The only good touches for men are sexual?

Yes I am still in this world. Its just that while I was in the hospital with my dad last week it was all I had to continue my own blog. But don't worry he's good and now the show continues.

(Normally I keep my personal stuff at my place but I think this is just too big to presume that I'm the only guy that feels this way.)

I've been on a bit of a self diagnostic kick lately and have been reminded of another part of me that's probably a bit lacking.

Last week titfortat told me:

You can a have a Massage at our wellness clinic(on the house). It sounds like you could use one. :)

To which I responded with:

That's another one of my oddities. I don't do a whole lot of that human contact stuff. Its not that I have a phobia or anything that limits it it just doesn't happen.

Well I was going to revisit this later on but Ozy's touched on it a bit so now's as good a time as any.

Virginal men, especially if they don’t have romantic relationships, are often touch-starved. There is one acceptable way for men to get touched: sexually. Casual cuddles with friends are Not Allowed. Woo, homophobia!

For the most part growing up with the script of being a man shoved down our throats most of us were raised with some odd messages with regards to touch. When we're young touching is fine among family but even that has a shelf life (I'm betting I'm not the only one that kinda shied away from physical contact with even my parents as I hit my teen years). Once the teen years hit it seems that out of nowhere the only acceptable type of touching is in a romantic or sexual way. Well for those of us who are not touching or getting touched in those "appropriate" ways things can get pretty lonesome.

As I was telling titfortat in the comments of that post I've never had a massage before. Well it actually goes beyond laying on a table wrapped in a towel and getting rubbed down. In a short bit of thinking I can only count 2 times in my life that I've ever been touched in a massaging manner in a non professional setting. Hell the only time I hug people is when the other person reaches for me first.

But anyway when it comes to being a man and touching it just seems that that, like most other, line of emotional support is forbidden to us as a part of how we are conditioned to fulfill our role in The System. No we are supposed to rock hard stoic creatures in order to charge forth and do all that we can to make The System stronger (namely in the way of labor as external providers). Because really what kind of "real man" would look for emotional support when should be out there making some faceless power structure more money that it knows what to do with (well at least it knows not to actually include the people whose backs were broken for that profit).

Maybe that's the point of "allowing" us touching for sexual and romantic purposes. A little outlet so that we don't get totally touch-starved, as Ozy says. Well when tying the only "appropriate" touching to something like relationships and sex that leaves a lot of guys hanging. Guys who just don't feel like being in relationships. Guys who do have little to no success in relationships. Guys who aren't interested in relationships with women (because let's face it even among "appropriate" touching for guys gay guys still get pissed on in terms of displays of touching and affection). Guys who are soul crushingly shy when it comes to expressing desire for affection.

Come on I know I'm not the only thinking about touching and guys (okay some of us may be thinking about touching guys right now but that's cool too). Don't be scared to share.

Cohabitation and Personal Change

I was talking with a co-worker this afternoon, and she mentioned how after so much time with her S.O. she was beginning to feel that "everything you do irritates me" feeling.  I know this feeling.  Fortunately, and thanks in no small part to my wife, I also know what it's like when that feeling is conquered and begins to fade.  While my coworker and I talked, I suggested two sort-of rudimentary ways to approach the issue.  Now that I am home and have stepped away from the conversation I thought I would toss it out into the blogoshpere and see what comes back.  The two approaches I suggested were fairly polar, and I realize that can be problematic, but a lot of relationship issues do tend to lack a wealth of approaches.  I will comment on that more later, for now I'll recap:

In my opinion, she could A) Listen to her gut (meditate, force-conclusion, ego-mirror, etc) and decide whether or not the relationship she is in is one where the pressure to become a better person is not only there, but mutual.  Or, B) Pick something she does which irritates her S.O., catch a moment when she chooses NOT to engage that irritating behavior, and remark out loud about it.

In the first scenario, I am basically suggesting she decide whether or not the relationship is even worth the personal dissection.  If it is, then my second approach ought to be a good starting marker for how to recognize change in your partner.  This is really difficult without a plan of action because when you spend day in and day out with one person, you don't see the ways they are changing.  You may notice if you go to a party where a large number of people are your S.O.'s friends, many people that your S.O. hasn't seen in six months or a year may remark on how much your S.O. has matured, while you sit by scratching your head daring the old friend to go ahead and try dating your impossible S.O. for his or her self and see how they like.  This thought should be a red flag, because it indicates that you believe you are best suited to meet your damaged partner's needs.  Maybe you are... but the no-no is finding yourself in a place of moral or behavioral superiority in a relationship that should be built on mutual respect and appreciation.

My wife and I use the method I mention above.  Even though we had some epic fights and misunderstandings at the get-go, we always have and always will talk about the things we are or are not satisfied with in the relationship in non-blaming (as possible) language, and then try to vocally express when we have acted alternatively to the problem behavior so that the other person knows, at the very least, that you are still thinking about it and still care.  For example, my wife really hated it when I used to "help" in the kitchen, because what usually occurred, and I admit it now, was my domination of the whole project.  She loves to cook as much as I do, and I was condescending her by jumping in too enthusiastically with my own ideas rather than getting a bearing on where she was headed first.  This has changed, but it took time and the effort to point out small milestones for the change to be recognized.  Now I ask her if she wants help, and if she does, I ask her specifically what she'd like me to do.  Sometimes she will have me just chop some shit up, other times she will actually want my own input.

Over simplified?  Sure.  But nonetheless applicably sound.

Or, for a different scenario, let's say that one person in a committed relationship has a drinking "problem", and I put that in quotes because not everyone said to have one does.  That can be somewhat subjective.  So let's, for the sake of ease, say that one person drinks more than other.  The one who drinks less would like the other to do the same or at least work towards a middle ground (ok, fine, this is based on personal experience), so the one whose drinking is problematic in the context of the relationship should make it known EACH time they are intentionally curbing a desire for a given quantity or frequency of alcohol; mind you, not in a whining or punitive way.  And since I already admitted that I am just talking about my own life, I should also say that this approach has worked for my wife and I.  She has a much healthier relationship with day-to-day drinking than I do, and through communicating each effort to reduce my own drinking down to a level that was more acceptable, she began to see that, indeed, even though I still require some wine or what-have-you to get ready for bed, the amount has decreased more than significantly.  Of course, her insistence and my acceptance of the issue were key too, but there's just no reason I can think of to avoid such changes unless the change in question is a "deal breaker".

So as I savor my glass of wine over some blog writing tonight, I would encourage others in a similar spot to at least attempt this method, for even if it fails, you will have gained important knowledge either way: Possibly the knowledge that your connection wasn't that strong after all, possibly the knowledge that it can only get stronger.

Take care.

Unmarried men more excited about potential unplanned pregnancies than their girlfriends

It seems that men are more excited by the idea of an unplanned pregnancy than their girlfriends:



I would venture to guess that if it were men who were biologically predisposed to do the fetus-gestating for 9 months and worry about the pain of childbirth and the bodily changes that occur during and after pregnancy, the ones surveyed would feel a little less enthusiasm than they currently do. Perhaps, if this were the case, the women surveyed might find themselves a little more excited. But ultimately, given good ol' biology and the fear of parenting inequities, this really isn't terribly surprising.

"My liberation as a man is tied to your liberation as a woman."

[ted id=1031]

"Hookup culture" and judging women

A recent post by Jaclyn Friedman about how embracing a "slutty" lifestyle in the midst of searching for a monogamous relationship has been healing for her has sparked several debates in the blogosphere about "hookup culture" and young women's role in it.

Jaclyn's piece is a personal narrative about how, after a particularly rough breakup, she turns to casual sex to ease her loneliness while searching for that "perfect" monogamous relationship that she still hopes to have:

Last summer, I suffered the breakup of a relationship that I had thought would be permanent. Now, I’ve been through my share of break-ups, even of quite serious relationships, but nothing ever broke me like this one.

Since then, I’ve had sexual interactions of the orgasmic kind with 9 different people, none of which I was at any time in a committed relationship with.

I’m not telling you this to shock (though I am specifying the number because we all need to get over the whole “OMG! Be ashamed of your NUMBER! It’s either too big or too small!” thing). I’m telling you this because of something else that’s also true about me: I’d really like to be in a long-term, probably monogamous relationship. That’s right, folks, I’m a slut who craves a stable, loving, committed relationship. File me under “Lookin’ fer luv: ur doin it wrong.”

I agree with Jaclyn. Casual sex and a desire for a monogamous relationship are not mutually exclusive, and should stop being treated as such. Susan Walsh, who blogs about hook up culture and the dangers that this seeming cultural mandate poses for young women, responded to Jaclyn's post:

Thing is: Relationship science is hard science. Oxytocin is not some disinformation cooked up by the evil patriarchy. It’s a chemical that floods your body after sex, during breastfeeding, and through the early months of motherhood. Men also experience it, though its effect is tamped down somewhat by testosterone. The effects of sex hormones are bound to reside on a spectrum. Some women may produce less, which leads to less emotional attachment. Some men are suckers for oxytocin, and love spooning after sex. Anyone who regularly dismisses a large body of peer-reviewed academic studies in this area is as ridiculous as a member of the Flat Earth Society.

As for self-esteem, the answer to her question is yes. One may love, and pity, a person with low self-esteem. But a healthy, robust, falling in love experience with such a person is surely impossible. How can we fall in love with someone who is wearing a big virtual sandwich board that says “I’m a lemon! Damaged goods! Everything in this bin is 50 cents!”

I was with Walsh until the second paragraph. I'm not just sympathetic to the idea that we shouldn't discuss women's worth as though it is inherently tied to their sexuality; I'm adamantly opposed to it, and completely disgusted whenever I hear someone do it. That said, if you feel similarly, I recommend not reading the comments on her post. A few of the commenters there are maddeningly ignorant, judgmental, and mean simply for the sake of it. Not to mention unabashedly sexist.

It's disgusting to discuss a woman like this because it reduces a person to the status of a commodity that literally loses value after each "use." And while I don't believe it's okay to reduce any person to such a status, I find it particularly infuriating that this conversation is constantly centered around women's sexuality. We're the only ones being told we're not going to be "pure" enough for a man to love us, with all of our self-worth being tied into our preferred method of sexual expression.

And, while biological differences between most males and most females undeniably affect our behavior and other parts of who we are in significant ways, biology does not turn women into valueless things as a result of engaging in certain, or too many, sexual encounters. Oxytocin may be powerful, but it isn't a magical substance that literally turns us rotten after being used too many times, with the "wrong" people, or under the wrong circumstances.

Meanwhile, Friedman continues her piece explaining how she got to the point of the "healing" casual sexual encounters. She decided, after a series of failed dating attempts, that she'd try Craigslist Casual Encounters, and describes meeting someone who seems to be pretty dreamy:

And then B. responded. He was smart and charming. His picture looked cute. He seemed like a grown-up, and not like a psycho. He knew how to banter. He made a funny joke about punctuation. And, after a few emails were exchanged, he wanted to know if I’d like to meet him for a drink. That night. Then. And, to my great shock and terror and excitement, I found that I did. (What writer can resist a good punctuation joke?)
...
we spent a lovely hour chatting over a couple of glasses of wine, he used the phrase “male hegemony” critically in a sentence (entirely unprompted by me), and then he asked me if I wanted to go back to his place, which was nearby. And once again, to my shock and terror and excitement, I found that I did. Though not before asking him for his address, calling my roommate with it in front of him, and letting him know I had extensive self-defense training.

Reader, I fucked him. Three rounds worth that night. And it was awesome.

This sounds pretty fantastic. Everything worked out well, and they had a great time in the sack. But, as she shares with us, it didn't work out:

In other ways, too, sluthood isn’t always pretty, and I’m not always good at it. Whether from years of habit or something more intrinsic to my personality, my heart seems to want to attach, and after a couple months of playing together casually, and having long, rangey talks naked in bed together between rolls in the hay, it started to with B. Neither of us handled it particularly well. There were tears; there were accusations. But even that was an education: somehow, the conflict that erupted demonstrated so clearly the ways we wouldn’t work together in a more serious arrangement, leaving us free to pick up where we’d left off as lovers. A thread in a needle in a haystack, I suppose.

Friedman also shares that she's been sexually assaulted in the past, and that she is, historically, a "serial monogamist" who would find herself sleeping with someone one night, and waking up in a long-term relationship with them the next morning. She displays a great deal of vulnerability to her considerable readership when she describes the heartache she felt after a breakup, and during long periods of time spent without a romantic and/or sexual partner. While I agree with Walsh's overall assessment that Friedman's post gives a pretty clear picture of an emotionally fragile and vulnerable woman who lacks a healthy amount of self-confidence, I think the answer to this problem is somewhere in between Friedman's and Walsh's points of view. Amanda Marcotte interviewed Friedman about her blog post, which made the rounds amongst the feminist blogosphere quickly. In a concluding statement, Friedman says,

...there is an entirely other way to look at sex that I think more and more people are turning on to and understanding, which is that it really is just a collaborative performance between two or more people. And it doesn’t matter what your gender is. It doesn’t matter how many people are there. It doesn’t matter if it’s anonymous. What matters is: are you both having a good time?

I can get behind parts of this "other way" of looking at sex; it is certainly possible for both women and men to have casual or otherwise non-committed sexual experiences that are enjoyable for all parties and do not cause emotional conflict. But not as the only option. And while Friedman pays lip service to the idea that traditional views on sex and relationships can have value, she really seems to be painting a picture of what she wants to believe is the ideal for all human sexuality. And she, and many others in the "sex-positive" camp, are making it seem like this is the only way that we should strive to engage with each other sexually, that anything more than casual, nonchalant sex is passe or repressed. That's not the official stance of the movement, but it comes out sounding like it in popular culture, and that can be dangerous for a young woman to read, believe, and attempt if she isn't really going to enjoy a sex life of that nature.

It seems to me that the arguments forming over this idea that women can engage in casual sex, or "hook up culture," are missing the point. The point isn't that women are by nature incapable of enjoying or benefiting from casual sexual relationships. It's not that casual sexual relationships are always (or ever) healing or healthy. It's not that men all want sex and women all want (monogamous) relationships (with men).

What's really important, and what's been missing all along from this dialogue, is the importance of each person being completely sure, ready, and enthusiastic about the sexual encounter; it's about honesty and communication between partners, and ensuring that the people involved have the same goals. Of course a sexual relationship will end in heartache and pain for a woman if she's having sex in order to form a monogamous relationship with a person who isn't interested in the same thing. This isn't rocket science, and need not be debated so ferociously. And if it turns out that, after having done some soul-searching and getting to know oneself means that, ultimately, fewer women will be engaging in non-committed sexual relationships, then, so what? The goal shouldn't be to have as much sex as we think men are having, or in the same ways, or for the same reasons. We don't negate our goals for equality between genders or sexes by saying "no" to casual sex if we don't want to engage in it. The goal is to make sure that when we are having sex, we are doing so because it makes us happy, because we enjoy the experience, because it's something that we want. Walsh agrees with this in later comments on her post responding to Marcotte and Friedman's interview:

I do not have a negative view of sex without commitment – which is how I’ll define casual sex. In truth, I think it’s very, very difficult for women to get commitment first, and I don’t want to encourage women to embrace a strategy that will work 10% of the time. Although my discussing the sexual marketplace drives these women crazy, the truth is that there just aren’t many guys around who will commit without knowing that the hooking up is good. I also have sat around my kitchen table with girls who had positive, and sometimes hilarious, casual experiences. The ones that work best, IMO, are those where the woman has ZERO expectations for further contact, either because she doesn’t even know the guy, the geography is impossible, or she has no desire to interact with him on any other level.

That is the kind of casual sex I had in my own youth, and I never once felt badly about myself afterwards.

While I'd disagree with the broad generalizations of men's intentions that Walsh employs, I agree wholeheartedly that a casual sexual encounter between two (or more) people who have the same goals and the same desires is not doomed to end in heartbreak. I also believe, though, that there are many, many men who don't want casual hookups, and are more interested in committed relationships. In my experience, which I don't consider to be particularly unusual, the majority of men I have dated in the past and know now are only interested in committed relationships.

It's not about policing anyone's sexuality or expression; there is not an objective good or bad way to express sexuality. There is no universal sexual behavior or desire that we should all strive to achieve. It's about learning how to identify what you, as a person, want and need, and acting accordingly. We shouldn't be arguing about how, when, and with whom other women should be expressing their sexuality; this is pointless. We should be focusing on how to ensure that young women are equipped with the tools needed to make sound decisions about her own sexuality, for herself.

A Serious Problem

This is a guest post by imnotme.

I imagine that more and more heterosexually coupled males and females are going to be running into a serious problem that my feminist wife and I have discovered: the battle of emotions versus rationality.

I believe the reason this is going to be made apparent, soon, is because it's a discussion that is appropriate for modern young couples faced with this seeming dichotomy. I leave out homosexual couplings because I am not familiar enough with homosexual relationship dynamics to either include or exclude them with any intelligence. However, I am sure something similar could crop up in any relationship where one person approaches conflict emotionally, and the other rationally.

I want to quickly stop you here and clarify the question already forming in your mind; is this guy about to assert that one is better? No. The first mistake my wife and I have discovered about this discussion is that the initial problem is having emotion pitted against rationality in the first place. It is counter-productive to start from there. Both emotion and rationality have distinct and necessary functions in our human development. However, one theory I am now leaning heavily toward, is that emotion is also a sort of genetic leftover from when humans were subject to more predators than Big Business or general systematic oppression. I’m talking about the days of “I win because I am larger.” You know, before we realized we could flourish with technology rather than our biology.

Understandably, you are thinking I just shot myself in the foot by suggesting that emotion is an antiquated, useless leftover of our primitive ancestors. Maybe, but before you react, do YOU know anything about our historical and genetic development? Additionally, both emotion and rationality have a dynamic weakness in communication when used one without the other. For example: in an argument, person X becomes emotional and begins yelling insults. While the insults do not invalidate person X’s need to communicate, person Y has an easy rational out by simply criticizing person X on the grounds that they are simply excited and acting irrational. But… but: person Y didn’t actually say anything at all to the point of person X’s initial concern. Likewise, if person Y attempts talking about their feelings rationally to person X, who is more resonant with emotion, person X will more often than not try to re-orient the discussion around emotional realities, when that is not what person Y wanted to discuss; therefore, they both lose.

So what should the modern heterosexual couple do about this problem? Shut up. Both of you, shut up and think about what you are ACTUALLY TRYING TO SAY.

Good luck.

The invisibility of bisexual men

Stephanie Chen of CNN News discusses The Last Person Out of the Closet: The Bisexual Male. She talks with Robert Winn, a bisexual man who is married to a woman, about his struggles with coming out:

This may sound like the best of both worlds, but being openly bisexual can be complicated. He frequently battles the stereotypes of bisexuality: That bisexual men are promiscuous. That his relationships with men were just an adolescent phase. That his bisexuality is imaginary. That he's really a gay man trying to camouflage his orientation.

"There is a whole list of assumptions of what my life might be like, that somehow she is some sort of front for me because I'm not willing to accept I'm gay," he said. "People are confused by bisexuality. There's just not a lot of support for people who fall in the middle like me."

His wife Christine, while supportive, does manage to compare her husband's bisexuality to an annoying behavior she must deal with:

"I don't think about it [his bisexuality] as a part I have to accept," she said. "It's just a part of him like any other husband who loses their socks on the floor or doesn't take the trash out."

I tend to come to the conclusion that the reason why it is more difficult for bisexual men to come out than for bisexual women can be attributed to females performing bisexuality for men, and the seemingly default homophobia that is socialized into Western men from birth. As Chen says:

Some say that coming out as bisexual has been easier for women than men. In recent years, several Hollywood female stars have proudly declared their bisexuality. Female celebrities like Lady Gaga, Lindsay Lohan and HBO "True Blood" actress Anna Paquin have said they are bisexual.

"It's [female bisexuality] something that's tolerated because sometimes men see it as entertaining and exciting for them," said Denise Penn, director of the American Institute of Bisexuality.

Christine Winn has felt a lot of struggles in the marriage as a result of her husband's out bisexuality, like feeling "ostracized by the gay community" because Winn's physician peers and the people within the GLBT community that he worked with assumed he was partnered with a man. Robert sums up why he ultimately decided to come out to his wife early on:

"I didn't want to turn 40, and then come out to my wife about it," he said. "I wanted to be open with her about who I am and what I think. Thankfully, she was willing to accept me."

(emphasis mine)

They are a couple of decades older than I am, I suppose, but I'm really rather taken aback by the gratitude Robert feels in her acceptance-- especially since she described her relationship to her husband's sexuality to be like her reaction to his bad habits. I simply can't imagine being upset with a spouse being bisexual. If Jesse were to tell me tonight that he's gay? Yeah, that would upset me, for obvious reasons: my husband would have just told me that he isn't attracted to me physically, and in addition to that, I'd feel hurt and confused at the secrecy and deception involved in maintaining a romantic and sexual relationship with me.

Bisexual, though? What would I have to worry about? If you're either male or female, then your bisexual partner isn't telling you that he or she isn't attracted to people of your gender. I don't see any issues beyond that. I used to wonder if maybe there would be more opportunities to cheat on your partner with no longer eliminating one half of the population by default, but then quickly realized that was based on the myth that bisexual people are promiscuous or always non-monogamous. One's sexuality doesn't determine whether or not someone will be faithful in a monogamous relationship.

I'm pleased the story has made it to a mainstream news outlet such as CNN; I am, however, disappointed in the cautious and apologetic tone of the content, as it continues to marginalize and "other" non-heterosexual people and couples.

Embracing personal responsibility in interpersonal relationships

This is Part One of a three-part series about personal responsibility and societal expectations in regard to gender.


In my interactions with men that I interact with often on a group level, I often find myself in situations where I am frustrated with these men's seeming lack of empathy and understanding for the female perspective. I often feel ignored in situations where a group conversation is most assuredly occurring, where I may be talked over, or interrupted, or have my experiences discounted before they allow themselves to truly listen to me. These are conversations that range from the everyday chat to the longer, more involved philosophical discussions ranging from politics, gender, or music.

When I feel as thought I'm not being listened to, or that my experiences or voice is being drowned out, it's very easy (and often quite accurate) to chalk up the experience to sexism. Now, I'm not calling all the men I know sexists; in fact, I would be uncomfortable applying the "misogynist" label to the vast majority of men I interact with on a frequent basis (most people I know likely would, too). I'm not slapping a "sexist!" sticker on their backs for later reference; I'm legitimately irritated, sometimes to the point of frustration and rage, at their very stereotypical male styles of communication.

Conversely, my husband is often annoyed with my sometimes utter lack of ability to talk about an important issue without starting to cry, or my overly-drawn-out communication style in a both casual and more intimate context. In a conversation, I tend toward a more stereotypical "female" approach: I listen to what is being discussed, and when I chime in, especially if I'm in agreement of the opinion of whoever spoke last, I tend to relate examples of how the statement is true from my own, or other friends' or family's experience. I also tend to ramble on a great deal, going on tangents and providing my audience with what I've later learned to be far more detail than they needed or wanted (perhaps my blogging style is similar). I've noticed that men, even the more wordy or conversational types, tend toward more direct, less detailed styles of communicating with friends. If they talk over me, it may be because they want to avoid what they assume will be more detail than necessary, and I may talk a lot and with great detail when given the chance to ensure that I'm being heard, because of the assumption that I won't be.

A similarity I've noticed between the things we are often annoyed with in regard to a typical behavior that we find in men or women respectively is that they are all stereotypical behaviors that receive the most universal complaints, that are so prevalent in the Western world that books are constantly written about them.

What I find to be also prevalent, at least in the feminist world in which I readily include myself, is a tendency to overlook those stereotypical, patriarchy-approved behaviors of our own and instead focus solely on those exhibited by men: aggressiveness, loudness, a tendency to believe that they should be listened to above anyone else, arrogance, and lack of emotion (at least, visible emotions other than anger). We fail to acknowledge and readily admit to the fault of our own tendencies to be passive-aggressive in speech and domestic disputes, our reliance on men with whom we may cohabitate to perform basic household maintenance (or required bug-killing, in my experience), a lack of personal aggressiveness in regards to jobs and careers, and even non-threatening-but-persistent wannabe suitors, whose feelings of attraction we may not reciprocate.

To further elaborate on the last point, the lack of assertiveness in regards to men who are romantically interested in a woman when the feelings are not reciprocated can be an especially tricky mess to navigate, and a frequent enough problem for women and men alike. Men aren't, of course, always forthright about their lack of long-term or other interest in a woman who shows clear attraction to him. This could be for a number of reasons; perhaps he likes her a great deal, and doesn't want to potentially hurt the friendship by shooting down her interest. This applies frequently to women, as well. Maybe the man is interested in the possibility of a sexual relationship, but nothing further, so he doesn't let on that he's not interested because he hopes for a sexual encounter and isn't sure she'd be interested in a sexual relationship without a commitment. While many women may delay telling a man she isn't interested in a relationship for this reason, it's understood to be a generally male phenomenon and also one that is highly frowned upon. Women, on the other hand, may hold out on telling an interested guy that she's "not that into him" because she enjoys the attention his interest brings her and her self-esteem, which is commonly understood to be a mostly-female phenomenon-- one that is frequently criticized among hetero men.

Both behaviors that seem to be nearly exclusive to men or women are clearly not exclusive, but the prevalence of any behavior in one sex or another are both directly related to what we could call a "patriarchal influence." Women hold on to the affection and attention a male gives her, while men pursue the possibility of a sexual relationship with a female. It's an annoyingly generalized way of chalking up a variety of individual experiences, but it's often true, and it's often a result of social norms that both men and women are attempting to live up to. Women feel personally validated if they are the recipient of male attention, as popular culture tells us that securing male affection in one way or another is our lifetime goal. Men validate us and they are supposed to "take care" of us, with their money or muscles or comfy, over-sized shirts or something. Men feel personally validated by sexual prowess, because popular culture tells them that in order to be "a man," they have to "conquer" as many women sexually as possible. Settling down with a woman is to say "no" to more sex with more women, and is to be avoided at all costs.

As both common behaviors are harmful to the recipient, and really cannot (and should not) be compared in terms of what is more harmful to whom, it would be beneficial for women and men to stop focusing solely on the ways in which men or women respectively behave that are influenced by patriarchal ideas, and more on the ways in which they can begin to shed their own role in perpetuating negative stereotypes. A woman's bad behavior that she learned from popular culture's sexist expectations shouldn't be ignored because most people would agree that, as a woman, she's on the losing end of the patriarchal ideal that put the expectation in place. As we know, men and women both have generally agreed-upon "privileges" that are directly related to patriarchal expectations. While the privileges bestowed on any particular gender or sex may come from a system run primarily by and for men, the more tangible the immediate reality of those privileges and oppressions are in every day life, the less important "the patriarchy's" becomes.

For example, a communication problem between my husband and myself won't improve if I'm hollering about the patriarchy's influence any time he criticizes a less-than-ideal habit I have in my communication style. A better way to approach a criticism like that would be to first, think about what he said; second, think about whether or not it could be true-- and for more than a few half-hearted seconds. Then, if it still feels unwarranted, try not to cry, and explain why. Naturally, he'd also be expected to let go of his patriarchy-influenced expectation that emotions not be present in a conversation about an issue we may have-- especially considering that few problems would occur in any relationship if someone didn't have an emotional reaction to something-- and no one could say with a straight face that women are the only ones who start arguments based on emotional reactions to something their partner did, so reacting emotionally should not be unexpected; an emotional reaction, on the other hand, can certainly be minimized or "calmed down" before engaging in the problem-solving.

While I am certainly using my own experiences to extrapolate very generalized conclusions, I hear similar complaints often enough that I feel they are applicable to a broader audience, as well as to friendships between a heterosexual male and female, or mixed groups, and are not exclusive to heterosexual partnerships. The relationships between men and women, whether in the context of friendship or romantic and/or sexual relationships, could be greatly improved if we all attempted to rid ourselves of negative behaviors influenced by "the patriarchy," and not leave the responsibility solely on the shoulders of men.

This does, of course, mean that men must also take responsibility; I write this based on the experiences I have with my own male friends, all of whom are the progressive type, for whom sexism is not an intentional behavior and rarely goes unacknowledged if called out. What I find most immediately pressing, though, for the sake of progressive dialogue to occur, is the inconsistency in which this method is thought of as necessary by the general population of self-identified feminist women-- especially in a group setting, whether it be online in a comment thread, or a backyard barbeque. We hear far too often that men created the problems, the war, the violence, and that they're in charge, and that women shouldn't be held accountable for the ways in which they are continually brought down by patriarchy; while it's true that no one is responsible for their own oppression, no matter how small of an oppression we may be experiencing, it is not necessary to avoid our own flaws because they are caused by the very system in which we are fighting. And let's not forget that men, too, are not immune to patriarchy's negative influences There is no reason to forgive someone the duty of being responsible for oneself when possible, when those behaviors continue to perpetuate negative stereotypes and hinder important progress in working with men to end negative gender-based expectations.

Oh! So, I got married.

Jesse and I got married a year ago and kept it a secret from everyone we knew for a year. We informed most people by mailing them an invitation to our one-year wedding anniversary. The reaction was certainly mixed among family and friends, but overwhelmingly, everyone seems happy for us (once we got them to believe it wasn't a joke). I wanted to share this because the story itself it cute and adorable.

Check out the officiant's LJ post about it here for a nice summary of the event. I announced it at work today, and the reactions were hilarious and interesting enough that I'm sure they'll find their way into an upcoming post about men and women announcing to their communities that they're married. Not that announcing a marriage a year after it occurred is exactly a common societal practice...

Keeping a secret like that for a year was fucking hard. I'm relieved to finally be able to say it out loud now :)

It's not the same

For some reason, I've heard and read a lot lately from men who think that their girlfriends yelling at them is identical to a woman's male significant other physically assaulting her.

Where did this idea come from?

Being yelled at sucks. Being yelled at repeatedly and systematically by your significant other already has a name: verbal and/or emotional abuse. But it is not the same as being physically assaulted.

If your girlfriend or wife is screaming at you for god-knows-what, in front of the kids, so all the neighbors can hear, that's pretty terrible. If this happens often, you should probably reconsider your relationship with her. If you stay, I can understand the reasons why you might feel compelled to do so. Perhaps you are afraid for the kids, maybe your life is so entwined with hers, maybe for decades, that you just can't muster the energy to leave. Maybe she's psychologically abusive and takes advantage of you to the point where you feel as though you're nothing without her. You know, typical signs of abuse. Mental abuse. Verbal abuse. Psychological abuse.

All of those kinds of abuse are terrible and should most certainly not occur within an intimate relationship. They all fall under the umbrella of "abusive behavior."

But it is not the same as physical abuse.

Comparing the two is inaccurate. I can be beaten to death. I cannot be yelled at to death. I can leave the room, the house, the city, if I'm being yelled at. I cannot leave the house if I'm physically injured to the point of not being able to move. And if that happens? I'm at the mercy of my abuser. At that point, my life is potentially in danger.

Do we typically tend to downplay the damaging effects of verbal assault and emotional abuse at the hands of women, and the wounds inflicted on male victims of these types of abuse? I'm sure we do. Of course that's not right. It's also not the point, though. The point is that physical assault and verbal assault are not the same.

Some might say that repeated emotional abuse can lead the victim to self-harm and/or suicide, arguing that emotional abuse does cause physical injury or even death. Of course it's true that some victims may be emotionally or psychologically beaten down to the point that they feel ending their life is the only option. But, ultimately, suicide is the choice of the person committing it.

Anyway, if I'm missing something, by all means, let me know. But I'm quite certain that it is just not the same.

So does that make me straight curious as well?

Hey folks this is Danny (aka sanguinedream) from Danny's Corner and I've been invited to become a contributor here and I just could not refuse.

Since Cacophonies seems to be up for a wide range of topics I'm gonna go left field for a bit and talk about sexuality for my introduction.

I'm sure you are more than likely familiar with the term "bi-curious" right? If not it refers to one is generally identifies as heterosexual or homosexual but has curiosities about romantic or sexual activities with people of the same (if you're heterosexual) or opposite (if you're homosexual) gender. So to be curious about romance or sex of the orientation opposite of what you identify with there is the implication that you have never done such things before. So what if you have no sexual or romantic experience?

I've called myself heterosexual for the vast majority of my life. Checking women out. Paying attention to women in porn (but not lesbian porn but that is another story for another day). Fantasizing about women. Par for the course for a heterosexual man (or homosexual woman) right? However about five years ago I opened up to thoughts about homosexuality. Checking men out. Paying attention to men in porn. Fantasizing about men. Par for the course for a homosexual men (or heterosexual woman) right?

Thing is I have no experience in either one.

So based on the fact that I have no experience in heterosexual or homosexual romance/sex does that mean that I'm in some weird limbo in which I'm straight curious and gay curious at the same time? Or can I just call it simply curious since without any experience I'm still at the starting point of discovering my sexuality? Just wondering.