Men. Men. Men.

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

This got me wondering, is toxic masculinity composed of inherently toxic traits, or is it taking traits that are healthy in moderation to an unhealthy extreme? At another point in the book Webb talks about how he struggled to reconcile that it's possible to be strong and active without being domineering and aggressive, or that you can be kind and well-mannered without being docile.

It was something we talked about earlier on - the notion of the term 'toxic masculinity' being unfortunate because the problem is not that masculinity itself is toxic, or being a man is toxic, but the specific ways in which men are encouraged to behave is toxic - to themselves, and others.

Some things, I suspect, are not going to be good for men in almost any dosage. As I said earlier, the idea that men can only open up emotionally when they are drinking heavily is by definition toxic; it literally requires ingesting a toxin in order to release things. Other things, like being more risky, being more prone to take action, being more direct - these things are good in balance with others who aren't that way. 

And also note that these traits are not particularly universal throughout humans. There are cultures that have men be the ones who are more emotionally driven than women. There are cultures where women are the ones who make decisions and act. There are cultures where women are the ones who choose their mates, and men are the ones who are wooed. That sort of thing.

Quote

Ultimately, one of Webb's main points (so far as I am in the book) is the conceptions of masculinity and femininity aren't particularly useful, and that trying to redefine masculinity into a more healthy form is still just perpetuating an idea that men are expected to act a certain way. Positive personality traits stand as positive on their own merits regardless of the genitals (or personal identity) of those who exhibit them, and the same is true for negative traits.

I don't think this is a good idea. While the specific traits between cultures vary, the idea of male and female genders is universal across cultures and gender roles happen across all cultures and across other primates. I think it's a lot more constructive to make better role models for the genders instead of making it so that they don't exist. This is in my mind similar to the idea of 'I don't see race', which we have found out to actually encourage more toxic forms of racism. Instead, recognize the facts in front of you and then work to fix the ones that don't work. 

[Isis]

24 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

It's probably a lost cause, but here's my possibly quixotic attempt to wrench this thread somewhat back on topic.

Has anybody else been reading How Not To Be A Boy by Robert Webb? Part memoir, part musing on issues surrounding masculinity in the modern world. I've not quite finished it yet but what I've read so far has been good. I doubt it will fundamentally rock anyone's worldview but Webb presents the topic pretty thoughtfully.

I've not read it yet but I plan to. I read an article on it when it was released and also saw an interview that Webb did on C4 news about the book. There were some real tear-jerking moments even in the article about the book. He has certainly done a lot of work to unpick his upbringing and look at how he got to be the person he was a teenager and young adult. And he's very honest about what he was like, e.g. only being able to express anger rather than any other emotion. It's very authentic and I've known men like that in my life to varying degrees. Actually I'm going to bump the book up my list after this reminder.

[Liffguard]

Quote

This is in my mind similar to the idea of 'I don't see race', which we have found out to actually encourage more toxic forms of racism. Instead, recognize the facts in front of you and then work to fix the ones that don't work. 

Fair point, but I'm not really saying that we shouldn't acknowledge the way that western culture treats men and women differently, just that we should stop thinking of particular characteristics as masculine or feminine. If we say that a certain positive trait is an aspect of masculinity, then it still implies there's something odd about a woman who displays that trait (or vice versa). Even if we as a society become totally accepting of women displaying masculine traits (and vice versa), that still creates expectations of how people should be that may run counter to the way that individuals want to live their lives.

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

Fair point, but I'm not really saying that we shouldn't acknowledge the way that western culture treats men and women differently, just that we should stop thinking of particular characteristics as masculine or feminine. If we say that a certain positive trait is an aspect of masculinity, then it still implies there's something odd about a woman who displays that trait (or vice versa). Even if we as a society become totally accepting of women displaying masculine traits (and vice versa), that still creates expectations of how people should be that may run counter to the way that individuals want to live their lives.

It's not just about how culture treats women and men differently - it's that every culture gravitates towards making some facets of personality masculine and feminine. Those facets are not universal by any means - they vary wildly even within cultures - but those divisions of personality are pretty core to what we consider human existence.

Where I'd like to go is to make sure that masculine is not the default value, that feminine traits are not used as an insult, and that we curb the excesses of toxic machismo that causes so many men to do very unhealthy things to themselves. 

[The Mance]

26 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

Even if we as a society become totally accepting of women displaying masculine traits (and vice versa), that still creates expectations of how people should be that may run counter to the way that individuals want to live their lives.

Agreed.

 

Kal, 

I'm not sure that shoehorning individuals into roles that they may or may not completely identify with is worth maintaining just because it happens in a variety of cultural contexts.  Better to identify the various strengths or weaknesses of a person and celebrate the good while discouraging the bad.  

I think as soon as you (general you) assign a group of characteristics as an archetype and slap a gender label on it you are setting someone up to have only some of those characteristics, but not all, and therefore open them up to condemnation or self-doubt. 

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, Liffguard said:

It's probably a lost cause, but here's my possibly quixotic attempt to wrench this thread somewhat back on topic.

Has anybody else been reading How Not To Be A Boy by Robert Webb? Part memoir, part musing on issues surrounding masculinity in the modern world. I've not quite finished it yet but what I've read so far has been good. I doubt it will fundamentally rock anyone's worldview but Webb presents the topic pretty thoughtfully.

One of parts that got me thinking was earlier on when he's having an imaginary conversation with his younger self. He reveals that he went through a period of defining himself in direct opposition to his abusive, drunken, emotionally immature, hyper-masculine northern dad, and by extension in direct opposition to toxic masculinity as a whole. More to the point, he also delves into how this was almost as unhealthy as wholeheardtedly embracing it. After all, if your whole identity is based around being the exact opposite of a certain stereotype, you're still allowing the stereotype to define your life. In many ways the exact opposite of the hyper-masculine "alpha male" is the passive "nice guy," which is just an expression of toxic masculinity in a different package.

This got me wondering, is toxic masculinity composed of inherently toxic traits, or is it taking traits that are healthy in moderation to an unhealthy extreme? At another point in the book Webb talks about how he struggled to reconcile that it's possible to be strong and active without being domineering and aggressive, or that you can be kind and well-mannered without being docile.

Ultimately, one of Webb's main points (so far as I am in the book) is the conceptions of masculinity and femininity aren't particularly useful, and that trying to redefine masculinity into a more healthy form is still just perpetuating an idea that men are expected to act a certain way. Positive personality traits stand as positive on their own merits regardless of the genitals (or personal identity) of those who exhibit them, and the same is true for negative traits.

Yeah, I read that (I did post about it before, might be on one of the other gender threads), I recommend it to anyone interested in this subject, especially people who don't think men's issues are something worth focusing on.

I think a lot of tension for him comes from the gap between his natural personality, he talks about what a quiet and peaceful little boy he was, and the masculine ideal. I didn't have that, I was a very stereotypical little boy in a lot of ways- I was very loud and active. What I really related to was the daily stress of being a boy in and English comprehensive (probably applies more generally) where you're just having to constantly show front. Like him, I realised I could deflect bullying because I was quite quick with my tongue, I could mock others. I actually have a strong memory from when I was about eight, and this older kid told me my lunch looked like it tasted of shit, and I said he must have eaten shit to know that (I know, not the height of wit, but hilarious for eight year olds). Everyone laughed, and he slinked off, and I realised I could win with my words (I was a tiny child, so I always got picked on).

I think you make a very good point. Like many things, people get caught up in the dichotomy here. I notice it both ways online. Say anything even vaguely defending women, and you're a beta white knight fag to some. Make any criticism of feminism, and you're a rape culture supporting mysogynist piece of shit with others. Luckily the real world is a lot more forgiving, but these attitudes are still out there. You can feel like you're walking a tightrope if you don't want to piss anyone off.

Yeah, and I agree with that, I think trying to avoid gender stereotyping in your kids is very important. I think kids do pick up on how they are expected to act.

The only thing I really disagreed with was one part where he seems to say gender ideas are overwhelmingly nurture over nature. I did previously lean more this way, but since working with children, I've moved a bit the other day. Gender was so clear in my little ones, and even though it was a totally different culture, the way they acted was very familiar. I remember a big thing about not calling girls "bossy", but little girls are more bossy. I had this four year old girl who would constantly try to essentially take over leading the class from me. In some ways she was great, there was this incredibly shy three year old, and she just took her, and was showing her how to do the work (I couldn't really teach the younger girl as she was absolutely terrified of me). But she would also just stand up and say "I think we should do this game next" and try to organise everyone to play it, when I've just asked them to do something totally different (I know it's slightly embarassing to be in a power struggle with a four year old, but I'm really not a naturally authorative person). Whereas the naughty boys would just ignore me and just run around the class, try and climb things, etc. Obviously gender norms can already impact at that age, but the differences seemed really ingrained. And, most damningly, these differences were actually more noticeable in the younger children.

This still hasn't really changed my views on how to raise children, though. Because even if most boys are like X, and most girls are like Y, there are still plenty of exceptions, and those children deserve to be allowed the same freedoms as everyone else. And besides- if the boys are going to end up playing football, and the girls are going to end up playing with dolls, anyway, then why not give them a free choice, without pressure?

1 hour ago, Liffguard said:

Fair point, but I'm not really saying that we shouldn't acknowledge the way that western culture treats men and women differently, just that we should stop thinking of particular characteristics as masculine or feminine. If we say that a certain positive trait is an aspect of masculinity, then it still implies there's something odd about a woman who displays that trait (or vice versa). Even if we as a society become totally accepting of women displaying masculine traits (and vice versa), that still creates expectations of how people should be that may run counter to the way that individuals want to live their lives.

What I would really love more than anything for society is for "odd" to not be seen negatively, and for "normal" to not be seen positively. I think it's hard to get adults to think that way, and pretty much impossible to get children to, sadly.

 

[Kalbear]

28 minutes ago, The Mance said:

Kal, 

I'm not sure that shoehorning individuals into roles that they may or may not completely identify with is worth maintaining just because it happens in a variety of cultural contexts.  Better to identify the various strengths or weaknesses of a person and celebrate the good while discouraging the bad.  

I think as soon as you (general you) assign a group of characteristics as an archetype and slap a gender label on it you are setting someone up to have only some of those characteristics, but not all, and therefore open them up to condemnation or self-doubt. 

Sorry, that's not my point. 

My point is that this will happen. It happens from an early age in human development, as humans see what boys and girls like and adjust appropriately. There's no way to turn this off any more than there is a way to turn off sexual appetite entirely, or need for eating. Boys and girls differentiate by watching things. That is what they do, socially, across all spectrums. Now, WHAT they differentiate on is not required, and making feminine BAD is also not required - but it exists. (and this doesn't get into other nonbinary gender roles, which ALSO differentiate behaviors).

You can suppress it - but that doesn't end up helping, it just makes it this weird perverse thing and encourages extremism. I'd rather acknowledge that it's a part of our primate past, we're not going to get rid of it, and figure out how to work with it healthily. 

[TerraPrime]

Ok, coming in late to the thread, so going a bit guerrilla in responding. 

 

1. Traditional masculinity, feminine masculinity, masculinity 

The way the discussion was framed reflects part of the problem, which is that in some people's view, a more feminine approach of defining masculinity is somehow the same as discrediting the traditional views, whereas, in fact, it is the other way around, wherein traditional masculinity sustains itself by purging feminine traits from the accepted definitions of manhood. In many cases, masculinity is defined by the negation of femininity, e.g., "boys don't cry." Another example is, "men don't wear skirts." The gender-opposite, "girls don't fight" and "women don't wear pants" do exist, but as a result of feminism, these are no longer the dominant narrative in women seeing themselves. 

 

So when we classify a more encompassing and humanistic view of masculinity as feminine masculinity, which is aligned perpendicular to the implied traditional masculinity (implied to be more true and more valid), we are begging the question. A true investigation of masculinity in modern times needs to divest itself from this originalist constraint in order to reach a better conclusion. 

 

I think all human traits, whether it is stoicism, aggression, sexual focus, etc., happen in all people. The difference is in how these traits are allowed to be expressed by each culture. Aggression, for instance, is expected of women in the context of protecting her family: see for instance Harry Potter movie Deathly Hallow 2, where Molly Weasely was transformed from a matronly figure into a remorseless killer after she was given the reason (death of her son). So we do expect aggression from women, but in different cultures, how they are allowed to express that will vary. Similarly, for men, demonstrating aggression is culturally coded. The formation of gender identity then, is in how the different codings are applied along biological sex identities. So if you're born a male, you are considered "masculine" is you follow the prescribed scripts of expressing aggression. If you deviate, such as if you don't punch back or if you run away from physical fights, that deviance is a mark against you in qualifying for the masculinity model. Accumulate enough marks and you're a gender outlaw - for men you're a sissy, a fag, a nelly. The newer views of masculinity push back on this and contends that masculinity shouldn't be a prescription list for assigned values. We argue that boys who cry, boys who run away from fights, boys who choose hugging over giving wedgies, are no less masculine, that masculinity is a cultural definition that should be expanded to encompass more people.

 

Often, this push back is taken as an attack on the traditionalist view. Sometimes, that is true, because in some of the critiques and push backs there are indeed a blanket condemnation. But more often, this is not true. The critique is usually made against the toxic, and self-harming, impact of the traditional model when it exists without alternatives. The traditional model isn't bad, in itself. The problem is that its existence precludes other forms of masculinity from being accepted and embraced. There's no need to eliminate the traditional model, if we can manage to carve out space for other models. But if someone sees it as a zero-sum game, then yes, pushing for acceptance of a broader view of masculinity is going to be the same as rejecting the traditional view. 

 

2. Sex drive

Oh, dear sweet Jesus. I despair that this Victorian view of female sexuality still persists, today. The idea that men are more sexual in nature as a result of biology is just so much bunk. It really, truly, is. So is the evobio bullshit about males wanting to copulate far and wide to spread the seeds and females wanting to copulate few but with high quality mates. 

 

Just.... no. Stop the biological essentialism and nature fallacy, and instead, address the complex phenomenon as a social/cultural artifact. 

 

Men are more sexual because most cultures allow them to be more sexual. They have the power and cultural permission to do so. These cultural permission to be sexual isn't the result, but the cause, of the impression that men like sex more. Reversing the positions is only fun when it's about the cowgirls, and definitely not when it's about how men come to be associated with wanting, needing, and getting more sex. 

 

 

3. Masturbation is the ultimate consesual act

 

That's MGTOW and InCel talk, isn't it? If not, they should consider it, since it's utter insipid nature makes it a good fit for that subculture. 

You can't consent to your voluntary actions because it wouldn't have happened any other way. If you don't consent to masturbation, you wouldn't have masturbated in the first place. Describing the act of masturbation as a consensual act deprives any meaning in the praxis of consenting to sexual conducts. 

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, TerraPrime said:

2. Just.... no. Stop the biological essentialism and nature fallacy, and instead, address the complex phenomenon as a social/cultural artifact. 

3. Masturbation is the ultimate consesual act

That's MGTOW and InCel talk, isn't it? If not, they should consider it, since it's utter insipid nature makes it a good fit for that subculture. 

You can't consent to your voluntary actions because it wouldn't have happened any other way. If you don't consent to masturbation, you wouldn't have masturbated in the first place. Describing the act of masturbation as a consensual act deprives any meaning in the praxis of consenting to sexual conducts. 

So is your view that male and female sexualities are essentially naturally the same? We should definitely talk about cultural and social influences, and I have done so on here. But you can't just dismiss natural differences with "just... no" just because that doesn't fit your argument. I've seen that on other topics on here. People get so into "nature v nurture". That's just another false dichotomy. You can look into both sides of things. And believing that men do have, say, a higher natural sex drive (which I don't, not exactly, you can read my thoughts on this above if you wish) does not automatically mean you are defending sex offenders. Think of it this way- I'm sure you don't disagree that some people have higher sex drives than others, whether you think there is a link with gender or not. But if someone was on trial for sexual assault and they said "well I have a really high sex drive", no one would consider that a valid defense.

No, and I don't think you really understand these movements. MGTOW think all the talk about consent is essentially a conspiracy by the strawman radical feminist to paint all men as rapists. What is interesting to me is that when I talk about masturbation, people keep thinking I'm talking about male masturbation. Prepare to clutch your pearls- women do it too.

That's literally the point I was making.

I know some people find it uncomfortable that I'm so pro masturbation. Well you know what- I have the medical community behind me. So go fuck yourselves.

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I know some people find it uncomfortable that I'm so pro masturbation. Well you know what- I have the medical community behind me. So go fuck yourselves.

Isn't that a good thing to do if you're pro-masturbation? If so, well, a good go fuck yourself to you too, sir!

I don't think anyone's saying you should be against masturbation. I think they're saying that if your sex drive is so high that you cannot help but masturbate regularly at work, because you can't even stop yourself long enough to do it at home before or after work, chances are good that you have a problem. And that this is not particularly typical or even in a small minority, it is exceptionally deviant. 

And the solution to that is not to say 'oh, well, some men have a high sex drive' because this isn't accurate, any more than saying 'some people don't eat much' when you're talking about breathatarians. 

[mankytoes]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Isn't that a good thing to do if you're pro-masturbation? If so, well, a good go fuck yourself to you too, sir!

I don't think anyone's saying you should be against masturbation. I think they're saying that if your sex drive is so high that you cannot help but masturbate regularly at work, because you can't even stop yourself long enough to do it at home before or after work, chances are good that you have a problem. And that this is not particularly typical or even in a small minority, it is exceptionally deviant. 

And the solution to that is not to say 'oh, well, some men have a high sex drive' because this isn't accurate, any more than saying 'some people don't eat much' when you're talking about breathatarians. 

Exactly! I might just do that. What can I say, it's sex with someone I love (ok, I'm ripping off Woody Allen there, but the "go fuck yourself" joke was an original, and one I'm pretty proud of).

I have already made this distinction, but yes, if you literally "cannot help" but do it, that's a problem. I'm not talking about compulsive masturbators, just regular people. You should have basic self control. Lets go back to where this started- British politician Damien Green has porn on his work computer. I assume he has a private office. Say he's working long hours, starts feeling distracted. He takes every reasonable step to ensure no one will see him, or know what he is doing. He feels more relaxed after, does his job better, the country runs more efficiently as a result. People want him fired for this.

I don't really care about how "deviant" someone is. To me, it's all about harm, including harm to yourself. I think most people now recognise that there are a wide range of sexual attractions. If it's safe, sane and consensual, everything else is just bullshit moralising.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, mankytoes said:

Exactly! I might just do that. What can I say, it's sex with someone I love (ok, I'm ripping off Woody Allen there, but the "go fuck yourself" joke was an original, and one I'm pretty proud of).

Well you should definitely go fuck yourself then. 

1 minute ago, mankytoes said:

I have already made this distinction, but yes, if you literally "cannot help" but do it, that's a problem. I'm not talking about compulsive masturbators, just regular people. You should have basic self control. Lets go back to where this started- British politician Damien Green has porn on his work computer. I assume he has a private office. Say he's working long hours, starts feeling distracted. He takes every reasonable step to ensure no one will see him, or know what he is doing. He feels more relaxed after, does his job better, the country runs more efficiently as a result. People want him fired for this.

Assuming it went as you say (which, since the public found out this appears to be incorrect), a major problem is that he denies it and is suing the police for stating it. He had something like 4000 porn images on his computer, which seems a smidgen excessive for just doing it every so often. Mostly, it is absolutely against the law and he knows it, which means that he's doing it in spite of the rules put in place - and that often means heavy deviancy, as if you're willing to flaunt the rules repeatedly it either implies you are above the rules or you have to do it no matter what. Neither is good.

1 minute ago, mankytoes said:

I don't really care about how "deviant" someone is. To me, it's all about harm, including harm to yourself. I think most people now recognise that there are a wide range of sexual attractions. If it's safe, sane and consensual, everything else is just bullshit moralising.

So Lewis should have been tested for STDs, as presumably he was spraying semen in his workplace and causing others to come into contact with it, right? They certainly have a right to know that, after all. If anyone ever touched his keyboard or mouse, or cleaned his chair - kind of a problem, right?

I care about deviancy largely because deviancy means an inability to conform to societal norms. What the action is I don't tend to care about - I'm cool with the three Ss as a general policy too - but being unable to control your actions despite massive societal pressure to the contrary is a dangerous thing, especially in a major political position. The same is true for Louis CK - while masturbating is not particularly special, having such a need to masturbate that you have to do it in front of unwilling participants repeatedly is a clear sign of massive deviancy that would result in other problems - and in his case, it led to his directly trying to sabotage other people's careers. Same goes for Lewis, who is now trying to sabotage a police officer's career, because of his own problems controlling his urges.

[TerraPrime]

29 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

So is your view that male and female sexualities are essentially naturally the same?

I will have to know what you mean by "essentially" and "naturally" in this context. 

I think both men and women, as generalized groups, have a range of libidos - some are high and some are low, and that for individuals the libido can go or down depending on factors other than the urge for physical gratification. I think both men and women, as generalized groups, have a desire for sex, regardless of the frequency and strength of the desire. I think both men and women, as generalized groups, enjoy sexual intimacies, regardless of how frequently they want to enjoy that. 

33 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

And believing that men do have, say, a higher natural sex drive (which I don't, not exactly, you can read my thoughts on this above if you wish) does not automatically mean you are defending sex offenders.

Then what are you disagreeing with me on, if you think that men, as a group, doesn't have an inherently higher sex drive? I made no mention of defending sex offenders in my post, so it seems like you're reading into my post what I didn't actually write. 

 

35 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

No, and I don't think you really understand these movements.

You're probably right. It's difficult to understand movements arising from reactionary rage because there's little coherence to their views, let alone logical framework. 

 

36 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

What is interesting to me is that when I talk about masturbation, people keep thinking I'm talking about male masturbation. Prepare to clutch your pearls- women do it too.

That's literally the point I was making.

I know some people find it uncomfortable that I'm so pro masturbation. Well you know what- I have the medical community behind me. So go fuck yourselves.

What makes you think I am anti-masturbation? Or that I think only men masturbate? Or am I not included in your "people" reference? 

Because my comment there was not that I am against masturbation. Rather, I am against classifying it as a form of consensual act. You don't say you drinking a cup of water is a consensual act. You don't say that jogging is a consensual act. Pitching masturbation as a form of consensual act detracts from the meaning of consent in the context of sexual activities, and muddies the water. That's my point. 

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Well you should definitely go fuck yourself then. 

Assuming it went as you say (which, since the public found out this appears to be incorrect), a major problem is that he denies it and is suing the police for stating it. He had something like 4000 porn images on his computer, which seems a smidgen excessive for just doing it every so often. Mostly, it is absolutely against the law and he knows it, which means that he's doing it in spite of the rules put in place - and that often means heavy deviancy, as if you're willing to flaunt the rules repeatedly it either implies you are above the rules or you have to do it no matter what. Neither is good.

So Lewis should have been tested for STDs, as presumably he was spraying semen in his workplace and causing others to come into contact with it, right? They certainly have a right to know that, after all. If anyone ever touched his keyboard or mouse, or cleaned his chair - kind of a problem, right?

I care about deviancy largely because deviancy means an inability to conform to societal norms. What the action is I don't tend to care about - I'm cool with the three Ss as a general policy too - but being unable to control your actions despite massive societal pressure to the contrary is a dangerous thing, especially in a major political position. The same is true for Louis CK - while masturbating is not particularly special, having such a need to masturbate that you have to do it in front of unwilling participants repeatedly is a clear sign of massive deviancy that would result in other problems - and in his case, it led to his directly trying to sabotage other people's careers. Same goes for Lewis, who is now trying to sabotage a police officer's career, because of his own problems controlling his urges.

See, I was gonna, but now we've talked about it, I'm kinda put off.

Well this is getting back into what I was saying earlier- we did find out, but only because the police seized his computer on an unrelated issue, then released this information, which I think is unethical.

What law? I'm pretty sure no one has claimed that, they don't want him arrested, just fired.

Uh, are you serious? That isn't how it works...

Surely an unwillingness, not an inability? And it's pretty easy to see how deviancy could be a good thing, like if you live in a slave society. I don't know if Louis CK does have an unusually high desire to masturbate, that's pure speculation. It's not like he kept getting caught accidently, he was doing this on purpose. I don't see any evidence of a link there at all. You just seem to again keep trying to link a perfectly consensual/ethical activity- masturbation, with a non consensual one- masturbating in front of someone. That's as silly as equating regular sex with rape. We don't assume rapists have high sex drives. I also don't know whose career Lewis is supposed to be sabotaging, as the police officer who is accusing him is retired.

1 hour ago, TerraPrime said:

I will have to know what you mean by "essentially" and "naturally" in this context.

Then what are you disagreeing with me on, if you think that men, as a group, doesn't have an inherently higher sex drive? I made no mention of defending sex offenders in my post, so it seems like you're reading into my post what I didn't actually write.

What makes you think I am anti-masturbation? Or that I think only men masturbate? Or am I not included in your "people" reference? 

Because my comment there was not that I am against masturbation. Rather, I am against classifying it as a form of consensual act. You don't say you drinking a cup of water is a consensual act. You don't say that jogging is a consensual act. Pitching masturbation as a form of consensual act detracts from the meaning of consent in the context of sexual activities, and muddies the water. That's my point. 

Ok, "essentially" means "more of less". So there are no major differences. By "naturally" I mean "inherently, as opposed to nurture, which is learned behaviour". I think sexual expression and difference is a mixture of nature and nurture.

Because that doesn't mean I don't think men and women generally have a difference in how they view sex. As I say, I've already gone into more detail about this, but I was saying that male sexual desire is sparked more easily.

Well you linked what I said to MGTOW and incel groups, both of which are male. Why would they have that view of female masturbation? You could have referenced separatist feminists.

Fair enough, that doesn't really work outside the context. I just think that masturbation gets a bad name, we're still taught to feel vaguely ashamed of it, when it's overall a very safe form of sex.

[Darth Richard II]

24 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Because that doesn't mean I don't think men and women generally have a difference in how they view sex. As I say, I've already gone into more detail about this, but I was saying that male sexual desire is sparked more easily.

 

See, this is Victorian age thinking right there. That is I believe what TP was talking about.

[Kalbear]

30 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

See, I was gonna, but now we've talked about it, I'm kinda put off.

Come on man, go fuck yourself. After your performance in this thread you've earned it.

30 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Well this is getting back into what I was saying earlier- we did find out, but only because the police seized his computer on an unrelated issue, then released this information, which I think is unethical.

Others disagree.

30 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

What law? I'm pretty sure no one has claimed that, they don't want him arrested, just fired.

I'm pretty sure that it's against the law to jerk off in a public place.

I'm also sure that it's against governmental policy. 

30 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Uh, are you serious? That isn't how it works...

It kind of is. Deviancy is simply a major deviation from societal norms. Humans are very good at adapting to sometimes insanely crazy societal norms and will do things happily if they are allowed even if they seem incredibly wrong to other groups, and are also insanely good at defending purity of the group by punishing people who deviate from those norms. Again, this is a pancultural thing, instinctive to every human culture. 

And deviancy is basically defined as 'something against societal norms'. What is deviant behavior changes over time (homosexuality was classified as deviant behavior as recently as the late 70s, and BDSM was classified as it until 2000 or so), but in both cases it was considered seriously beyond norms. 

If someone is willing to deviate significantly from the societal norms and do so in a fairly open way, it means either that they are doing it beyond simple desire and it is a need to do so, or they feel that they can easily flaunt societal norms and suffer no repercussions. 

30 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Surely an unwillingness, not an inability? And it's pretty easy to see how deviancy could be a good thing, like if you live in a slave society. I don't know if Louis CK does have an unusually high desire to masturbate, that's pure speculation. It's not like he kept getting caught accidently, he was doing this on purpose. I don't see any evidence of a link there at all. You just seem to again keep trying to link a perfectly consensual/ethical activity- masturbation, with a non consensual one- masturbating in front of someone. That's as silly as equating regular sex with rape. We don't assume rapists have high sex drives. I also don't know whose career Lewis is supposed to be sabotaging, as the police officer who is accusing him is retired.

In cases where it's against the law, it's almost certainly an inability, a compulsion, that cannot be denied. 

Deviancy can be a good thing as far as moving societal norms to something - or it can be a bad thing. Puritanical movements were pretty deviant in their time as well. 

Louis CK has joked about masturbating an incredibly large amount. He had the caption 'comedian/masturbator'. He has been accused of jerking off in front of women who did not want him to do so at least 5 times. In each case he torpedoed those women's careers after the fact, because they refused to work with him and he told everyone that they were bad news. The reason he keeps coming up is because @litechick used him as an example of someone with a high sex drive who should apparently be catered to and not condemned. I point out that his 'high sex drive' isn't that at all - it was a compulsion to act in a highly deviant way, and then suppress those facts for 15 years.

That, right there, is deviant behavior. It is not remotely normal or even on the higher spectrum. It is not something we should look to cater.

 

[DMC]

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

To me, it's all about harm, including harm to yourself.

Like, chafing?

Sorry.  Now I'm the one claiming I couldn't help myself - even though I could.

[mankytoes]

7 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

See, this is Victorian age thinking right there. That is I believe what TP was talking about.

So basically we have to say that men and women have identical sex drives, or we will have our arguments dismissed as "Victorian"? 

That isn't really what Victorian age thinking represents, by the way, that's characterised by excessive prudishness. People in the Victorian age did not think "men naturally need to masturbate", quite the opposite, they were absolutely obsessed with stopping it. Look up Kellog, he was against it to an almost psychotic level. 

Kal, your argument is based on a falsehood, he did nothing illegal. Look it up. What is illegal is "indecent exposure"- but you have to be deliberately trying to shock others. Obviously it'll be against office rules, but that's very different.

[Gorn]

18 hours ago, mormont said:

The point was, is the experience of being a man in some way different or incomprehensible to a woman in this respect? If so, how and why?

This wasn't directed to me, but there is a simple answer to this question: testosterone.

I was never able to experience the "women's side", but a lot of transsexual people have actually experienced this difference. And the stories from people transitioning from women to men report a significant increase of sexual desire simultaneous with testosterone injections. Similar experience has been reported with men who started using testosterone boosters.

Here is a good link to listen to about this subject: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/220/testosterone?act=2#play

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

So basically we have to say that men and women have identical sex drives, or we will have our arguments dismissed as "Victorian"? 

That isn't really what Victorian age thinking represents, by the way, that's characterised by excessive prudishness. People in the Victorian age did not think "men naturally need to masturbate", quite the opposite, they were absolutely obsessed with stopping it. Look up Kellog, he was against it to an almost psychotic level. 

Kal, your argument is based on a falsehood, he did nothing illegal. Look it up. What is illegal is "indecent exposure"- but you have to be deliberately trying to shock others. Obviously it'll be against office rules, but that's very different.

Kellogg is a terrible example for your argument; he literally believed the drive to masturbate was so naturally powerful it had to be controlled by diet.