Testosterone is the primary hormone associated with sexual arousal in both men and women.
Men experience somewhere between 12 and 15 *times* the amount of testosterone as women.
The notion that women are "just as sexually driven as men" is biologically ludicrous.
Now this doesn't mean men are sex-crazed animals who can't control their behavior. It also doesn't mean women are necessarily less interested in sex.
I'd like to think we can talk about these things like scientifically grounded adults, but that means acknowledging certain objective biomechanical differences between the primary genders. The stereotypes exist for a reason. Are they harmful? Eh, they can be, and we should definitely try to correct destructive imbalances wherever they appear.
But this whole "men and women are exactly the same because I really, really want it to be that way" fairy tale needs to end. I'm sure some people even have personal experiences or anecdotes that run contrary to popular observation, especially on a forum like this. Doesn't mean we should throw logic and probability out the window, though.
The intent of this post is to play devil's advocate for FieryTrainwreck's post. I am not trying to correct him and I acknowledge that FieryTrainwreck intended to make generalizations. I want to contribute to the topic with GENERAL sources which serve as counterpoints. This will probably get pretty dry and "political-sounding".
1. Let's start with the differences in testosterone levels between men and women.
Here are two sources which discuss testosterone in general: http://www.healthline.com/health-slideshow/most-surprising-testosterone-facts
and testosterone in women specifically: http://health.yahoo.net/experts/womentoday/women-and-testosterone (You may need to pause adblock to access the info in that slideshow).
The second article points out that testosterone levels vary in women. The fact of the matter is that women on both the high and low sides of the spectrum of average female testosterone levels are capable of having low and high sex drives. This supports the widely held idea that sex drives in women are complicated and are contributed to by multiple factors. From this understanding it is reasonable to expect that the average male sex drive is also contributed to by multiple factors. Correlation does not imply causation. Translation: "Sex-crazed men" is not necessarily caused JUST by high testosterone levels.
2. Let's consider the implications discussed in this thread regarding "how women act according to the fact that men are men". For example, I think the following would normally be agreed upon: "Wearing skimpy or sexually alluring clothing in public, without staying with the safety offered by staying with a group of female friends, is risky." The logical conclusion of this is that the risk will come from one or more sexually active men are more likely to molest or rape said girl in order to satisfy a fantasy of a sexual and/or power-craving nature. Now let's break down the possible "why's" of this idea:
2.A)
The aforementioned clothing causes a reaction in the male(s) causing horniness. If possible, the male(s) will desire whomever made them horny. Regardless of their normal sexual desire level, certain clothing and actions just flips a switch in less-restrained men resulting in molesters and rapists. In short: Appearance of woman A -> horniness in male B -> B seeks out A for sexual relations, consensual or otherwise. To break down this idea into how bad people view such a thing, "Ignorant or innocent women cause rapists and molesters to rape and molest. They can prevent it by following X moral/social beliefs (which include not dressing so-and-so way) and to do otherwise is their own fault."
2.B)
Horniness is a natural state for men (not constant, but definitely common). Upon seeing a potential female they will subconsciously go through their individual parameters of sexuality, difficulty of target, "exoticness", and more versus their then-current horniness level. Super-horny -> lower standards, mildly horny -> still concerned about consequences, etc. The idea with this possibility is that clothing and vulnerability makes a woman more likely to fit someone's parameters. I believe this idea is the more common belief among people that tend to blame female victims based on their clothing and actions. This state is based off of the implications of said belief. Back to the horniness levels, the idea is that the majority of men are this way. Basically men that molest or rape get more horny than normal men, such that their sexual desire overrides their normal, reasonable-human-being, tendencies.
2.C)
The third idea, which people are generally more comfortable with, is that men capable of molesting and raping are different to normal men. Not "X on a much higher level", but they simply have some biological wires crossed or their subconscious minds find a far more trauma-inducing output from the same input as normal men. Recall the fact that society prefers to view extremists like the KKK and Adolf Hitler as people that intentionally cause evil for its own sake. Those people draw from mental ideas that are radically different from normally people as opposed to some extreme derivative of normal behavior. The best way to understand these radically different people is to peek into their minds and pick their brains for understanding. Here is another way of thinking about it: Normal male personalities come in varieties A to Z. A rapist or pedophile? They're a cyrillic letter. Some sounds in other languages do not have a direct equivalent to the "normal mind alphabet".
Back to the topic at hand and how it relates to modern women via how someone COULD view theory 2.C: "Skimpy clothing and certain behaviors seem to correlate with someone's chances of being raped. Trying to understand a rapist's mind by thinking of it as an extreme version of a normal mind is just grasping at straws for theories. Those kinds of correlations are what we know and you (women) should know better than to fight probability and 'fitting the bad guy's bill.'"
These three ideas are possible logical derivatives of the idea that something a woman does could increase their chances of being raped. Maybe the connection is "obvious" or maybe it cannot be known without trying to understand the bad guy's mind. As I will attempt to explain, all three of those ideas are worth understanding, but are not necessarily right. I intend to go into opinions on why I believe each of those ideas, which promote victim blaming, are not worth seriously considering for your own beliefs of "precisely why women get raped".
First up is 2.A. The idea that men can be stimulated by visual images is obvious and not up for discussion. Different men find different sights more or less sexually stimulating according to individual taste. If nudity is a generally appreciated quality among men, then degrees of nudity (read as different amounts of skin showing) can also have an influence. If we take all of this as true, then sure women may be able to better ensure their safety by covering up a bit more. However. How. Ever. That does not prove in ANY way that women are in ANY way responsible for the majority of men having a sexual-taste in common. If that is not their fault, then clearly they are NOT to blame for getting raped.
Next is 2.B. UNFORTUNATELY I am tired. I can't summarize this one right now so here is 2.C in short:
In short for 2.C, believing that there is a difference like that is just a cop-out. Look up the second KKK's actions as supporting political and moral beliefs. They attacked people that refused to change their ways beyond just black people. For example they beat up or "punished" many many people for sex outside of marriage. Look up a clip of Adolf Hitler flirting with Eva Braun or a quote of him saying that he would not feast lavishly while his countrymen starved. If THOSE PEOPLE, some of the most iconic examples of evil in the last hundred years, were in fact extreme versions of normal people in terms of their convictions, then we are NOT dealing with "alien personalities". They are poor extremists that were remembered for their actions without trying to understand. We should not condone their actions, but believing that some people are just too different to be comprehensible is a cop-out that hides from the truth.
Anyway, if i remember, then I'll counter the remaining points sometime tomorrow. If I forget, oh well, I've made my point. Please respond if you believe any section of this is worth a second thought.
Edit 1: Created spoilers to decrease length.
As someone who has friends who are majority women and is working in the healthcare setting where I have - at times - been the only male in the workplace, I can say it's been rather significant for me.
My motives get questioned for any particularly kind act, sometimes I feel like I can't have female friends who are 'good friends' without people wondering where it's headed, I've had accusations of abusing female patients in my first year working in dementia care (that were thankfully dismissed due to the fact that I wouldn't work with vulnerable female patients without supervision when I first started) and I have been accused of rape by an ex-girlfriend while in college - an accusation that was considered truth for several weeks by a large amount of people and resulted in be regularly receiving death-threats by strangers and almost getting into several fights.
I'm glad you haven't had any difficulties due to this stereotype, but I find it disheartening that I can't take photos of my nieces at the park without parents glowering at me and whisking their children away.
Stereotypes and broad generalizations are terrible things on which to base your judgement of individuals, because each individual is different. Some might conform to your prejudices, most will not. Random factoids do not justify treating all people of any given type as if they were all the same.
As someone who has friends who are majority women and is working in the healthcare setting where I have - at times - been the only male in the workplace, I can say it's been rather significant for me.
My motives get questioned for any particularly kind act, sometimes I feel like I can't have female friends who are 'good friends' without people wondering where it's headed, I've had accusations of abusing female patients in my first year working in dementia care (that were thankfully dismissed due to the fact that I wouldn't work with vulnerable female patients without supervision when I first started) and I have been accused of rape by an ex-girlfriend while in college - an accusation that was considered truth for several weeks by a large amount of people and resulted in be regularly receiving death-threats by strangers and almost getting into several fights.
I'm glad you haven't had any difficulties due to this stereotype, but I find it disheartening that I can't take photos of my nieces at the park without parents glowering at me and whisking their children away.
Welcome to the age of misandry. Sorry yours has been such a bumpy ride. If it's any consolation, men are generally starting to speak out against this bullshit.
Yes that fact that men only care about sex is so prevalent it even sneaks into the most progressive thinking of arguments. For all that we are accomplishing men in my opinion are still stuck they can't stray to far from their gender norm to the point that its better to be uber masculine drone than anything else going into the opposite direction.
HoneyVision said:
A.P.P.L.A.U.S.E
What so many don't realize is that men realistically have it just as bad as women these days, if not worse, because they are ASSAULTED for being too dominating AND for being too submissive, while women are APPLAUDED for being both 'girly' AND feisty and assertive.
A man who likes to be in control is apparently 'making up for insecurities' and a man who is submissive 'isn't man enough'. There's no win. Meanwhile, a woman who is feminine and submissive is considered 'classic' and a woman who is ambitious and bitchy is considered powerful and daring.
This is very true but is either side stepped or ignore out right
This ties into the whole stud\slut nonsense where you have guys feeling like failures if they are not some studs. Its like a guy can have everything else in order and could find a cure for cancer but if he is virgin in his twenties he is a life failure damn near pariah to the human race.
Honestly from my view guys can not win the "mainstream" society will see you as a "wimp" or "man up" and "feminist" I put that in quotations will just say your "internalizing misogyny" and treat you no different from the supposed patriarchy.
As for the friends its is complicated you can find your friend attractive and think about it but not act on it, some act on it and the friendships stays or get brokens and other scenarios better to go on a case by case basis
Welcome to the age of misandry. Sorry yours has been such a bumpy ride. If it's any consolation, men are generally starting to speak out against this bullshit.
Oh, if only men had some sort of power to change this. You know, like they controlled the majority of Western society or had the ear of not just marketing, but executives and the market itself.
*sigh* Oh well, I can always dream of a day when we can see a man in the White House.
So are you going to post routinely about Maher's jokes, fact-checking him, or is this a special case because ponies?
JoJo said:
I don't mind jokes about men really wanting sex, lets be honest most of us are like that, but it similarly grinds my gears when some people try to use those stereotypes to justify child abuse of male victims or any rape really.
And there's a Bill Maher stance that people should actually be up in arms about. Dude has multiple times excused statutory rape or child abuse based on the basic notion that "they must have wanted it." And he's done it straight, too. Not just in his comedy segments.
Lynx said:
I'm as peeved as you. Imagine if it had been the other way around. Had he been joking about women being coerced into sex but secretly wanting it, he WOULD be put under fire.
Come on, CS, just think about how bad men have it in this society. I mean, they control most of the wealth, have most of the power, are the ones aggressively marketed to....That responsibility must be TREMENDOUS!
And here are thos epoor men, being assaulted for daring to step forth and speak up on the social injustices.
I just wish someone would think about the poor men once in a while.
Depressingly, I wouldn't. I've heard that exact sentiment from some of my close friends, which has confusing implications (but I'm often in the `not a real girl` category for some of those guys).
I don't get how you'd be like `Me? A complex person? Pffffffffffft no`.
I read that women account for about 80% of spending- both domestic and commercial. I do remember noticing that most adverts seemed to be aimed at women, back when I used to watch TV. I'd be genuinely surprised if most adverts were, in fact, aimed at men.
I just wish someone would think about the poor men once in a while.
I don't think that reluctance to think about "Men" complaining shouldn't stop you fairly considering the complaints of men.
The top of the quote-chain has had a bad experience due to perceptions of his gender. I think it's unfair of you to dismiss it because he is identified with (Although doesn't necessarily identify with) a role, some members of which happen to be rich and powerful for various reasons, including, but not limited to, their identification with that role.
Aaaaaand if you're done knocking down strawmen, can we get back to the fact that I was responding to the notion that we're in the "age of misandry," not the idea that men have absolutely no problems ever in their entire existence?
Pretty please?
I'd love to go one day on here without someone twisting my words or addressing Straw-Zachary Amaranth instead of me.
Aaaaaand if you're done knocking down strawmen, can we get back to the fact that I was responding to the notion that we're in the "age of misandry," not the idea that men have absolutely no problems ever in their entire existence?
Pretty please?
I'd love to go one day on here without someone twisting my words or addressing Straw-Zachary Amaranth instead of me.
Ah, sorry. You were pitching into an existing conversation- I assumed you were addressing all of them. That's why I mentioned "The top of the quote chain" in reference to Anglodoom.
Far better on your part to assume good intentions from me, rather than purposeful rhetorical trickery designed to trip you up and tie you in knots.
I just kind of can't with that.
There are some posts you just have to sit and look at in silence. And then just `nope` the hell away from them.
Is is just me or has the atmosphere in the Escapist gotten more... weird... recently?
Something you had no reason to assume whatsoever. Even your excuse of "top of the quote chain" makes no sense. There was no quote chain in that post. I was specific in the person I was quoting and the statement I was responding to.
Phasmal said:
I just kind of can't with that.
There are some posts you just have to sit and look at in silence. And then just `nope` the hell away from them.
Anyway, I got distracted on the last one, but I figured I'd point out that there have been studies and reports on the way men and women think of the opposite sex, and men do tend to see even female friends in terms of partnership material. I would assume this is where the "friend zone" comes from and why it's so established (and not just by so-called "nice guys").
I don't know why it happens, but it does seem to be a real thing.
Doesn't, of course, mean men only want sex or that men should be marked as such (though again, I can't help but think "if only men had some sort of power in our society, they could do something about this...."). It does, however, address the notion that guys (even in here) seem to willingly reinforce. That they're always going to weigh you in part as sexual material.
Is is just me or has the atmosphere in the Escapist gotten more... weird... recently?
Anyway, I got distracted on the last one, but I figured I'd point out that there have been studies and reports on the way men and women think of the opposite sex, and men do tend to see even female friends in terms of partnership material. I would assume this is where the "friend zone" comes from and why it's so established (and not just by so-called "nice guys").
I don't know why it happens, but it does seem to be a real thing.
I wonder how much of it is down to how we train men to see relationships with women in their life.
Zachary Amaranth said:
Doesn't, of course, mean men only want sex or that men should be marked as such (though again, I can't help but think "if only men had some sort of power in our society, they could do something about this...."). It does, however, address the notion that guys (even in here) seem to willingly reinforce. That they're always going to weigh you in part as sexual material.
This is something I've noticed too. Seems like there's always a low level of `dem ebil feminists` etc.. but when it intensifies, things get... weird.
But I am an evil feminist myself, so I could just be biased.
Personally I don't mind a little bit of humor involving stereotypes. Now i don't know how Bill managed it since the video simply wouldn't load. But what pisses me off is this kind of thing:
1st: a case of a woman raping a man under threat with a knife gets in the "bizar" section. You won't see any cases of violent rapes against women end up there.
2nd: The fact the guy states that he's now an infamous legend in his neighborhood. He's apparently being ridiculed for being the victim of a violent rape.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
