspecting why so many "friends" called on her during the day. But I digress. Get back to the point, Kerry. We were like sisters back then and she shared a great deal with me. I remember she once told me that she would never kiss her clients. It was a little rule she made for herself. She had somehow worked out that she did sex  for survival, to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads.  But kissing involved love, which she saw as having nothing to do with what she was doing to survive. As it was, she ended up breaking her no-kissing rule big time. Not only did she start kissing one of her clients, she married him! He was very rich though.

I'd never heard that phrase, "go on the game." I figured it out from context, though! 

Sounds like a happy ending to the story -- that is, if your friend is happy with this guy. If she is a lesbian and just married him for his money, it might not be totally happy. Otherwise, I'm picturing "Pretty Woman Down Under." Didn't Julia Roberts even have a "no kissing" rule?

[mariez]

Kerry and Jeff, thanks so much for sharing your personal experiences with such openness and honesty. 

First Hand?      And I'll bet the editors of that little magazine never could've imagined what would be available on the internet someday! 

[Front-Ranger]

That Jeff Wrangler...he went off on his train Odyssey and left us with a cliffhanger!! But I'll bet when he checks in again he'll say he's not bitter about ennithing, and he didn't just break up with ennione, he's just 'splaining for you how things are with men...or perhaps I should say, the male animal. Capable of the deepest love and able to explore a universe of love, lust and sensuality, somtimes for the man (and for the woman too, I dare say) it's just fucking. It's an activity that IMO is necessary for optimum physical, and maybe mental, functioning. And what's wrong with that, between two (or more) consenting adults??

[Mandy21]

Well, Jeff and Lee, I'm offended by both of your remarks about my comment.  I was truly concerned that Jeff's tone had changed suddenly and was worried about him.  I certainly do know men, and I take offense at his comment that I don't.  I was also rather appalled at the language being used, and I'm certainly not a prude; I just didn't find it appropriate on this particular forum.  Whatever, maybe I shouldn't be here at all if this is the way people are going to talk about each other these days.  Last time I checked, there was a rule about saying cruel things about people.  Guess that's changed.

Was a good topic, Laura.  Sorry it went astray.

[LauraGigs]

Jeff's point — that men sometimes have sex strictly out of urgency or pure lust — is not necessarily a cruel one.

Personally, I'm a very sensitive woman and I've always kind of hated the idea that guys are emotionally capable of "love em and leave em".  But the very fact that such a phrase exists (plus others like one-night stand, one-shot thing, etc) pretty much proves the longstanding, historic nature of that behavior.  If men were truly incapable of such behavior, brothels would never have existed.  In my opinion, it's a damn sad thing, and I don't like it.  And I think there are men out there who are very selective about who they're with, and require genuine emotional connection along with any lovemaking.  But the presence of one kind of man doesn't preclude the existence of other types.

In the context of Brokeback Mountain, Ennis has mistaken the sex with Jack for animalistic rutting.  It's part of his denial.  ("This is just a one-shot thing" etc.)  In truth, their relationship is much bigger and more emotionally substantial than that, for both parties.  Ennis only realizes this later.

[serious crayons]

Well, Jeff and Lee, I'm offended by both of your remarks about my comment.  I was truly concerned that Jeff's tone had changed suddenly and was worried about him.  I certainly do know men, and I take offense at his comment that I don't.  I was also rather appalled at the language being used, and I'm certainly not a prude; I just didn't find it appropriate on this particular forum.  Whatever, maybe I shouldn't be here at all if this is the way people are going to talk about each other these days.  Last time I checked, there was a rule about saying cruel things about people.  Guess that's changed.

Was a good topic, Laura.  Sorry it went astray.

I'll have to say, Mandy, that neither Jeff's nor Lee's comments seemed out of line to me. Jeff's initial post seemed to be commenting on a generalized aspect of male behavior -- not true for every man all the time, of course, but I didn't gather he was saying that.

In any case, as a bystander I didn't take their comments to be cruel or intended to cause offense. 

[Front-Ranger]

In any case, as a bystander I didn't take their comments to be cruel or intended to cause offense. 

No, I did not want to offend ennione and I apologize if I've inadvertently done so. My comments came from two sources: 1) my direct experiences as a friend of gay men for the last several years and 2) recent readings from books on sexuality including The Female Brain and The Time Falling Bodies Come to Light. I am also a friend of Jeff's, recently spent a week with him in Wyoming and was trying to shed a little light on his comments since he is on a cross-country train trip right now and won't be able to speak further with us about this for quite a while.

[SFEnnisSF]

And of course Jack, though quite sad, coped with their job's sudden end better than Ennis, because he hadn't been denying the core truth of their relationship to himself.

Wow!  Never thought of it like that!

[SFEnnisSF]

In the context of Brokeback Mountain, Ennis has mistaken the sex with Jack for animalistic rutting.  It's part of his denial.  ("This is just a one-shot thing" etc.)  In truth, their relationship is much bigger and more emotionally substantial than that, for both parties.  Ennis only realizes this later.

Again, brilliant way to put it.  It's why he's in the alley feeling his "guts torn out" and he can't explain why...

[Jeff Wrangler]

That Jeff Wrangler...he went off on his train Odyssey and left us with a cliffhanger!! But I'll bet when he checks in again he'll say he's not bitter about ennithing, and he didn't just break up with ennione, he's just 'splaining for you how things are with men...or perhaps I should say, the male animal. Capable of the deepest love and able to explore a universe of love, lust and sensuality, somtimes for the man (and for the woman too, I dare say) it's just fucking.

Really.

Thanks, FRiend Lee. 

[Jeff Wrangler]

I'll have to say, Mandy, that neither Jeff's nor Lee's comments seemed out of line to me. Jeff's initial post seemed to be commenting on a generalized aspect of male behavior -- not true for every man all the time, of course, but I didn't gather he was saying that.

In any case, as a bystander I didn't take their comments to be cruel or intended to cause offense. 

That would be about right, Katherine. Thank you. 

[Jeff Wrangler]

Kerry and Jeff, thanks so much for sharing your personal experiences with such openness and honesty.

You're welcome.   

First Hand?      And I'll bet the editors of that little magazine never could've imagined what would be available on the internet someday! 

Oy, if any of us could have imagined that! 

[Jeff Wrangler]

Well, Jeff and Lee, I'm offended by both of your remarks about my comment.  I was truly concerned that Jeff's tone had changed suddenly and was worried about him.  I certainly do know men, and I take offense at his comment that I don't.  I was also rather appalled at the language being used, and I'm certainly not a prude; I just didn't find it appropriate on this particular forum.  Whatever, maybe I shouldn't be here at all if this is the way people are going to talk about each other these days.  Last time I checked, there was a rule about saying cruel things about people.  Guess that's changed.

Hunh? 

[Monika]

You know, I've always had a problem with that line in the SS.  How can you make love with a man all summer — with his strong limbs, firm hairy chest, whiskers and man-smell — and still stay in some kind of denial about doing so? 

"Ennis woke in red dawn with his pants around his knees, a top-grade headache, and Jack butted against him; without saying anything about it both knew how it would go for the rest of the summer, sheep be damned.
As it did go. They never talked about the sex, let it happen, at first only in the tent at night, then in the full daylight with the hot sun striking down, and at evening in the fire glow, quick, rough, laughing and snorting, no lack of noises..."

Then:
"Nothing marred it, even the knowledge that Ennis would not then embrace him face to face because he did not want to see nor feel that it was Jack he held."

I mean, wtf?

Very interesting, Laura.

I´ve interpreted that to mean that Ennis was admitting to himself that he had sex with a man. After all, sex can be just that...sex. But an embrace..especially a sexless one as the dozy embrace implies something else...tenderness...feelings. I don´t think Ennis was ready to admitt that he was holding a man in an embrace that wasn´t a prelude to sex.

[Monika]

animal. Capable of the deepest love and able to explore a universe of love, lust and sensuality, somtimes for the man (and for the woman too, I dare say) it's just fucking.

I don´t think there´s a big difference at all when it comes to men and women in that area.
The whole thing about women always craving an emotional bond before engaging in sex..*cough*
Believe me, sometimes women, too, just want to screw.

Women and men aren´t really all that different.

[Front-Ranger]

I don´t think there´s a big difference at all when it comes to men and women in that area.
The whole thing about women always craving an emotional bond before engaging in sex..*cough*
Believe me, sometimes women, too, just want to screw.

Women and men aren´t really all that different.

You bet, friend!

[Kerry]

I don´t think there´s a big difference at all when it comes to men and women in that area.
The whole thing about women always craving an emotional bond before engaging in sex..*cough*
Believe me, sometimes women, too, just want to screw.

Women and men aren´t really all that different.

Yep, I agree. It takes two to tango, as the saying goes. I know of at least one lesbian friend acquaintance who admits to visiting female prostitutes. And it ain't for the "emotional bond,"  from what I understand.     

[serious crayons]

Women and men aren´t really all that different.

My opinion is that they are at least somewhat different. Do women ever just want what Erica Jong called a "zipless fuck"? Sure. But because of either biology or society or some mixture of the two, women most of the time to look for an emotional connection. Men often look for emotional connections, too, of course, but they can do without them more easily.

Here's a test. How many women here are easily aroused by a magazine photo of a naked man or woman? For myself, I'd say it's pretty close to never. Not that I represent all women, obviously. But I would guess that there's a reason the vast majority of magazine pictures of naked people, of either gender, are intended for men. A two-dimensional image of a stranger, howeve attractive, does not do it for me.

I'm much more likely to find, for example, a movie character sexy. Why? Because then there's the illusion of an emotional connection. Watching the movie, I feel like I "know" something about the person.


BTW, I don't see this as a moral judgment about either men or women. It just is what it is.

[Monika]

My opinion is that they are at least somewhat different. Do women ever just want what Erica Jong called a "zipless fuck"? Sure. But because of either biology or society or some mixture of the two, women most of the time to look for an emotional connection. Men often look for emotional connections, too, of course, but they can do without them more easily.

Here's a test. How many women here are easily aroused by a magazine photo of a naked man or woman? For myself, I'd say it's pretty close to never. Not that I represent all women, obviously. But I would guess that there's a reason the vast majority of magazine pictures of naked people, of either gender, are intended for men. A two-dimensional image of a stranger, howeve attractive, does not do it for me.

I'm much more likely to find, for example, a movie character sexy. Why? Because then there's the illusion of an emotional connection. Watching the movie, I feel like I "know" something about the person.


BTW, I don't see this as a moral judgment about either men or women. It just is what it is.

I don´t recognise myself in that. I often find pictures sexy as well as characters in a book. And how many women don´t have pictures of male models flaunting their abs and whatnot on their walls?

We seem to have different experiences regarding this. Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that we shouldn´t make any generalisations about what women supposedly want or not want at all?

[louisev]

Very interesting, Laura.

I´ve interpreted that to mean that Ennis was admitting to himself that he had sex with a man. After all, sex can be just that...sex. But an embrace..especially a sexless one as the dozy embrace implies something else...tenderness...feelings. I don´t think Ennis was ready to admitt that he was holding a man in an embrace that wasn´t a prelude to sex.

This I very much agree with.  And when  he embraced Jack, he was hemmed in by fear of what others would do to him if they saw him do so (the scene where he pulls away from Jack when a truck goes by on the road); the look that might show on his face "You ever get the feelin that people are watchin you, an they KNOW?", because he undoubtedly went about in intense paranoia after grabbing Jack and kissing him in the stairwell which was pretty much right out in public.  So it was a balance between the denial of his need and desire to embrace Jack as his loved one, and his terrible fear that he would be killed for doing so, not that he personally was disgusted by it.

[serious crayons]

I don´t recognise myself in that. I often find pictures sexy as well as characters in a book. And how many women don´t have pictures of male models flaunting their abs and whatnot on their walls

Well, again, I said I obviously do not represent all women. Of course many women feel differently -- different women feel differently about practically every subject. But, as it happens, I don't have any pictures of male models on my walls, and off the top of my head I can't think of any woman I know who does. At the moment, the only friend I can recall who had a photo of a nude man on his wall was a gay man. The picture was by the photographer Robert Mapplethorpe, who this friend of mine had once known (Mapplethorpe was dead by then).

We seem to have different experiences regarding this. Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that we shouldn´t make any generalisations about what women supposedly want or not want at all?

Geez, I sure as hell hope that's not a lesson to be learned from this. Without generalizations about human behavior there would be no way of progressing in the field of psychology. Forget about treating mental illness or developing helpful new psychotropic medications. For that matter, forget about developing any new product whatsoever that is designed to appeal to women, if the ruling philosophy is going to be we shouldn't make any generalizations about what women want or don't want.

Nope, sorry, I'm definitely not ready to throw generalizations out with the bathwater.

That's why I used the word "test" in my post. I expected there would be different reactions.

For me, the lesson to be learned from this is that human behavior is complex, and different people are different. But then, that's a lesson I already knew. There are generalizations that can accurately apply to almost every aspect of human behavior, but of course each one has myriad exceptions. The next step is to figure out what factors create the exceptions.

For example, here's a generalization: many children who have terrible family lives (abuse, neglect, homelessness, drug-addicted parents, whatever) do poorly in school. Some, however, do well in school despite living in nightmarish circumstances. Why is that? Some psychologists now are turning their attention to these remarkable resilient kids, in hopes that by figuring out the reasons for their success they can help kids who are less successful.

[Monika]

Well, I never did suggest that we´d never maked generalisations ever. They do come in handy at times, and sometimes it´s impossible to have a discussion without them.

But I´m not myself comfortable with the generalisation that women don´t get turned on by watching pictures and don´t have sex without any emotional attachment.

And I don´t personally see the need to make generalisations in this case. People´s sexuality or turn-ons perhaps isn´t tied up with gender at all.

[louisev]

Well, I never did suggest that we´d never maked generalisations ever. They do come in handy at times, and sometimes it´s impossible to have a discussion without them.

But I´m not myself comfortable with the generalisation that women don´t get turned on by watching pictures and don´t have sex without any emotional attachment.

And I don´t personally see the need to make generalisations in this case. People´s sexuality or turn-ons perhaps isn´t tied up with gender at all.

Buffy, I believe there are some significant cultural differences between the US and western Europe as regards social and dating behavior, and I have noted this many times living in Europe and talking with young people in their 20's and 30's, gay, straight, college students, and teens who are just starting out their social/love lives.  My conclusion is that the US, in particular (even distinct from nearby Canada) is an extremely repressed culture overall, and follows and attempts to enforce much stricter sex roles, particularly with regard to women, and that affects their behavior.  Not Taliban level, but keep in mind that the Puritan Separatists did found the first settlements of Europeans in North America and they represented the most extreme religious conservativism of Europe from the 17th century.  A mere 90 years ago women were not allowed to vote in the US whatsoever - it's a very different place!

and yes, that's a great big generalization but it is provably reflected in our indecency standards on television programs, film ratings, etc. etc. etc.

[serious crayons]

Well, I never did suggest that we´d never maked generalisations ever. They do come in handy at times, and sometimes it´s impossible to have a discussion without them.

But I´m not myself comfortable with the generalisation that women don´t get turned on by watching pictures and don´t have sex without any emotional attachment.

Well, as you've said, it doesn't apply to you, which is fine. I never said it applies to every single woman. And as for the second part of your sentence, I specifically said the opposite. Let's revisit what I said:

My opinion is that they are at least somewhat different. Do women ever just want what Erica Jong called a "zipless fuck"? Sure. But because of either biology or society or some mixture of the two, women most of the time to look for an emotional connection. Men often look for emotional connections, too, of course, but they can do without them more easily.

You might not be familiar with the Erica Jong reference, but "zipless fuck" essentially means sex without emotional attachment.

I never said no woman ever has sex without emotional attachment. Hell, I've done it myself. I said women TEND to place emotional attachments as a priority, and more so than men. To say that this is not true of you does not prove the generalization incorrect.

People´s sexuality or turn-ons perhaps isn´t tied up with gender at all.

Not only do I disagree, but I can't imagine what would make you think this. It doesn't even make sense from an intuition standpoint -- why would sexuality and turn-ons be totally unrelated to gender? All kinds of behaviors are related to gender. Why would sexual attraction -- which is clearly more, well, related to gender than a lot of other things that are related to gender -- be the exception?

Here's one vast generalization regarding sexuality and gender. Women tend to be attracted to men, and men tend to be attracted to women. Am I saying that's ALL that ever happens, that nobody is ever attracted to members of their own gender, that gay and bisexual people do not exist? Of course not. Am I saying society should be structured -- as it sort of is now, actually -- in such a way as to ignore the existence of gay and bisexual people? Nope. Not at all.

Still, is it totally off-base and inapplicable and useless and incorrect to say that, in general, most women are attracted to men and vise versa? Well, I guess you can try to argue that if you like, but I don't see the point.

Now, if you want to present evidence that proves the generalization WRONG -- say, a study of sexuality that shows that women and men are actually attracted to members of their own gender in about equal numbers but that those feelings are suppressed by societal norms -- then, fine. I'd be interested in that, and would be happy to change my views if the evidence proved sufficiently convincing.

But to say no such generalization can be made whatsoever, true or not true, because people's sexual behavior and attitudes are so completely different from one individual to the next that you can't make any kind of statement that applies the majority of members of the group -- then I would disagree.

[serious crayons]

Buffy, I believe there are some significant cultural differences between the US and western Europe as regards social and dating behavior, and I have noted this many times living in Europe and talking with young people in their 20's and 30's, gay, straight, college students, and teens who are just starting out their social/love lives.  My conclusion is that the US, in particular (even distinct from nearby Canada) is an extremely repressed culture overall, and follows and attempts to enforce much stricter sex roles, particularly with regard to women, and that affects their behavior.  Not Taliban level, but keep in mind that the Puritan Separatists did found the first settlements of Europeans in North America and they represented the most extreme religious conservativism of Europe from the 17th century.  A mere 90 years ago women were not allowed to vote in the US whatsoever - it's a very different place!

and yes, that's a great big generalization but it is provably reflected in our indecency standards on television programs, film ratings, etc. etc. etc.

I mostly agree with this. Although I would argue that sexual behavior of women vs. men is not entirely the result of cultural norms and immigration patterns. I believe there are biological influences, too.

One reason to suspect this is that women in few if any societies behave in a LESS restricted manner, sexually, than men. Yes, I know the girls  in Samoa, for example, were not held to the same standards that girls are in the U.S., let alone Afghanistan, but I don't think Margaret Mead claimed they were more sexually active than males in their society (admittedly, I haven't read her book). And yes, I know female bonobo monkeys are very, um, sexually free-spirited, but again are they any more so than male bonobos? Let's assume for the sake of argument that the sexual behavior of Western European women is indistinguishable from that of Western European men.

But the vast majority of women around the world -- oops, there's another generalization! -- are held to, and tend to conform with, stricter standards of sexual behavior than the men in their societies.

If there were no genetic components to this, one would assume that different societies showed a range of behavior evenly spread across the board -- that is, in some cultures women would be more restricted, in some women and men would be the same, in some men would be more restricted. But as far as I know there's either few to none in that last group. Which suggests there's some hardwiring involved.

[Monika]

Well, as you've said, it doesn't apply to you, which is fine. I never said it applies to every single woman. And as for the second part of your sentence, I specifically said the opposite. Let's revisit what I said:

You might not be familiar with the Erica Jong reference, but "zipless fuck" essentially means sex without emotional attachment.

I never said no woman ever has sex without emotional attachment. Hell, I've done it myself. I said women TEND to place emotional attachments as a priority, and more so than men. To say that this is not true of you does not prove the generalization incorrect.

Not only do I disagree, but I can't imagine what would make you think this. It doesn't even make sense from an intuition standpoint -- why would sexuality and turn-ons be totally unrelated to gender? All kinds of behaviors are related to gender. Why would sexual attraction -- which is clearly more, well, related to gender than a lot of other things that are related to gender -- be the exception?

I don´t think sexuality is all tied up with gender, no. I believe biological factors are part of it, but many people I´ve talked to, can trace their "triggers" or "turn-ons" to events in their childhood. I also think it has to do with the climate in the society you´re brought up in and many other chance occurrences.
And no, sexuality isn´t an exception. I think most things that control is is a result of a mix between social factors and biological factors.
This is an accepted view in this scientific field as well, as I think you´re very well aware of.

[Monika]

Buffy, I believe there are some significant cultural differences between the US and western Europe as regards social and dating behavior, and I have noted this many times living in Europe and talking with young people in their 20's and 30's, gay, straight, college students, and teens who are just starting out their social/love lives.  My conclusion is that the US, in particular (even distinct from nearby Canada) is an extremely repressed culture overall, and follows and attempts to enforce much stricter sex roles, particularly with regard to women, and that affects their behavior.  Not Taliban level, but keep in mind that the Puritan Separatists did found the first settlements of Europeans in North America and they represented the most extreme religious conservativism of Europe from the 17th century.  A mere 90 years ago women were not allowed to vote in the US whatsoever - it's a very different place!

and yes, that's a great big generalization but it is provably reflected in our indecency standards on television programs, film ratings, etc. etc. etc.

Interesting post, thanks L.

[serious crayons]

I don´t think sexuality is all tied up with gender, no. I believe biological factors are part of it, but many people I´ve talked to, can trace their "triggers" or "turn-ons" to events in their childhood. I also think it has to do with the climate in the society you´re brought up in and many other chance occurrences.
And no, sexuality isn´t an exception. I think most things that control is is a result of a mix between social factors and biological factors.
This is an accepted view in this scientific field as well, as I think you´re very well aware of.

There's nothing here that I disagree with, but I don't see how it refutes anything I said.

Biological factors influence sexual behavior.
Events in childhood influence sexual behavior.
Society influences sexual behavior.
Chance occurrences influence sexual behavior.
A mix of social factors and biological factors control most types of behavior.

Where did I disagree with any of the above? If you feel that your statements contradict what I said in previous posts, I think it's possible you didn't understand my previous posts.

Of course experiences, whether in events in childhood or chance occurrences, influence individual attitudes and desires. How could they not? Sometimes those childhood events and chance occurrences also have something to do with the person's gender, sometimes not (and of course  the way people react to childhood events or chance occurrences -- whether they are affected in such a way that these experiences become turnons or are bad experiences or aren't memorable or sexual one way or another -- differ from one person to another, sometimes due to genetic factors, also sometimes in relationship to gender and sometimes not). As for biological and social factors, they also influence attitudes and desires, and the also are sometimes connected with gender and sometimes not.

[Monika]

There's nothing here that I disagree with, but I don't see how it refutes anything I said.

Biological factors influence sexual behavior.
Events in childhood influence sexual behavior.
Society influences sexual behavior.
Chance occurrences influence sexual behavior.
A mix of social factors and biological factors control most types of behavior.

Where did I disagree with any of the above? If you feel that your statements contradict what I said in previous posts, I think it's possible you didn't understand my previous posts.

Of course experiences, whether in events in childhood or chance occurrences, influence individual attitudes and desires. How could they not? Sometimes those childhood events and chance occurrences also have something to do with the person's gender, sometimes not (and of course  the way people react to childhood events or chance occurrences -- whether they are affected in such a way that these experiences become turnons or are bad experiences or aren't memorable or sexual one way or another -- differ from one person to another, sometimes due to genetic factors, also sometimes in relationship to gender and sometimes not). As for biological and social factors, they also influence attitudes and desires, and the also are sometimes connected with gender and sometimes not.

*lol*  I hardly remember where this started either...but let´s try to backtrack...

I think what I disagreed with from the beginning was the generalization that women (more than men) needs an emotional attachment to her sexpartner. And that women in general aren´t turned on by pictures.

and I also expressed doubts concerning generalizations based on soley gender when it came to these specific questions.

That was at least what I was trying to get across.





Wouldn´t it be ironic if we 2000 posts later would come to the conclusion that we really don´t disagree on anything at all

[serious crayons]

*lol*  I hardly remember where this started either...but let´s try to backtrack...

I think what I disagreed with from the beginning was the generalization that women (more than men) needs an emotional attachment to her sexpartner. And that women in general aren´t turned on by pictures.

and I also expressed doubts concerning generalizations based on soley gender when it came to these specific questions.

That was at least what I was trying to get across.

Wouldn´t it be ironic if we 2000 posts later would come to the conclusion that we really don´t disagree on anything at all

I don't think we're very far apart, in general overall.

I do think there are statements you can make regarding sexuality -- and lots of other things -- that are more true of women, and statements you can make that are more true of men. But of course that doesn't mean they apply equally to ALL women, or all men, or that gender is the ONLY  factor that influences sexuality and other behavior.

I'm not absolutely sure by the picture-turn-on issue. I haven't delved into the scientific research on this. I'm mostly expressing my own opinion, and guessing based on the fact that there are lots and lots of pictures of naked women and naked men marketed to men, and relatively few pictures of naked men or naked women marketed to women. Is it because pornographers are deliberately trying to deprive women of something they would willingly buy? Maybe, but pornographers like most business people are usually happy to provide whatever they think will sell.

Meanwhile, women tend to read more romances than men do, which unlike most pictures of naked people involve an emotional element. That, and my own observations and, yes, some scientific research I've read, suggests that women are more inclined to look for an emotional connection. Again, at the risk of being repetitive but in order to be absolutely clear, this does NOT mean that no women ever has -- or wants -- sex without emotional ties, or that men don't care about emotional ties.

[southendmd]

I just want to say that I feel very emotionally connected to every half-naked picture of Jake I see.

[serious crayons]

I just want to say that I feel very emotionally connected to every half-naked picture of Jake I see.

Well see? That just proves my point. Women find Heath more attractive.

*dons hardhat* Kidding!

[Shakesthecoffecan]

I just want to say that I feel very emotionally connected to every half-naked picture of Jake I see.

I agree with you 100%!

[Jeff Wrangler]

Erica Jong ... "zipless fuck"

Now, there's a name and a term I haven't heard in a very long time! 

[Monika]

I just want to say that I feel very emotionally connected to every half-naked picture of Jake I see.

 

[LauraGigs]

One way to look at it is to look at the behavior of male and female homosexuals.  There is monogamy and promiscuity in each group, sure.  But in what degrees?  What percentages? 

I don't have any hard data handy, but the anecdotal data tells a pretty clear story.  Are there any commercial venues set up specifically for women to have casual sex, such as bathouses?  Have we ever read of police busts on public areas where women collect for casual or anonymous sex encounters?  Such as parks, bathrooms, and such?  (and what about the infrastructure for setting up in-person or virtual encounters such as web sites, ads, phone hotlines, et cetera?)

[serious crayons]

One way to look at it is to look at the behavior of male and female homosexuals.  There is monogamy and promiscuity in each group, sure.  But in what degrees?  What percentages? 

I don't have any hard data handy, but the anecdotal data tells a pretty clear story.  Are there any commercial places set up specifically for women to have sex, such as bathouses?  Have we ever read of police busts on public areas where women collect for casual sex encounters?  Such as parks, bathrooms, and such?  (and what about the infrastructure for setting up in-person or virtual encounters such as web sites, ads, phone hotlines, et cetera?)

Excellent point, Laura. I've often thought about that, too.

This came up earlier here at BetterMost, in discussions of strangers having sex in public places, such as restrooms. Obviously, it's something that some men do from time to time. Again, I don't have statistics handy, but I'm guessing it's very, very unusual for women (aside from prostitutes) to have quick casual sex with someone they have never spoken to and know absolutely nothing about.

For that matter, how many women -- as opposed to men -- hire prostitutes? I would guess there are far, far more prostitutes of either gender catering to men than there are for women.

Another sign of difference: the number of male rapists and molesters vs. the much lower number of female rapists and molesters. Not that rape is all about sex -- there's a violence aspect, too, and women tend to commit fewer violent crimes of all kinds. Other factors may include physical strength, the physiology of arousal, etc. Still, it's telling that female perpetrators are so uncommon -- again, not nonexistent, but relatively rare.

If men and women were indistinguishable in terms of their appetite for casual, no-strings sex, they'd be equally involved with all that stuff.

[Monika]

One way to look at it is to look at the behavior of male and female homosexuals.  There is monogamy and promiscuity in each group, sure.  But in what degrees?  What percentages? 

I don't have any hard data handy, but the anecdotal data tells a pretty clear story.  Are there any commercial venues set up specifically for women to have casual sex, such as bathouses?  Have we ever read of police busts on public areas where women collect for casual or anonymous sex encounters?  Such as parks, bathrooms, and such?  (and what about the infrastructure for setting up in-person or virtual encounters such as web sites, ads, phone hotlines, et cetera?)

My answer to that is that this behaviour is grounded in history. Women's sexuality has for a long time been suppressed. It hasn't been okay for women to "just" wanna screw or to even admit that they think about sex. Men and sexuality has on the other hand been seen as something natural, something unstopable.

I believe that as women become less and less suppressed we will see more women engage in this type of behaviour.

Someone mentioned rape though, and rape isn't about sex. (And even if it were - the majority of rapes occur between people that now each other - not between strangers)

[milomorris]

I think one big reason women don't seem to be as promiscuous as men is the pregnancy risk.

[louisev]

Excellent point, Laura. I've often thought about that, too.

This came up earlier here at BetterMost, in discussions of strangers having sex in public places, such as restrooms. Obviously, it's something that some men do from time to time. Again, I don't have statistics handy, but I'm guessing it's very, very unusual for women (aside from prostitutes) to have quick casual sex with someone they have never spoken to and know absolutely nothing about.

Katherine, I would say that there are forces far different than biology involved here; it is a cultural standard for the dominant sex - for there is no doubt that the US is a patriarchal society - to determine the modes of sexual behavior, and this has been true since the rise of patriarchal cultures based in classical Greece and Rome.  Men had a privileged role as citizens in classical society, and the noble class had free access to slaves and citizens of both sexes to enjoy, and lacking the stigma against same sex relations, indulged in both, whereas women had very strictly defined sex and labor roles as caretakers, housekeepers and cooks, and could not be citizens.  In the US today the 'modern' 'socialist' innovations of 'parental leave' which extends to both husbands and wives is derided in the US as relegating husbands to caretaking roles they should not "have to do."  Only in America is there such a term as "Mr. Mom," because parenting is seen as a domestic duty of the chattel female who must bear and care for children.  Europe is way ahead in terms of sharing parenting in families, equalizing professional roles, and removing stigmas that relegate women to a narrow range of behavior.  Accordingly, you will see a very different type of demographic for dating and public sexual behavior in those cultures because the emphasis is changing - socially speaking, Europe is at least 100 years ahead of the US (that is my completely made-up statistic based on personal observation.)

I also think that those of us (females) who have been either "reared male" (not to take on a traditional marriage-and-childbearing role, but a career role), or educated outside the home to non-traditionally-female adult roles or professions, tend not to see that their experience is atypical for America as a whole.

For that matter, how many women -- as opposed to men -- hire prostitutes? I would guess there are far, far more prostitutes of either gender catering to men than there are for women.

different manifestation of the same cultural predilection.

Another sign of difference: the number of male rapists and molesters vs. the much lower number of female rapists and molesters. Not that rape is all about sex -- there's a violence aspect, too, and women tend to commit fewer violent crimes of all kinds. Other factors may include physical strength, the physiology of arousal, etc. Still, it's telling that female perpetrators are so uncommon -- again, not nonexistent, but relatively rare.

If men and women were indistinguishable in terms of their appetite for casual, no-strings sex, they'd be equally involved with all that stuff.

The difference here, I would concur, may be related to biology, but the rise in violent crime perpetrated by women, including child molestation and rap,e shows that things are changing - and biology doesn't change that fast.  However - culture does.   Most rape of males by females is by female adults with male children or adolescents, however, I have been involved in the prosecution process as a witness against a female perpetrator against her daughter.  The D.A. refused to press a sexual assault charge, desptie physical evidence.  His reason was blunt:  "no one would believe a mother would do that to her daughter."  He's right, too:  a jury wouldn't convict a woman of molesting her daughter, because they deny it happens.  Also, according to the dictates of the strict sex roles of this society: boys, adolescent males and men are acculturated to treat unwanted sexual contact from females as flattering, and not as abuse.  There have been a few high-profile instances of sexual abuse of girls by women, possibly the highest profile one was at Oprah's south African school, where female staff members were abusing the schoolgirls.  It happens: but people dont' talk about it.  It's not biology at work here.

[serious crayons]

My answer to that is that this behaviour is grounded in history. Women's sexuality has for a long time been suppressed. It hasn't been okay for women to "just" wanna screw or to even admit that they think about sex. Men and sexuality has on the other hand been seen as something natural, something unstopable.

I believe that as women become less and less suppressed we will see more women engage in this type of behaviour.

I wonder why women's sexuality has been suppressed. My feeling is that cultures don't develop completely arbitrarily, but in fact are reflections of human inclinations. Not exact reflections, more like funhouse mirror reflections, because sometimes those inclinations get distorted by customs and traditions.

Still, and I can't think of any way to prove this one way or the other, but I find it very very difficult to believe that as women become less suppressed we will start seeing them engage in quick, casual sex with random total strangers in the same numbers that men do.

Why? Evolutionary psychology offers a possible explanation. Men can spawn, potentially, infinite numbers of offspring, and by doing so can spread their genes widely, so men's casual sex is rewarded by evolution. Women can only have one child at a time (well, in addition to twins and so on, but you see what I'm getting at). So they have to be more selective about who fathers it -- ideally, they want someone who will be supportive and help raise the child. Getting to know that person emotionally helps determine whether they're a suitable candidate.

Someone mentioned rape though, and rape isn't about sex. (And even if it were - the majority of rapes occur between people that now each other so it wouldn't be about casual sex anyhow.)

I was the one who mentioned rape. Rape IS sex. It's not JUST about sex -- I said before that is also about violence. But it's violence (and power, and aggression, and intimidation, etc.) expressed through sex. To say it's not about sex is like saying robbery isn't about money. I have written a fair amount about rape, and I have heard many many people say "rape isn't about sex." What I think they're trying to get at is that it's not about the same kind of sex that is the result of love, or even physical attraction. But it very much does involve sex, by definition.

Women don't rape partly because they're not interested in having that kind of sex.

[Monika]

The difference here, I would concur, may be related to biology, but the rise in violent crime perpetrated by women, including child molestation and rap,e shows that things are changing - and biology doesn't change that fast.  However - culture does.   Most rape of males by females is by female adults with male children or adolescents, however, I have been involved in the prosecution process as a witness against a female perpetrator against her daughter.  The D.A. refused to press a sexual assault charge, desptie physical evidence.  His reason was blunt:  "no one would believe a mother would do that to her daughter."  He's right, too:  a jury wouldn't convict a woman of molesting her daughter, because they deny it happens.  Also, according to the dictates of the strict sex roles of this society: boys, adolescent males and men are acculturated to treat unwanted sexual contact from females as flattering, and not as abuse.  There have been a few high-profile instances of sexual abuse of girls by women, possibly the highest profile one was at Oprah's south African school, where female staff members were abusing the schoolgirls.  It happens: but people dont' talk about it.  It's not biology at work here.

Another side of this concerns male rape. The dark number is believed to be high.
Males can be raped by other men (most often heterosexual men) or by women, but these cases are often not reported because of the stigma.


I read about male rape a while ago. I recomend this site
http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/myths_about_male_rape.htm

[Monika]

I was the one who mentioned rape. Rape IS sex. It's not JUST about sex -- I said before that is also about violence. But it's violence (and power, and aggression, and intimidation, etc.) expressed through sex. To say it's not about sex is like saying robbery isn't about money. I have written a fair amount about rape, and I have heard many many people say "rape isn't about sex." What I think they're trying to get at is that it's not about the same kind of sex that is the result of love, or even physical attraction. But it very much does involve sex, by definition.

Women don't rape partly because they're not interested in having that kind of sex.

What I mean when I say that rape isn´t about sex, is that the purpose of the act isn´t sex. The purpose is control - the rape is only the the tool.


and that´s why I wouldn´t agree with you that the reason why women don´t rape (which they do) is partly because they´re not interested in having that kind of sex.
After all, women are also interested in being in control which is the purpose of a rape. I think the reason simply is that it´s more difficult for us. Men are generally stronger.


This is an interesting discussion. Thanks for participting, everyone.

[serious crayons]

Katherine, I would say that there are forces far different than biology involved here; it is a cultural standard for the dominant sex - for there is no doubt that the US is a patriarchal society - to determine the modes of sexual behavior, and this has been true since the rise of patriarchal cultures based in classical Greece and Rome.  Men had a privileged role as citizens in classical society, and the noble class had free access to slaves and citizens of both sexes to enjoy, and lacking the stigma against same sex relations, indulged in both, whereas women had very strictly defined sex and labor roles as caretakers, housekeepers and cooks, and could not be citizens.  In the US today the 'modern' 'socialist' innovations of 'parental leave' which extends to both husbands and wives is derided in the US as relegating husbands to caretaking roles they should not "have to do."  Only in America is there such a term as "Mr. Mom," because parenting is seen as a domestic duty of the chattel female who must bear and care for children.  Europe is way ahead in terms of sharing parenting in families, equalizing professional roles, and removing stigmas that relegate women to a narrow range of behavior.  Accordingly, you will see a very different type of demographic for dating and public sexual behavior in those cultures because the emphasis is changing - socially speaking, Europe is at least 100 years ahead of the US (that is my completely made-up statistic based on personal observation.)

I agree with most of this, because I agree there are cultural and social components to differences between male and female behavior. And I agree that some European countries are ahead of the U.S. in terms of equalizing male and female roles. I haven't lived in Europe, so I hesitate to get much more specific here based on a tourist and reader's very limited exposure, but I have certainly heard of sex-role attitudes lingering in some European countries that I would consider dated. Europe may be socially ahead of the U.S. in many ways, but I don't think they're perfect that way yet.

And speaking of generalizations, this

In the US today the 'modern' 'socialist' innovations of 'parental leave' which extends to both husbands and wives is derided in the US as relegating husbands to caretaking roles they should not "have to do."  Only in America is there such a term as "Mr. Mom," because parenting is seen as a domestic duty of the chattel female who must bear and care for children.

certainly has a grain of truth, but as a chattel female I would not put things quite that harshly. America is changing, too slowly I totally agree, but the situation is not quite as dire and absolute as your description implies.

The difference here, I would concur, may be related to biology, but the rise in violent crime perpetrated by women, including child molestation and rap,e shows that things are changing - and biology doesn't change that fast.  However - culture does.   Most rape of males by females is by female adults with male children or adolescents, however, I have been involved in the prosecution process as a witness against a female perpetrator against her daughter.  The D.A. refused to press a sexual assault charge, desptie physical evidence.  His reason was blunt:  "no one would believe a mother would do that to her daughter."  He's right, too:  a jury wouldn't convict a woman of molesting her daughter, because they deny it happens.  Also, according to the dictates of the strict sex roles of this society: boys, adolescent males and men are acculturated to treat unwanted sexual contact from females as flattering, and not as abuse.  There have been a few high-profile instances of sexual abuse of girls by women, possibly the highest profile one was at Oprah's south African school, where female staff members were abusing the schoolgirls.  It happens: but people dont' talk about it.  It's not biology at work here.

Well, I don't think you've disproved the influence of biology. Yes, behaviors are changing and no, biology doesn't change that fast. Sure, there are cases of women sexually abusing kids. The D.A.'s comment was stupid. Cultural changes cause behavioral changes and will likely to continue doing so as the culture continues evolving.

When men and women do it in equal numbers, let me know and I will consider your case closed.

Men and women are obviously physically different, hormonally different and so on. I'm not sure why anyone would assume they can't also be behaviorally or emotionally different. I know this is not PC to admit, because it could be used to oppress women (or even men). But I am not using this as an argument for further oppression of women, and in fact I feel every individual should be allowed to do whatever feels right to him or her as long as it's not harmful to anyone else. To support that viewpoint, I don't have to believe that every individual wants to do the exact same thing.

[serious crayons]

Another side of this concerns male rape. The dark number is believed to be high.
Males can be raped by other men (most often heterosexual men) or by women, but these cases are often not reported because of the stigma.


I read about male rape a while ago. I recomend this site
http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/myths_about_male_rape.htm

I know. I wrote about male rape a while ago (about 15 years ago, to be exact). I interviewed survivors, looked at the statistics.

What I mean when I say that rape isn´t about sex, is that the purpose of the act isn´t sex. The purpose is control - the rape is only the the tool.

The purpose of the act is generally at least partly sex. As I said, there are other factors. I think to say that men who force others to have sex with them aren't really having sex is oversimplifying -- or perhaps referring to a different meaning of the word "sex."

and that´s why I wouldn´t agree with you that the reason why women don´t rape (which they do)

Of course. I should have said that they rape in far smaller numbers.

After all, women are also interested in being in control which is the purpose of a rape. I think the reason simply is that it´s more difficult for us. Men are generally stronger.

Could be. But I disagree that's the only reason. My own feeling is that women are not AS interested in that kind of control, and they would not be AS LIKELY to express it that way. I don't think I can produce any evidence of this that would definitively separate it from cultural influences, though.

This is an interesting discussion. Thanks for participting, everyone.

It sure is! 


Let me ask you this. Do you really feel that there are no differences whatsoever between male and female attitudes and behavior? That is, do you think that men and women, though obviously different on the outside, are indistinguishable on the inside? If not -- that is, if you think it's possible that men and women do differ on the inside -- then why would sexuality be an exception? Or if so -- if you think differences between men and women are just external -- then would you attribute all of the differences in male/female behavior, throughout all of history and across all cultures, to purely bodily differences such as physical strength rather than anything emotional or behavioral?

[Jeff Wrangler]

Still, and I can't think of any way to prove this one way or the other, but I find it very very difficult to believe that as women become less suppressed we will start seeing them engage in quick, casual sex with random total strangers in the same numbers that men do.

I would agree with you, Katherine, and, in addition, I wonder whether or to what extent male behavior is changing, too---thanks to the Internet. I mean, I know guys who--you should pardon the expression  --"get off" on quick, anonymous sex in "tea rooms," as they are called, but, anecdotally, so many people seem to be hooking up via the Internet these days that I wonder if things are changing.

Along with that, I'm wondering how or if things are changing for openly gay men compared to closeted gay men, or maybe I should just say "closeted men-who-have-sex-with-men," because assuredly not all the men who engage in sex in tea rooms are closeted gays. I'm thinking, for example, of the married man of whatever orientation or degree of self-awareness who can't risk going to gay "social networking" web sites on his home computer so may still stop off at the bookstore for a quick blowjob on his way to work. 

So, in summary, I'm wondering if the Internet is making a difference in behavior for men who openly have sex with me, but not for men on the down-low.

[Mikaela]

I agree with most of this, because I agree there are cultural and social components to differences between male and female behavior.

In reading through this thread, I'm wondering...
If it is true that many women's behaviour is turning more "like men's" when it comes to having constant and casual sex, how do we know that this is "the real and non-repressed" women's behaviour? It seems to me that being sexually desirable, presenting oneself as a sexual being/sexual object and expressing oneself through frequent and also, if necessary, casual sex is being held forth as one of the western culture's current standards for both male and female success. You meet this cultural trait everywhere you turn - in all sorts of shows, commercials, ads, performances, billboards, movies - very much come across as soft porn and focus pretty directly on sexsexsex. I'm merely observing, not passing judgment, btw - and I'm not a prude. (I hope!!)

But I would postulate that women's current behavioural changes may be culturally conditioned as much as previous times' forced abstinence or limited sexual activity for women ever were. That frequent casual sex with many partners may in fact have a considerable element of cultural conditioning in it, and not only represent a return to our original, unrepressed, self-asserting, self-realizing state. 

When was the behaviour of anyone, anywhere, ever, not significantly impacted by the culture they were a part of? We're social animals and conform to the norm.

[serious crayons]

Thanks for agreeing, Jeff! Though I'll have to acknowledge that you raise a good point for the "other side,"  -- the "society is destiny" perspective. One reason gay men have that sort of encounter is undoubtedly also cultural repression -- that is, historically they haven't been allowed to pursue sex through the "socially acceptable" avenues that straight men do, so they HAVE to go with quick anonymous sex.

So society has forced gay men to seek casual sex, while prohibiting women from doing so. I still think there are biological factors -- gay male sex has been frowned upon, yet despite that they find ways to do it anyway, straight female sex is frowned upon, but they haven't developed "tea rooms" of their own (gay women benefit from the fact that women's close friendships are socially approved, so they can go "under cover" as close friends or roommates).

[serious crayons]

In reading through this thread, I'm wondering...
If it is true that many women's behaviour is turning more "like men's" when it comes to having constant and casual sex, how do we know that this is "the real and non-repressed" women's behaviour? It seems to me that being sexually desirable, presenting oneself as a sexual being/sexual object and expressing oneself through frequent and also casual sex is being held forth as one of the western culture's current standards of success. You meet this cultural trait everywhere you turn - in all sorts of shows, commercials, ads, performances, billboards, movies - very much come across as soft porn and focus pretty directly on sex. I'm merely observing, not passing judgment, btw - and I'm not a prude. (I hope!!)
But I would postulate that women's current behavioural changes may be culturally conditioned as much as previous times' forced abstinence or limited sexual activity for woman ever was. That frequent casual sex with many partners may in fact have an element of cultural conditioning, and not only represent a return to our original, unrepressed, self-asserting, self-realizing state. 
When was the behaviour of anyone, anywhere, ever not significantly impacted by the culture they were a part of?

Excellent point, Mikaela. One of the problems with making value judgments in distinguishing male vs. female behavior is that female behavior tends to be devalued by the culture. So when restrictions are removed or decreased, women may indeed be able to pursue forms of behavior that were traditionally male. But in addition to the question of whether such behavior was "natural" for women all along and was just sociall repressed, comes the question of whether such behavior is, in some objective sense, "superior" to the way women previously behaved, or whether we have been socially conditioned to believe their previous behavior was "inferior" because it was done by second-class citizens, i.e., women. So maybe women are having more casual sex not because they've wanted to all along but because we simply want to have all the opportunities that men have.

Goes back to all of those knitting vs. football sorts of issues.

[Mikaela]

Insofar that women turn to casual sex to conform to the norm and prove to themselves and others that they are sexually desirable (which in most cases means deasirable to men), we're still in the same loop. Just using different means to the same end. I don't think that's the case though - mostly I think (and hope) that there is real liberation involved. 

[Monika]

Let me ask you this. Do you really feel that there are no differences whatsoever between male and female attitudes and behavior? That is, do you think that men and women, though obviously different on the outside, are indistinguishable on the inside? If not -- that is, if you think it's possible that men and women do differ on the inside -- then why would sexuality be an exception? Or if so -- if you think differences between men and women are just external -- then would you attribute all of the differences in male/female behavior, throughout all of history and across all cultures, to purely bodily differences such as physical strength rather than anything emotional or behavioral?

I think there are differences between female attitudes and behavior. To me the question is what differences is a result of genetics, and what differences is due to social factors. I think one should be careful pinpoint certain types of behavior as "biological" because it can easily be misused. And whatever biological differenses between the sexes there might be, I personally beleve that thousands of years of of social codes imposed on human sexuality has left its mark to the extent that social factors might almost overule the biological ones.

[Monika]

In reading through this thread, I'm wondering...
If it is true that many women's behaviour is turning more "like men's" when it comes to having constant and casual sex, how do we know that this is "the real and non-repressed" women's behaviour? It seems to me that being sexually desirable, presenting oneself as a sexual being/sexual object and expressing oneself through frequent and also, if necessary, casual sex is being held forth as one of the western culture's current standards for both male and female success. You meet this cultural trait everywhere you turn - in all sorts of shows, commercials, ads, performances, billboards, movies - very much come across as soft porn and focus pretty directly on sexsexsex. I'm merely observing, not passing judgment, btw - and I'm not a prude. (I hope!!)

But I would postulate that women's current behavioural changes may be culturally conditioned as much as previous times' forced abstinence or limited sexual activity for women ever were. That frequent casual sex with many partners may in fact have a considerable element of cultural conditioning in it, and not only represent a return to our original, unrepressed, self-asserting, self-realizing state. 

Good point, Mikaela. I would say that everything (or most things at least) we do is culturally conditioned, but the question here is what came first. I.e what´s the hen and what´s the egg? Is the "sexsexsex" in shows, commercials, ads etc what has triggered that kind of behavior in women, or is it itself a result of a change it the attitudes of women and society?