Showing that feminists don't all hate heterosexual male sexuality

[IronPyrites]

OK so I am talking about consensual adult sexuality only.

I think there is a feeling, imo an incorrect one, but still a feeling, among many straight men that feminism wants to impose celibacy on all straight men, and hates and derides any expression of male sexuality.
Now, while I think this is unfounded, I wonder sometimes if there is any mileage in perhaps showing some compassion for the difficulties that many straight men encounter in their personal lives in general, and perhaps even that the pain of sexual or romantic frustration is no less real (and perhaps heightened by societal expectations of the straight male stud) for this group of people than anyone else. I have nothing but contempt for the so-called incels who clearly despise and feel entitled to women, and for men who express disdain for and behave badly to women in other ways, but I do think it may do some good to counter the message that you sometimes hear that feminism is anti-men, and showing that there is probably a societal bias against and fear of male sexuality in general. I hope you understand what I mean.

Im assuming you're not asking me? The data I mentioned in the last post is backed up by almost every pschological study worth its salt in the past 50 years. Theres literally hundereds of papaers and studies.

I wasn't even aware that anyone actually disputed this stuff anymore.

@TheProdigalKittensReturn

Far be it from me to stop people from indulging their fetishes as long as they do so in a suitably private context and remember that it's opt-in, not opt-out.

As far as i'm aware the standard is still opt out?

Correct me if im wrong but I dont think we actually went as far as to make sex between two people illegal by default?

These are very general based on research and will obviously differ between people.

Romance novels are not research.

Obviously, but do you think they'd be romantic if no one could relate to them? You'd not read a romance novel and think "thats strange ive never seen people act like that". Else that would hardly be romantic if that was the case.

Have you read any romance novels? The point of them is escapism, just like with soap operas.

I've not read much romance for a while, but the classics are from a world of entrenched power imbalance. Yet even in those, the best of them don't have 'submissive' heroines. The powerless woman tames the dominant man.

Does the research alluded to properly account for the power imbalance - for all too many women, I'd suspect 'submission' is a survival tactic (economically or physically) rather than their real preference for how things should be.

So, no cited studies? Can you point us to one, even?

"Women want to submit to a dominant man" isn't a description of reality, it's a sales pitch.

What does a dominant man even mean, how would they define it? Some of the most confident ambitious men I have known have been deeply insecure in some areas.

"Women want to submit to a dominant man" isn't a description of reality, it's a sales pitch.

It's male wishful thinking, that they want to be true.

And also an excuse for oppressing women through religion etc.

If weak men are more your cup of tea then each to their own.

In a nutshell.

There is no one type or right way to do it, some women may enjoy submitting to a dominant man, some men enjoy submitting to a dominant woman judging by the vast amount of porn on it, some like to do it as sex play, some like it full time, some aren't interested at all.

It's the massive generalisations that don't work, suggesting that all women want to submit to a caveman and just need taking in hand, which is obviously not true. The red pill stuff largely doesn't turn women on from what I've seen, it more tends to produce an eye roll and loss of all interest on the spot, with a get off you strange bastard to follow.

It's also perfectly possible to enjoy a fantasy book as a fantasy book without this being something you want to live in real life. I quite like Lochinvar, but anyone trying to toss me over a saddle is going to get less melting submission than his lights punched out I'm afraid.

'Theres literally hundereds of papaers and studies.'

So, one or two links would be great.

All the debate along the lines of women are suppressing males who need to be aggressive, controlling, brutal, rapey, whatever, are merely pulling out all the sexism again.

It sees females as enablers, not equals entitled to equal value, equal feelings, equal needs, equal consideration. It sees females getting out of their enabling role as harming and oppressing males. It sees males as the more important group and seeks to get females focused back on nurturing them and tolerating grotty behaviour because poor little loves, they need to be grotty to be happy and females are primarily support humans.

It's just a nice version of Rachel McKinnon talking about women needing to 'learn to cope with' sex they don't enjoy and don't want, because of their social duty to provide males with their desired sexual experiences. Men have a right to enjoy sex; women just have a duty to serve the man and meet his needs.

Also important to differentiate between sexual dominance/submission and other areas of life, tbh.

Financial domination? Legal domination? Moral domination?

Less likely to be appealing to most women, I would say.

Sex is a different realm altogether.

"There's literally hundreds, but I can't link you to any of them, because reasons, but I know they exist and you should believe me, because women love submitting."

"Interesting" idea that men who act respectful towards women are weak, btw.

Isn't it weird how considerate and thoughtful men are seen as "weak"? It's like they can't be considerate and thoughtful whilst still being capable of throwing a 50kg bag of compost over their shoulder and carrying it to the garden, or entering and completing a triathalon. Humans are wonderfully diverse and interesting creatures, if you stop trying to pigeon hole them into your stupid little boxes and actually appreciate them for the fully formed, well rounded people that they are. Male or female, everyone is capable of being emotional, of being ruthless, of being competitive, of being tearful, of being fearful, of being assertive, of being aggressive, of being loving.

Aye, Kittens. And the women of FWR especially well known for that trait amirite.

May be worth reflecting too on the 'gentleman' values from Regency/ Victorian times, so going back a couple of hundred years, which prized restraint, keeping of temper, gentleness of manner to others, respect and consideration to others etc. And which in turn were rooted in the values of Chivalry, which go back about 800 years further, and again expected certain restraints and values to do with self control and self discipline among men. And which were invented by men for a culture of men, not created and inflicted by a group of females.

It's all just so boring, the idea that men and women have to perform this sort of exaggerated gendered behavior at each other in order to get a shag. If that's what someone is into then that's up to them but do try not to impose your preference on everyone you meet, that's just bad manners.

How many women go gaga over the classic "dad with new baby" type images we see every time a sleb reproduces? Everyone screes cos a man is showing tenderness to his own newborn. It's what he's supposed to do! Maybe those who like 'em dominant would prefer them to swing them by the feet into the nearest wall? Would that be assertive enough?

The first and only time I ever thought much too bulky and macho for me Chris Hemsworth was attractive was when I saw a photo of him cuddling and feeding a rescued baby koala. I'm sure we will be told that this actually shows dominance in some previously undetermined way.

It's such a shame that tenderness and softness in a male is now sneered at. I don't understand the lack of nuance in any part of life nowadays. My husband spent most of yesterday fretting and tearful because his Dad had been blue lighted to hospital after a fall, and they live 500 miles away from us so we couldn't do anything but wait. Does that make him "weak"? If it does, then I'd suggest that it makes the person who comes to that conclusion a complete sociopath.

Perhaps for Chris Hemsworth to truly appear non dominant the koala would have to be holding Chris?