I'll start by saying, I never identified as a feminist. As a child I remember being often "accused" of being one simply because I argue for equality generally speaking, and it so happened that the topic of that specific conversation was about women (and it so happened I was one, which of course made matters of equality for that particular category feel that much closer to the bone).
The matter of the orgasm gap is one that fascinates me as I am a member (no pun intended) of that half of the population who's capable of having multiple per encounter and yet seems to be statistically enjoying fewer (a mathematical oddity at the very least, if you ask me). I think what makes you itch in the articles you mentioned is the word "entitlement", which is often used with a negative connotation. I actually think of it as a positive - why *wouldn't* you feel entitled to an orgasm in a sexual encounter you are clearly having to *enjoy* it? The problem, if anything, is that there are still people who think they don't deserve an orgasm, and who are open to continuing relationships that don't give them one at least occasionally. Would you go bowling with a friend and think to yourself "it's alright if I don't have fun, because they do and they need this?". Maybe once. Maybe twice if your mate is having a rough time and you want to take their mind off it. Any more and you'd think to yourself you are being pathetic for allowing yourself to be exploited in such a way, especially if your mate knows bowling ain't your thing and makes no effort to reciprocate by going with you somewhere *you* enjoy.
But even as a woman born in the 80s I can tell you that a sizeable chunk of my lady friends put up with the prolonged absence of orgasms in the name of keeping up relationships in which their significant other hides behind a lot of excuses to not make the least amount of effort in supporting them with their, er, entertainment. To then whine because the sex is infrequent and they don't have *their* needs met. Because they are *entitled* to regular sex, and what's this business with their partner not making themselves available? Nonsense, surely.
From my personal experience, much as I cannot sport a long list of sexual partners, about half of the men I've had any such interaction with took little interest in my side of things, if they didn't go as far as blaming me or questioning my heterosexuality in case of negative outcomes. I've been fortunate enough to also find caring and motivated partners along the way, but if my experience is anything to go by, it's the toss of a coin which it is.
Now, I'm not exactly a young person anymore, so maybe things have changed in the meantime for the newer generations, but hearing what I hear around me, I kinda doubt it. It's beautiful that you think any civilised man wouldn't think he is entitled to anyone's body, and I agree with you - with the only caveat that perhaps the number of civilised people is smaller than you think it is.
The experience of your friends amazes me because it affirms a selfishness that I always assumed was just a trope. It may be a 'kink' of mine but sex is just not sexy without a properly spent partner. I'd have thought that at least male ego would also have its use here. I mean, who wants to be thought of as a crap shag?
I am never surprised about selfishness - it's the bog standard human behavioural trait. What does surprise me is how there are women who enable other people's selfishness rather than their own as a standard MO when it comes to sex - that I find quite twisted. The question "if there are two partners and only one of them can have an orgasm, who should it be?" would be answered with a, let's call it "healthy" degree of selfishness if everybody responded with a resounding "ME". But no. Women say, "let him have it - poor soul needs it (and I'd rather not be in a position in which I won't hear the end of it, so it's much easier to sacrifice my sexual happiness than to hear him moan no end). Pat, pat. There. He *deserves* it. It's his *birth right*. That's how he's *wired*. Can I have my vibrator now?"
Really, I find it quite sad that we can't uphold basic standards in that department, as not being able to look after one's own interest is pretty basic as types of failure go.
Why do you think a woman might tolerate this? I assume feminists would say 'something something society'. My guess is that low personal esteem people probably attract selfish people, because they're easier to exploit. I had a remarkably selfish lover, long ago. She only got away with it (for a while) because I was a total pussy and therefore was kind of asking for it. Understanding that dynamic was a game changer in grasping the responsibility we have for our own wellbeing.
If I sound harsh it's because I am. Having 'done the work' I have little time for victimhood.
You don't sound harsh, you sound fair. Issues with low self esteem are one reason (that they might be fuelled by something something society is a part of the picture that needs to be acknowledged, even though it doesn't justify matters in their entirety. I hope you heard that you just described yourself as a "pussy" to mean someone who lacks courage, and you didn't mean a cat - our use of language has a lot to answer for in terms of how people feel about themselves, even though one's well-being is ultimately their responsibility). The other one I can see quite clearly is that climax is slightly less straightforward for women than it is for men anyway - we don't do enough homework to know what gets us off (a lot of us still feel "slutty" and unclean when it comes to exploring our bodies); even when we do we often lack the vocabulary to explain it to a partner; even when we do we don't often feel authorised to ask for what we need for fear of judgement ("wow, you've got... Experience." was one of the things I was told); even when we do our partner is as likely to listen/be interested as they are not. Climbing that ladder to the last step is not for the faint hearted. If you compound it with the struggle of keeping up a long term relationship, giving priority to other things is just easier in a number of cases, as there's a lot to be dealt with anyway and our partners often feel threatened at the very mention that we might have needs they are not currently fulfilling.
It seems to me that this world could be a happier place if everyone was more resilient ... especially where language is concerned. For example, I've thought for a while that workplace training in this might be a better investment than policing so-called micro-aggressions. (Also, you got me bang to rights on 'pussy' because I've entirely forgotten to police my own language in case anyone interprets malign intent. For example, I'll also still say something naff is 'gay'. I may be a horrible person because I don't care if anyone thinks I'm disparaging women or homosexual men).
If that works for you, have a blast. I'm just tired of imprecise language being used as an excuse not to get on with the actual work that needs to be done and the goals that need to be achieved, and don't want to wait for people to become resilient (whatever that might mean) to see progress in what matters to me. Beyond my simple desire to be respectful of others factually and formally, at a very pragmatic level if people get distracted by my use of language they have the best excuse to wriggle out of the hold. Accountability goes out of the window and suddenly we are back to square one, because not only do we still have a problem to solve but we also need to bring people back to the table kicking and screaming. Clean language exposes laziness and lack of ambition for change for what they are. Yes, I am fun at dinner parties.
"But then I'm sceptical of 'rights' in general, which I'm still trying to figure out how to write about."
I'm interested in your ideas on this. Hope you write about it at some point.
"Well, yes, but I can't shake a certain resentment that there are people who pathologise what I - as an ordinary man with desires that are best met by a woman - want as entitlement."
I think you can't get shake the resentment because it is the exact mechanism through which society denigrated women for ages: pick something like their tendency to be more emotional (tendency only! individuals vary wildly!), pathologize it, and denigrate them as a class. It has been a project of a regrettable number of feminist voices. Are men more violent than women? Do they feel horny more frequently and more strongly? As matters of averages, YES! Undoubtedly. And it seems like parts of feminism are intent on turning these traits into problems.
I used to consider myself a feminist as well. Lately I've been wondering if it's time to retire the broad meta-narrative of feminism in the WEIRD world in favor of something more universal. It's simply causing more problems than it's worth, and I think we can address our desired social progress more effectively if we stop dividing women and men. Perhaps we need to come together in a way that's not under the ostensible advocacy of either sex specifically.
It seems to me that you can at least theoretically have understanding, respect and equality of standing between most groups, while the zero sum nature of identity politics actually reifies division.
On rights I'm reading a lot, trying to figure out why obligations are never mentioned and trying to articulate the intuition I have that they represent a kind of recursive path away from community to hyper-individualism.
As ever, the discourse ends up extremely theoretical and opinion-laden, with a seeming lack of reasoned argument. But I continue to wade through it in the hope of writing something soon.
"It seems to me that you can at least theoretically have understanding, respect and equality of standing between most groups, while the zero sum nature of identity politics actually reifies division."
That's true; there's nothing inherently wrong with advocacy for a limited position or specific group in an ecosystem that respects and values diversity.
I'll start by saying, I never identified as a feminist. As a child I remember being often "accused" of being one simply because I argue for equality generally speaking, and it so happened that the topic of that specific conversation was about women (and it so happened I was one, which of course made matters of equality for that particular category feel that much closer to the bone).
The matter of the orgasm gap is one that fascinates me as I am a member (no pun intended) of that half of the population who's capable of having multiple per encounter and yet seems to be statistically enjoying fewer (a mathematical oddity at the very least, if you ask me). I think what makes you itch in the articles you mentioned is the word "entitlement", which is often used with a negative connotation. I actually think of it as a positive - why *wouldn't* you feel entitled to an orgasm in a sexual encounter you are clearly having to *enjoy* it? The problem, if anything, is that there are still people who think they don't deserve an orgasm, and who are open to continuing relationships that don't give them one at least occasionally. Would you go bowling with a friend and think to yourself "it's alright if I don't have fun, because they do and they need this?". Maybe once. Maybe twice if your mate is having a rough time and you want to take their mind off it. Any more and you'd think to yourself you are being pathetic for allowing yourself to be exploited in such a way, especially if your mate knows bowling ain't your thing and makes no effort to reciprocate by going with you somewhere *you* enjoy.
But even as a woman born in the 80s I can tell you that a sizeable chunk of my lady friends put up with the prolonged absence of orgasms in the name of keeping up relationships in which their significant other hides behind a lot of excuses to not make the least amount of effort in supporting them with their, er, entertainment. To then whine because the sex is infrequent and they don't have *their* needs met. Because they are *entitled* to regular sex, and what's this business with their partner not making themselves available? Nonsense, surely.
From my personal experience, much as I cannot sport a long list of sexual partners, about half of the men I've had any such interaction with took little interest in my side of things, if they didn't go as far as blaming me or questioning my heterosexuality in case of negative outcomes. I've been fortunate enough to also find caring and motivated partners along the way, but if my experience is anything to go by, it's the toss of a coin which it is.
Now, I'm not exactly a young person anymore, so maybe things have changed in the meantime for the newer generations, but hearing what I hear around me, I kinda doubt it. It's beautiful that you think any civilised man wouldn't think he is entitled to anyone's body, and I agree with you - with the only caveat that perhaps the number of civilised people is smaller than you think it is.
The experience of your friends amazes me because it affirms a selfishness that I always assumed was just a trope. It may be a 'kink' of mine but sex is just not sexy without a properly spent partner. I'd have thought that at least male ego would also have its use here. I mean, who wants to be thought of as a crap shag?
I am never surprised about selfishness - it's the bog standard human behavioural trait. What does surprise me is how there are women who enable other people's selfishness rather than their own as a standard MO when it comes to sex - that I find quite twisted. The question "if there are two partners and only one of them can have an orgasm, who should it be?" would be answered with a, let's call it "healthy" degree of selfishness if everybody responded with a resounding "ME". But no. Women say, "let him have it - poor soul needs it (and I'd rather not be in a position in which I won't hear the end of it, so it's much easier to sacrifice my sexual happiness than to hear him moan no end). Pat, pat. There. He *deserves* it. It's his *birth right*. That's how he's *wired*. Can I have my vibrator now?"
Really, I find it quite sad that we can't uphold basic standards in that department, as not being able to look after one's own interest is pretty basic as types of failure go.
Why do you think a woman might tolerate this? I assume feminists would say 'something something society'. My guess is that low personal esteem people probably attract selfish people, because they're easier to exploit. I had a remarkably selfish lover, long ago. She only got away with it (for a while) because I was a total pussy and therefore was kind of asking for it. Understanding that dynamic was a game changer in grasping the responsibility we have for our own wellbeing.
If I sound harsh it's because I am. Having 'done the work' I have little time for victimhood.
You don't sound harsh, you sound fair. Issues with low self esteem are one reason (that they might be fuelled by something something society is a part of the picture that needs to be acknowledged, even though it doesn't justify matters in their entirety. I hope you heard that you just described yourself as a "pussy" to mean someone who lacks courage, and you didn't mean a cat - our use of language has a lot to answer for in terms of how people feel about themselves, even though one's well-being is ultimately their responsibility). The other one I can see quite clearly is that climax is slightly less straightforward for women than it is for men anyway - we don't do enough homework to know what gets us off (a lot of us still feel "slutty" and unclean when it comes to exploring our bodies); even when we do we often lack the vocabulary to explain it to a partner; even when we do we don't often feel authorised to ask for what we need for fear of judgement ("wow, you've got... Experience." was one of the things I was told); even when we do our partner is as likely to listen/be interested as they are not. Climbing that ladder to the last step is not for the faint hearted. If you compound it with the struggle of keeping up a long term relationship, giving priority to other things is just easier in a number of cases, as there's a lot to be dealt with anyway and our partners often feel threatened at the very mention that we might have needs they are not currently fulfilling.
It seems to me that this world could be a happier place if everyone was more resilient ... especially where language is concerned. For example, I've thought for a while that workplace training in this might be a better investment than policing so-called micro-aggressions. (Also, you got me bang to rights on 'pussy' because I've entirely forgotten to police my own language in case anyone interprets malign intent. For example, I'll also still say something naff is 'gay'. I may be a horrible person because I don't care if anyone thinks I'm disparaging women or homosexual men).
If that works for you, have a blast. I'm just tired of imprecise language being used as an excuse not to get on with the actual work that needs to be done and the goals that need to be achieved, and don't want to wait for people to become resilient (whatever that might mean) to see progress in what matters to me. Beyond my simple desire to be respectful of others factually and formally, at a very pragmatic level if people get distracted by my use of language they have the best excuse to wriggle out of the hold. Accountability goes out of the window and suddenly we are back to square one, because not only do we still have a problem to solve but we also need to bring people back to the table kicking and screaming. Clean language exposes laziness and lack of ambition for change for what they are. Yes, I am fun at dinner parties.
"But then I'm sceptical of 'rights' in general, which I'm still trying to figure out how to write about."
I'm interested in your ideas on this. Hope you write about it at some point.
"Well, yes, but I can't shake a certain resentment that there are people who pathologise what I - as an ordinary man with desires that are best met by a woman - want as entitlement."
I think you can't get shake the resentment because it is the exact mechanism through which society denigrated women for ages: pick something like their tendency to be more emotional (tendency only! individuals vary wildly!), pathologize it, and denigrate them as a class. It has been a project of a regrettable number of feminist voices. Are men more violent than women? Do they feel horny more frequently and more strongly? As matters of averages, YES! Undoubtedly. And it seems like parts of feminism are intent on turning these traits into problems.
I used to consider myself a feminist as well. Lately I've been wondering if it's time to retire the broad meta-narrative of feminism in the WEIRD world in favor of something more universal. It's simply causing more problems than it's worth, and I think we can address our desired social progress more effectively if we stop dividing women and men. Perhaps we need to come together in a way that's not under the ostensible advocacy of either sex specifically.
It seems to me that you can at least theoretically have understanding, respect and equality of standing between most groups, while the zero sum nature of identity politics actually reifies division.
On rights I'm reading a lot, trying to figure out why obligations are never mentioned and trying to articulate the intuition I have that they represent a kind of recursive path away from community to hyper-individualism.
As ever, the discourse ends up extremely theoretical and opinion-laden, with a seeming lack of reasoned argument. But I continue to wade through it in the hope of writing something soon.
"It seems to me that you can at least theoretically have understanding, respect and equality of standing between most groups, while the zero sum nature of identity politics actually reifies division."
That's true; there's nothing inherently wrong with advocacy for a limited position or specific group in an ecosystem that respects and values diversity.