I don't know what we see-saw in each other
Scott Adams, cartoonist and author of The Dilbert Blog, says
One of the services I provide to hetero male readers of this blog is teaching you how to obtain sex from women who are too good for you. To that end, I scour the Internet looking for scientific articles that can give you an edge.
On the one hand it doesn't matter exactly what the science article is about. And on the other hand it doesn't do any good to complain about Adams himself since he says a lot of what he does to provoke people into flaming him.
And check out that one clause "...how to obtain sex from women who are too good for you." That's a deliriously well-condensed mult-dimensional assertion of the "no-sex" class paradigm wherein men indoctrinate ourselves to believe that *even if* women were autonomously interested in sex they wouldn't be interested in sex with *us!*
I think I've mentioned briefly that whereas heterosexual behavior is best explained by an exclusive-to-men theory that women are the "no-sex" class, the rest of the best explanation is an equally ill-founded but this time, I think, shared belief that men are the *sex* class. I keep meaning to develop that side but for now I'll just say that, corresponding to men's persistent "no-sex" class-paradigm-fueled misapprehension that "women are too good" for them is a corresponding misapprehension among a lot of women that "I could have sex with any time I wanted if I just lowered my standards." You hear some variation on that fairly often too. It's based on the assumption that men -- as members of the sex class -- will always say yes as surely as women -- as members of the no-sex class -- will always say no.
Neither belief is true in any sense of the word "true", and, worse, each creates misery between both genders. (If I were a cynical cartoonist of human nature I'd probably come up with a short series about a woman trying to lower her standards enough to connect with a guy who's blind to the possibility that she could see anything in him.)
It's too sad. When I told my now-boyfriend about your "women as the no sex class" idea, and sent him here (as well as to some other blogs, though this one resonated the most with him), it really clicked for him in a big way. He remembers that, in high school, he was terrified of women and basically viewed himself as a supplicant towards them. Asking a girl out was like...well, there was no reason she might want to go out with him except to sort of "do her duty" (to society? to eventually propagating the species?) and he wasn't a bad guy to do it with. He had this feeling despite a really egalitarian outlook in general.
Men are not the supplicants of sexual relationships.
[I'm sorry to hear about your boyfriend, DY, not only for himself but for all the rest of us who grew up feeling exactly the same way. What's really harsh, you know, is that if you grow up thinking that way the consequences just tumble on like a freeway pile-up. One that comes up that I think a lot of people don't recognize is the assumption that "getting" feminism for men equals becoming "worthy," with the side-effect being a lot of very well-intentioned men asking "am I doing this right" after every baby step. Thanks! --fl]
In my house, the roles really are reversed. My husband is the stereotypical woman - all but completely uninterested in sex - and I am the stereotypical man, wanting sex all the time. So your refutation of the no-sex concept has always hit home for me.
If people spent some time surfing women's diary-style blogs, they would find that my marital situation is far from uncommon. Apparently there are plenty of men out there just not terribly interested in sex (not just not interested in their wives, but not interested in sex at all). They're not all gay or married to fat chicks, as the stereotype would have us believe.
["If people spent some time surfing women's diary-style blogs..." yeah, that was the first clue, really, that sank in for me. Lots. And *lots* of women blogging anonymously in a way that, to my indoctrinated semi-consciousness, seemed to be... *had* to be masquerading men on a wish-fulfillment trip. Because *real* women, especially more "mature" ones, couldn't possibly feel that way. *Schtoop!* And that's why I call it a paradigm: it's a rational, self-reinforcing social construct that steers us towards seeing confirmation and discounting refutation until the counterevidence becomes overwhelming. Slowly but surely the cracks started opening and now? At least for me it's "which way to the exits?" Now I recognize that while there are ravenously horny people and asexual people and lots of people in between, it ain't got much to do with gender at all, at all. Thanks, Bunny! --fl]
I've heard many times, from many people, that "women can get laid any time they want." And I always think that anyone who says this must have a really wishful mental image of "the average woman." The average woman is a little heavy, a little scruffy, getting a little old... still prettier than the average man, mind you, but just not the sort to get men eating out of her hand just because she's female.
I suspect that people who think "women are always attractive to men" secretly picture their generic "woman" as a twenty-three-year-old 110-pound blond volleyball player. And even she might have to lower her standards beyond the point of safety (like, truck stop low) to be able to get it any time.
[Actually I think you had it right the second time. I'm pretty sure women of all kinds have made the "any time" claim though often it might be bravado. Regardless of reality, what matters is the cultural assumptions that let them make the claim. But I also agree that the vollyballer might be surprised as well -- no matter *how* nominally attractive one is or isn't there's some man who's going to say no because it's not true that men can't, don't, and won't turn down sex. Good comment, Holly, thanks. --fl]
Come for the blog, stay for the comments. One of the things I love about you, Figleaf, is your smart, insightful readership. I wish I had something to add to the above, other than "right on" (used only somewhat ironically) but I don't.
[Hey, it's one of the reasons *I* keep coming back, Mu Ling. I think I've got the best readers in the world. Thanks! Also long time no see. Welcome back. --fl]