It's all well and good for acceptance, but what difference does it make to the guy who wants to be banged by his girlfriend with a strap on? There are differences in our genders, studies have shown that guys and girls learn differently.
I'm confused about what you're saying here, and I'm not sure if you're misusing the word "gender" or not. Remember, "Sex" refers to the anatomical, endocrinal and genetic differences between people which make them male and female. "Gender" refers to the way in which these male and female bodies are socially differentiated from each other.
Assuming you actually meant to say "gender" then yeah, countless studies have provided overwhelming evidence of that, to the point that it's a common sense assumption accessible via a cursory glance at our society. That's actually what I've been saying all along.
If you meant to say "sex", then no. There isn't very much evidence. A handful of studies does not "prove" anything just by getting published, they must be repeatable
(anyone, regardless of prior belief, must be able to come to the same result), logically consistent
(any original theory must be the product of analysis) and it must eliminate alternative explanations
. Sexual difference theories regarding cognitive functioning have never been able to do any of these things.
In truth, we actually don't know how different the sexes are from one another in their cognitive functioning, but given that even the most hardline study in this area is only asserting a generalization, the logic answer is "not very". Moreover, once you put together how human sex actually develops it becomes a pretty pointless question, there isn't a magic binary switch which gives you a magically different brain and physical appearance, it's all regulated by differences (sometimes very subtle differences) in the production of androgenic hormones. What we're looking for when we study "sex differences" is actually the effects of those hormones, which vary enormously between individuals anyway. In short, we all learn differently and we all think differently. A crude generalization is no basis for organizing our society.
Yes that opinion is formed and informed by societal standards, but some things will always be weird or deviant to us.
And if he had said "I'm tired of feeling weird
for enjoying my girlfriend's strap on" that would be highly relevant. However, he didn't. He said "I'm tired of feeling unmanly
". This isn't an issue of what's generally "weird", it's not remotely weird for women to want to be anally penetrated despite the fact that the physical rewards for them are usually close to non-existent.
The reason why its "unmanly" to enjoy receptive anal sex is not because men are just different and are "programmed" to hate it. In fact, anatomical sexual differences mean that receptive anal sex can be far more pleasurable for us than it can ever be for women, and yet it is highly taboo in many societies is because it is seen as a feminine position.
And, going back to my very original post to you.. why is that such a bad thing?
So there is simply no point in waiting for that. His sex life doesn't need to be political and can be 100% private.
Just like everyone else's sexuality is completely private??
Except it's not, is it? We are saturated with very public sexuality all the time, generally very boring and normative sexuality which may be why it's so hard to notice. Perhaps it's become so normal that you don't register it as sexuality any more, but it is nonetheless. Everything from advertisements to the basic conversations you have with people will include references which position their sexuality as normal or abnormal, or which clues about whether their sexual behavior is manly or unmanly or feminine or unfeminine or gay or straight or whatever.
How many people actually think that a girl feels attractive if she is ogled in the street or whatever?
Many. That's why people still do it.
You've mistaken this issue completely. It's nothing to do with the "quality" of the guy, it's to do with behavior which is aggressive or insensitive.
If you stare at someone, fine. It happens. But if you happen to make eye contact and you don't get a smile or something, then you break off. This isn't even etiquette, it's basic body language. If you make eye contact with a gorilla and don't break it then you're going to get your arms ripped off because it's an aggressive gesture. If you keep staring at someone who has not given you a positive reaction, if you stare at them as if they're an object without displaying any regard for their feelings, it's no better than chasing someone down the street when they've rejected you telling them you'll leave them alone if they'll give you a handjob.
This is not something guys do by accident, it might be something guys do if they never learned how to behave properly, but it isn't accidental. It is clearly and obviously aggression. The issue is that some guys still believe that women respond
to aggression and feel complimented by it, when the much more likely reaction is that they feel embarrassed or even afraid.
How many guys? Far fewer than 30 years ago
. Why is that? I'll give you a clue, it begins with an 'F'.
Men are typically the ones who will "hunt" for a girl, or is generally the one who initiates contact with a girl. Our brains formed on the savannah (for roughly 2 million years, known as the Pleistocene period) and we haven't been out of it long enough for deeply ingrained values and attitudes to change.
Again, this is pure supposition.
Anyone can take a present day social trend and claim it's something humans have evolved to do. It doesn't make it accurate. Observe:
Women like pink because they evolved to find berries in the undergrowth and became very sensitive to red-spectrum colors.
This one is actually, patently untrue (which hasn't stopped people trying to claim it). It's only in the last hundred and fifty years or so in one particular society that pink has been considered a feminine colour. You cannot extrapolate evolutionary trends from social trends without eliminating alternative explanations.
There is no Flintstonian constant, particularly since for the past few thousand years marriage and sex has been explicitly about political kinship ties and the pursuit of sexual pleasure has generally been entirely secondary. Most of these ideas about the most "naturally" attractive female body shapes are Victorian preoccupations, there's no real evidence for them prior to that.
If the urges are strong enough in a man and he rapes a woman, he will use any excuse to justify it, and education cannot fix that. These urges are not trivial, this is your very DNA pushing you get pass on your genes by getting laid.
Science aside, before you go down this road, I want you to sit and think about the social implications of what you are saying for a minute.
I'm assuming we're both male. If what you just said was true, and if it was accepted to be true, what would the logical solution be? How that would solution impact on people like you and me?
I've seen some decidedly unattractive guys who are good with woman, but they could have easily given up.
Do you really think none of the women in those pictures could get laid if they wanted to? Do you think they couldn't score way out of their league if they wanted to? You're assuming randomly that they're subject to exactly the same situation as their male counterparts, that "success" means the same thing to them and thus all they need to achieve that "success" is a little self-confidence.
They clearly are self-confident to some degree. They've posted pictures of themselves online. One is showing us her armpit hair, the other has stated that she "loves her body". I don't understand how you get from this to "they need more confidence". Why, so they can get men to have sex with them? You're assuming that's in any way difficult, or that it's what they're looking for.
No I don't think my arguments are original. Of course others have them. That's the point. If I was the only, I might think something is wrong with me.
Do you get why we need feminism yet?