Are men and women socialised to find each other sexually attractive even if they don't respect each other? Or what?

(54 Posts)
BasilBabyEater Thu 25-Apr-13 11:46:31

I've been reading a thread on which the subject of domestically incompetent men came up and I didn't want to de-rail that thread but it sparked a thought I'd quite like to discuss. I'm thinking about the men who claim they can't take responsibility for childcare or managing the planning and cleaning of their homes ("you tell me what to do and I'll do it" in other words, "I don't own this work, you do and you're responsible for thinking about it and planning it and then directing me").

As I've got older I realise I simply don't fancy any man who I don't respect anymore. I don't respect men who are so pathetic that they opt out of taking adult responsibility for their own children and homes so I don't fancy them, even if they're really gorgeous. Is that just an oddity, something to do with getting older and not finding sex quite so urgent so therefore being more discriminating about who I'd want to do it with, or is it because I now expect more from my relationships than I did when I was young? Is it just because I source my respect for a man from different things than I did then? (I think when I was in my twenties, I would have simply accepted a very untidy man who didn't sort his own housework out as messy and it would not have had any effect on my estimation of him, whereas now, I'd see it as inconsiderate, entitled and selfish and so it would affect my respect for him and therefore my sexual desire for him.)

On this other thread, someone mentioned a group of women with PhD's joking about how hopeless their husbands were and my first thought was "how can they want to fuck them?" Is it because these women don't need to respect their husbands to find them sexually attractive, or is it because we're trained as women not to base our respect for men on them being able to carry out the basic functions of an adult?

Then I got to thinking about the other way round but that's a whole other kettle of fish and this post is already too long...

JustCallMeHerodina Thu 25-Apr-13 12:00:57


I think there's two different things going on. One is, can you joke about someone being hopeless and still fancy them? I think yes. I still smile thinking about my grandparents who were constantly making little jokes at each other - you could see looking that it was how the expressed affection. I'm sure that is socialized but it doesn't bother me. I do it with DH now. I don't actually mean what I'm joking about.

The other thing ... yes, I do think there's a more serious issue which basically boils down to cognitive dissonance, doesn't it? I used to be with a bloke who regularly had me absolutely seething and in tears because he just Did.Not.Give.A.Shit about anything not directly to his own benefit. It didn't occur to me not to find him attractive, because I was still thinking (as I think you do) that something had gone wrong somewhere, each time, and that one day we would get through this and I'd adapt and he'd adapt and we'd be like reasonable people.

I think one you stop doing that and realize 'hmm, if it walks like a selfish wanker and acts like a selfish wanker ...' you probably don't find them sexy any more.

BasilBabyEater Thu 25-Apr-13 12:40:54

Yes that's a good point, each individual incident is just an individual incident and so doesn't affect the overall view of the person, until there are so many incidents that you start drawing the dots together.

And of course, if somebody is nice in every other way and basically makes you happy, the fact that s/he refuses to learn how to load the dishwasher/ change a light-bulb, is no big deal in the scheme of things.

I think it's when they're not nice in every other way and they're not making you happy and yet people still don't join the dots, that is interesting. Also maybe it's just me, but I do find someone who won't learn to parent their own child, pretty bloody shocking - for me, that's so much about what sort of person and parent you are, seeing your child being short-changed by their father/ mother, is much more of an emotional "hit" than the fact that they can't be arsed to pick their own socks up - the latter might just be a socialisation thing that can be worked on, but the former - not caring enough about your child to learn how to meet its needs - that for me feels gut-wrenchingly painful because it's hurting the child as well as the other parent and says even more about someone's character and values.

JustCallMeHerodina Thu 25-Apr-13 12:51:34

Oh, yes, I agree completely.

And especially, as you say, when someone won't parent their own child.

I know someone who thinks it is hilariously funny her husband was 'forced' to change a nappy by the nurses who'd been caring for his very premature babies in the intensive care unit. He did it once, because they insisted he needed to know how on account of, you know, having very premature baby twins and a wife who'd just had a traumatic labour. Then he never did it again at home because it's 'woman's work'. hmm

I suspect that the effect of hearing that sort of story ('wasn't your father funny, ho ho') is kind of implying to children that the person who does these basic bits of caring is actually a bit of a mug, rather than that it's a basic bit of caring.

AutumnMadness Thu 25-Apr-13 14:43:12

Basil, I fully agree with you. I do recognise that it's not the same from everyone's perspective, but for me this kind of infantile incompetence on the part of men is not just deeply unsexy because it is childish and I do not fancy sex with immature boys. It also signals a lack of respect and a lack of care because it just dumps all the work onto the woman. And it's hard for me to have sex with somebody who is supposed to be my life partner but does not really care about me on a fundamental level. It may be ok for a one-nigh shag with a stranger, but the standards I have for long-term partners are very different.

SinisterSal Thu 25-Apr-13 15:51:10

Aren't we supposed to fancy big macho he men (who wouldn't dream of lowering them elves with a bucket and mop? )

SinisterSal Thu 25-Apr-13 15:55:45

Themselves, it should be.
But my point was that we are socialised to find women's work tedious trite banal time wasting ( not saying it isn't!) and also socialised to give extra respect to a man who won't be pushed around, won't lower himself with trivial matters, al that

badguider Thu 25-Apr-13 16:03:59

I do know what you're saying about having to respect somebody to fancy them.... but on the other-hand is 'lust' really socialised?

I would say that who we choose as a partner is definitely socialised into us but is raw lust not more base than that?

I can feel lust for ridiculous men who I would never ever actually even sleep with nevermind date and certainly not marry... but they are sexy... and I'm not sure that's a socialised reaction, I think the fact that I don't actually try to shag them is the socialisation of knowing I should pick somebody who isn't a bastard more stable.
Is it not a failure of socialisation and demonstration of positive relationships that results in women sleeping with men who treat them terribly?

Some women choose men who are 'manly' which in our society can mean crap at 'women's work'.. I'd agree this is socialisation but I think this is different from fancying/lusting after men of a certain type.

Sorry this post is a rambling mess... it's an interesting topic and I'm not entirely sure what I think yet grin

JustCallMeHerodina Thu 25-Apr-13 16:07:59

Oh, I think lust is hugely socialized. It's interesting, though - that's my hunch based on me, not saying it's easy to tell either way.

Societies do seem to change in terms of what they find attractive, don't they? If you look at men who were considered sexy 200 or 400 years ago, lots of them are, erm, not exactly what we'd consider the same way (same with women).

I think bits of lust aren't socialized - and maybe this is why we do end up attracted to people who aren't conventionally handsome, or the reverse - we meet someone we know is stereotypically attractive and our 'type' but there's just something missing.

But I also think a lot of it is to do with those quick-fire associations that tell you 'phwoar, this is very sexy'.

AutumnMadness Thu 25-Apr-13 16:14:18

I do believe that lust is socialised, but that there are different kinds of lust. I could fancy that big macho man who could not lower himself to mop the floor. But only for very casual sex as the matter of mopping the floor would just not come up in that context (there are gradation, mind you, I would not fancy an overtly sexist man even for a one-night stand). But lust in a long-term relationship is very different. And the standards here are much, much higher.

SinisterSal Thu 25-Apr-13 16:15:41

But the op is talking long term relationships here so not quite pure raw lust either! Desire sure , but also something more cerebral

SinisterSal Thu 25-Apr-13 16:16:26

X posts autumn you said it better

YoniBottsBumgina Thu 25-Apr-13 16:17:27

I agree badguider. I don't think respect is linked to sexual attraction, certainly not that base kind where you'd be looking at a no strings shag/not acting on it at all.

But the act of choosing a long term partner is different and so much more socially and culturally constrained, if that's the right word. Once you "see" sexism, imo, it becomes impossible to consider a relationship with someone who is sexist because the understanding is there which means that they see you as something less than them. Whereas before you're aware of it in this way it's easy to explain away as a misunderstanding or communication difference etc - there are whole books dedicated to explaining away sexism in relationships as being "different ways of showing love" or some kind of hard wired difference between the sexes.

badguider Thu 25-Apr-13 16:21:40

This is interesting because I think I assumed that women who are in very unequal relationships where the men are overly 'macho' and have attitudes about 'women's work' have followed their lust and not engaged their critical thinking.
I now think that assumption was wrong. I made it because it was the only way I could ever imagine me ending up in such a situation. But now I think that doesn't quite work.


AutumnMadness Thu 25-Apr-13 16:22:51

Btw, I am not trying to present myself as some kind of perfect woman who can never find herself in a long-term relationship with a man who is useless at housework. I have posted here in the past about my struggles to get my DH to take the responsibility for domestic matters. I can definitely say that the lust I feel for my husband is directly positively proportionate to the quantity and quality of housework he does.

AutumnMadness Thu 25-Apr-13 16:25:26

badguider, I am sure the reasons are varied. Often women themselves are firmly socialised to believe that mopping the floor is an exclusively female prerogative. Keeping the fire in the hearth and all that bollocks.

yani Thu 25-Apr-13 16:30:00

Sorry, I probably won't be very coherent as I'm not very good at articulating.

I used to find dp sexually attractive, but after many years together and dc I know him better
and have found myself living with a lazy arse

I harbour a low-level grudge against him and our relationship is not great.

We still have sex regularly. Why? Well, because I like sex, and because I don't want to be unfaithful.

So in answer to your question, I think it is possible to be sexually attracted to someone whom you do not respect.

curryeater Thu 25-Apr-13 16:32:14

What a brilliant question.

some thoughts:

some people have low self-esteem and despise people who respect them, and respect people who despise them.

One vein of traditional womanhood holds traditionally female things as very low value and therefore respect is due to people who would have nothing to do with it (you see this sort of thing in LaQueen giggling that her huge rich husband won't wash up but is manly and rich and dynamic enough to simply buy a washing machine and hire a cleaner - she admires that he thinks the work itself is beneath him, she pretends to seethe but she is simpering, like when she has to remind you all the time that he is a Rugby Prop, whatever that is, but I think it means very big).

You can fancy someone without wanting them as a partner. you don't want them cluttering up your house though.

Men who subconsciously and domestically disrespect women as a class often do not personally despise the individual woman they fancy / set up home with / marry so only over time does the weary truth emerge (he can be listening to your views with shining eyes over drinks, but still expect you to service him domestically, and it takes time to realise this because women are not socialised to have the same expectations and it does not occur to them that someone who likes them in context A might be that way in context B)

some men actively fancy more the women they despise (because woman = low = the sex that I want to fuck). Some women are turned on by being fancied, even in that way.

yani Thu 25-Apr-13 16:39:56

Just realised I've contradicted myself!
I think what I am trying to say is that sexual attraction (to me) used to include the feelings of love and respect.
Now, it comes down to satisfying a need on a physical level.

AutumnMadness Thu 25-Apr-13 16:43:22

yani, I know what you mean.

MiniTheMinx Thu 25-Apr-13 17:38:45

Interesting question. DP and I discussed this a while back. We both felt that sexual preference was probably socialised. To some extent it is probably fairly fluid throughout a lifetime but would be more so if it were not for the social cues around us.

I have been reading this morning the introduction to the Origin by Pat Brewer. I wont quote it all grin but something struck me by what she said. "cooperation to successfully raise infants could have led to the domestication of humans with women choosing cooperative males as partners rather than aggressive and disruptive males" Obv thousands of years ago raising children to live into adulthood depended not on waging war but in protecting the females and the children and being fully engaged in the survival of the group.

If what she says is to be believed why did we become socialised at some point along the way to accept aggressive, war-mongering, violent and authoritarian men? I guess if we hadn't been convinced of their attraction we might not be here today ! how did Mr Macho sell it to us confused

DP is great, very domesticated but I don't fancy him more because he knows how to iron shirts. If anything less sad but he is reliable, calm, kind, supportive, isn't disruptive and is the right father for my children and I respect him.

DonDrapersAltrEgoBigglesDraper Thu 25-Apr-13 20:08:21

Really interesting question. I wonder this a lot on all the 'he doesn't pull his weight and I'm at the end of my tether' threads.

Fundamentally, I don't think we are socialised to find men that we don't respect sexually attractive.

Useless men only tend to come to the fore long after emotional connections are made, and even well after formal commitments are made. In other words ... a couple meet, have a connection, are loved-up, get together, things progress, they get married/move in/have a baby (in whichever order), and it's only then that male uselessness starts to become apparent.

The man is enconsed into the family home and it's then that he starts to opt out of the shitwork. The baby arrives, and it's only then that the women defaults to taking the lion's share.

By which time, the bond between man and woman has been formed and the man's uselessness doesn't have a direct impact on how sexually attractive the woman finds him, because that side of things was already decided back when he was a more appealing figure, back before the shitwork and parenting was in any way a part of their relationship.

And then, as his uselessness starts to become more apparent, starts to impact on daily life, and as the woman starts to feel more like a domestic appliance there to service her man, the sexual attraction starts to erode.

Fundamentally, I don't think we do find people we don't respect/like sexually attractive. But the shift is often so gradual, that you can't pinpoint to any one thing.

How many relationships are there where the sexual side of things in LTRs has dwindled and dwindled to pretty much non-existent? Which partner is it who tends to be the one to opt out of this side if things?

Men don't fancy housework/wifework/shitwork/whatever you want to call it; women don't fancy the men, because after all, what is sexually alluring about someone who sees you as a skivvy? But this takes a long time to evolve.

Not sure if I've made any sense.

DonDrapersAltrEgoBigglesDraper Thu 25-Apr-13 20:12:39

Obviously my scenario doesn't apply to all male:female relationships; only the ones were men don't pull their weight and women aren't happy about it (even if they haven't fully acknowledge that to themselves).

Plenty of men do pull their weight. Even successful, high-earning men with SAHM partners.

badguider Thu 25-Apr-13 20:44:48

what about the other way round, why would a man be sexually attracted to a woman who takes a role 'below' him and is servile?

do men not also need to respect their partners to find them sexy?

DonDrapersAltrEgoBigglesDraper Thu 25-Apr-13 20:47:27

Good question - I don't see how a man could be; personally I could never be sexually attracted to someone who was servile to me.

But I don't think I can answer on behalf of men.

MiniTheMinx Thu 25-Apr-13 20:48:28

Sadly I think lots of men probably find women they don't respect a huge turn on. Why else the proliferation of violent misogynistic porn?

NiceTabard Thu 25-Apr-13 21:08:38

Interesting thread

badguider your point about "why would a man be sexually attracted to a woman who takes a role 'below' him and is servile? " I remember a few years ago reading about a study which said actually lots of men are really comfortable with that dynamic - for a start you can see it in that in relationships men are on average 4 years older (is that still the case?) and thus (speaking very generally) have the advantage in terms of experience and likely money. The whole thing is just bizarre when you look at it. there is no good reason from a child-bearing type thing in the western world why people aren't the same age. And yet generally the man in the relationship is older than the woman. Why? It makes no sense. The same study said that men were comfortable in relationships with women who were less educated, some were OK with same education and few were happy when the woman was demonstrably more intelligent than them..

Now I can't remember what study or where I read it but real life experience bears all this stuff out, for me. I'm the happy exception that proves the rule grin but I look at my friends and all the old dynamics still hold true.

Sorry I could go on all night!

NiceTabard Thu 25-Apr-13 21:13:21

badguider Thu 25-Apr-13 20:44:48
what about the other way round, why would a man be sexually attracted to a woman who takes a role 'below' him and is servile?

do men not also need to respect their partners to find them sexy?
Add message | Report | Message poster DonDrapersAltrEgoBigglesDraper Thu 25-Apr-13 20:47:27
Good question - I don't see how a man could be; personally I could never be sexually attracted to someone who was servile to me.

But I don't think I can answer on behalf of men.

This is all interesting.

I think that people in a relationship need to complement each other. So not in terms of "servile" and "dominant" but certainly one being more bossy organised and one being more docile relaxed works for many and of course the things within a relationship that people take charge of change with one dealing with one thing etc.

the problem is of course where society has indoctrinated and / ore one party feels they should have automatic right to be in charge and then you've got a recipe for bad times.

Personally I have never seen the appeal of the older man / alpha male. I know lots of my friends do but I simply don't even begin to understand it.

yani Thu 25-Apr-13 21:25:27

Don your thread at 20:08 makes perfect sense.
Fascinating topic, really glad I found it. Interesting to hear the various opinions.

CoalDustWoman Thu 25-Apr-13 21:38:35

Great thread.

I wrote out a rant based on what I see and hear around me on a daily basis, but then my phone crashed, which is probably a good thing.

In a nutshell, it's depressing.

On a lighter note, if and when the men in and around my office brag about their ineptitude in matters domestic, I ask them if that gets them much sex. They and their partners seem happier these days...

Lessthanaballpark Thu 25-Apr-13 21:42:14

do men not also need to respect their partners to find them sexy?

When I was a teenager I heard my best friend (male) discuss with his friend all the things they would like to do to this one girl who I know they absolutely despised and spent a lot of the time taking the piss out of her.

It was a depressing but proto-feminist moment for me, the realisation that men don't need to like a person they want to have sex with.

BasilBabyEater Thu 25-Apr-13 22:21:38

Ooh, we've moved on to the other way round.

I wanted to mention that in OP but it would be way too long. I think men are socialised much more to not have to respect women to be long-term sexually attracted to them - to see women as being there to use for sex if they can and only to respect them if they can't - and long term this can cause huge unhappiness. It's not very current, but I've got a vision of Mr Bennett from Pride and Prejudice in my mind. However I've also lost count of the number of men I've known who are educated, well-read and clever, who have female partners who literally only read things like OK magazine and have no idea about politics, history etc. and seem perfectly content with them. I've always wondered how that works.

Of course for a temporary liaison, it's fine, but even for a casual, no-strings arrangements the screaming boredom of having to entertain someone who knows nothing after the sex is done, quite quickly makes you question if it's worth it (well, it does me) and so to actually go on and marry someone who is really never going to give you the variety and interest of someone who is your intellectual equal, is really weird IMO. I'm guessing these men don't expect or want to get their intellectual companionship from their life partners. confused And I suppose it is a pretty recent thing to have that expectation.

NiceTabard Thu 25-Apr-13 22:54:26

Basil I am guessing that in the set-up you talk about "men I've known who are educated, well-read and clever, who have female partners who literally only read things like OK magazine and have no idea about politics, history etc. " the men get their intellectual stimulation at work?

having said that I have never worked anywhere, where the conversation was very high brow!!!

maybe the clever educated men enjoy talking about what the beckhams have been up to, when they get home?

maybe the women have hidden depths? When I was a sahm I watched a lot of telly, sure, but it included the daily politics grin

NiceTabard Thu 25-Apr-13 22:56:03

actually DH and I sit here in silence every night hmm

maybe give them the benefit of the doubt? people don't stay together for years without good reason (and hopefully a good reason, not money or something)

BasilBabyEater Thu 25-Apr-13 23:52:04

Oh yes, I'm sure the men get their intellectual stimulation elsewhere nicetabard. That's what I find odd though - not that they get some of it elsewhere, but that they get so little of it from their primary relationship. For me, to not be able to get at least some of it from the person I live with, with whom I have a sexual relationship, would be very boring and quite limited. You're right, very few people work in places where the office banter is highbrow. Most of the people I know, get that all that intellectual stuff from their friends and their partners, and in some cases, their political contacts.

Am LOLing at the idea of you and your DH sitting there in stony silence. But if you wanted to talk to each other, you could right? It wouldn't be pointless because he wasn't interested in it or didn't get what you were talking about? You wouldn't give up disheartened? I'm imagining the silence is comfortable rather than uncomprehending? grin

I think couples stay together for all sorts of reasons, sometimes for years and the reasons aren't always good. I'm not saying that these relationships are unhappy - far from it, sometimes they're very happy and they meet both parties' needs - I just find it interesting.

wol1968 Fri 26-Apr-13 16:59:37

I have a horrible suspicion that men in those sorts of relationships might be intelligent but they don't want to be challenged by their partner. They want to feel that they're in power, that they're the boss, that no-one at home's in danger of making them realise they're not numero uno. I don't like it.

BasilBabyEater Fri 26-Apr-13 22:58:21

Yes, that's a suspicion I have too.

DeafLeopard Fri 26-Apr-13 23:27:46

I'm probably too pissed tired to make much sense on this thread but I wanted to be able to come back to read it properly in the morning.

Speaking personally, my libido is not very discerning at all - embarrassingly so actually. I can experience a sexual response to men that I would never sleep with because their personality is a real turn off - arrogant / sexist / uneducated / disrespectful etc. Equally DH can have majorly pissed me off and I can be fuming with him but my body can respond sexually to seeing him even if I don't want it to / would not want to have sex with him as I am so cross.

So I can see why life partners don't necessarily need to respect one another to have sex with them.

I can also see that there are lots of men who actively would not want a partner who would demand or expect respect from them.

There are also some women whose sense of worth is attached to "looking after her man", they view them as a prize catch and act the handmaiden (consciously or subconsciously) in order to keep them - certainly this is what I have seen from some of my social circle.

dogsandcats Fri 26-Apr-13 23:43:07

BBE. re the intellectual men with women who read Ok magazine. Are the women pretty?
I am starting to see pretty, but fairly dim women in their early 20s being snapped up by intellectual, financially stable men.And wondering if the partnerships will stand the test of time.
fwiw, I think they will - or at least as long as other relationships.
[the men seem to not believe their luck,especially if they are not all that hot in the looks department themselves]
On a side note, I am thinking that pretty women are blessed, if that is the right word, in more ways than one?

DonDrapersAltrEgoBigglesDraper Sat 27-Apr-13 00:15:18

There are also some women whose sense of worth is attached to "looking after her man", they view them as a prize catch and act the handmaiden (consciously or subconsciously) in order to keep them - certainly this is what I have seen from some of my social circle.

But those women do not not respect their patterns, if you get my double negative. The question posed by this thread doesn't apply to them. They're happy enough with their lot.

Specifically talking about women who do not like being partnered to useless men they have come to not respect, I do tend to think, generally speaking, that sexual attraction does dwindle.

And yes, pretty women are absolutely blessed. There's no denying it. You have a much easier ride through life being good looking than not, the playing field absolutely is not level, and good looks carries way more cache than other attributes.

dogsandcats Sat 27-Apr-13 09:12:57

When pretty but not very bright women, are partnered with intellectual men, their children, on the whole,both boys and girls, end up good looking. Which further perpetuates the "top of the tree" elite people.
[yes I know I am making some mass generalisations here].

I also think, that some autism and aspergers comes from two very bright people having children. It seems like if a person gets too bright intellectually, then there is more of a probability of that happening. So, to marry a person of less intellect...

I realise I have gone off topic here. Will shut up now.

lizeyorks Fri 19-Jul-13 23:55:54

After 39 years, 11 months and 2 weeks into my marriage I finally found the courage to tell my husband that for me it was over..... by separation ..divorce..whatever. No one else involved (JUST HOW DO AFFAIRS HAPPEN! )!
You must be wondering, I am sure, quite why I am bothering to want a divorce (sounds so much better than a separation, but much more complicated!). I remember when his parents got divorced after 32 years, I thought "why bother"? But times change and I'm tired of my husband being taken for my father, and our son being taken for my husband. That's one of the shallow reasons, I should be rejoicing and appreciative that people see me as being so much younger than I am. I have a cutting of a newspaper cartoon, rather yellow and fragile with age, which says it all about my marriage......."I gave you the best years of my life and you spent them in a pub"......

Our house is on the market, leaving it will be a wrench, but I just couldn't see a future together with him because his habits are so entrenched and predictable. Some will think I'm a bitch because he was very ill last year.....a colostomy.......I saw into his future as an old man, but an old man that I didn't love, and who hadn't had a physical relationship with me for over 10 years..........(brewers' droop).

Well, we have four great children, 39,37,35 and 24......and 6 great grandchildren.......all happy and extremely it wasn't all in vain....

Would just add, keep doing the pelvic floor exercises, very important because I'm in for a posterior /anterior repair op in Scarborough Hospital in August....if anyone is interested in how it goes, I'll let you know!


Sausageeggbacon Sat 20-Jul-13 11:18:32

I went from a man who was very alpha male and controlling but could do anything domestically including doing the ironing because I was rubbish at it to a less than perfect man domestically who is less capable but we fitted well everywhere else. Our expectations are through our beliefs as much as socialised but given the choice of the two doing more is not a problem as my expectations have changed as I have got older.

Think it is just part of taking in your personal life experiences and using them to shape what you want.

scallopsrgreat Sat 20-Jul-13 11:55:37

But how do you get your beliefs, Sausage, if not through socialisation?

I am wondering if in fact that women are socialised to continue to respect men when in fact they don't do much at all to warrant that respect? So you can still fancy someone who does not pull his weight because in fact the respect is still there. You just have to look at how low the bar is for a 'good' father to understand why women can still have respect for men who only rarely enhance their lives.

I think feminism helps put that 'respect' in perspective.

scallopsrgreat Sat 20-Jul-13 11:56:13

Lots of 'in facts' there hmm

BasilBabyEater Sat 20-Jul-13 13:58:02

Yes Scallops I think there's a lot in that - we're socialised to respect men for bread-winning abilities, strength, speed, sexual prowess etc.; not for house-keeping skills.

I also think we're not socialised to respect men for the respect they give us; women aren't supposed to be respected by men, so when they behave disrespectfully towards us (by refusing to pull their weight in the home etc.) it doesn't necessarily impact our respect for them? (I say "our" collectively, it bloody does mine nowadays, but I think that wasn't always the case.)

Solari Mon 22-Jul-13 16:40:58

Just rambling here, so please do excuse me if my thoughts seem a bit jumbled, but I'm reminded a bit of that scene from American Psycho, where Christian Bale is having sex and spending the whole time admiring himself having sex in the mirror.

I wonder if for some men, having a partner act 'beneath them' isn't a problem because their version of lust doesn't include respecting and loving another person, but rather boosting their own ego, making them feel more powerful etc.

In that scenario, the more servile and objectified their 'partner', the better. Because in the end it really is all about the man in that scenario, and the woman really is just a prop to his spotlight.

arsenaltilidie Thu 25-Jul-13 09:04:18

Its all evolution science, big macho man 'bad boy' is attractive when you don't have children, but once you have children you begin to appreciate the 'sensitive' side a bit more.

Who we find attractive for LTR is indeed socialised. 100s of years ago LTR, men didnt have to do the housework, but now its expected a man to help around the house.
Women werent expected to bring an income but now its expected.

On the other hand, Lust is not socialised, the greek sculpture with warrior like body has been attractive for the last 1,000s years and will remain so. The dominant artists etc will always will always induce lust to women and that will never change. Who we find attractive in a lusty way is ingrained in our dna and will probably never change for a long time.

Most women prefer a dominant partner to a submissive one

vesuvia Thu 25-Jul-13 09:42:57

arsenaltilidie wrote - "the greek sculpture with warrior like body has been attractive for the last 1,000s years and will remain so. The dominant artists etc will always will always induce lust to women and that will never change. Who we find attractive in a lusty way is ingrained in our dna and will probably never change for a long time."

I think it's worth noting that those Ancient Greek sculptures were created for not for the benefit of women, but for the benefit of men (e.g. homosexuality, homoeroticism, Greek love).

BasilBabyEater Fri 26-Jul-13 09:18:09

Of course lust is culturally constructed.

How else to explain the disgust of 17 year old boys at the sight of a beautiful woman with a classic waist to hip ratio, classically taut breasts, arse etc., perfect skin, who has pubic hair?

30 years ago there would have been no question that such a woman would have excited lust in most straight boys. The idea that she should excite disgust rather than lust, because of the presence of pubic hair, is because the cultural ideal of women's bodies has changed.

Similarly a century ago, the same woman would have excited lust if she'd had underarm hair. But even 30 years ago that underarm hair might have been a turn-off for many men (and even more so now), because women have been showing their underarms (and shaving/ waxing them) for at least half a century.

Lust is as subject to cultural constructs, as anything else.

arsenaltilidie Fri 26-Jul-13 10:28:13

"Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but rather by the role that each participant played in the sex act, that of active penetrator or passive penetrated"
According to wikipedia

Err I want you to show me what 17 year old would not jump at the idea of having sex with a beautiful woman with a classic waist to hip ratio, classically taut breasts, arse etc., perfect skin,

Body hair and hygiene (BO used to be normal) are things you can change, but the CLASSIC waist hip/ratio etc has never changed.

BasilBabyEater Fri 26-Jul-13 10:37:24

Arsenal, go on the interweb and look out boys' conversations about pubic hair on women.

They express disgust at the idea of having sex with such a woman. Total disgust.

arsenaltilidie Fri 26-Jul-13 10:48:31

And they have a 9" penis, earn £50k and drive a bmw.

Fact is all of them would jump at the chance of having sex with her, its nothing but male bravado.

BasilBabyEater Fri 26-Jul-13 19:58:02

Then you have to question why our culture constructs male bravado as finding a beautiful woman repulsive because she's got body hair in the right place.

Also, you don't know tht they wouldn't feel disgusted actually; we all know the story of Augustus John who couldn't bear to shag his wife because she didn't have the body of a statue. How do you now these boys really aren't modern day Augustus Johns?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now