Figleaf's Real Adult Sex

I was so nettled by the first sentence in a quote from that NYT article on “What do Women Want” that I neglected the following one. Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon is on the case. (Italics mine.)

Unfortunately, if [Marta Meana] didn’t strain herself to avoid feminist explanations for women’s so-called narcissism, she would have a better chance of stumbling on the truth.  She has all these theories about why women like to look at the female form, tend to see “sex” in women’s bodies more than men’s (just like straight men do), and respond so strongly to being desired.  Many of them have the strong whiff of bullshit, like this:

“The female body,” she said, “looks the same whether aroused or not. The male, without an erection, is announcing a lack of arousal. The female body always holds the promise, the suggestion of sex” — a suggestion that sends a charge through both men and women.

Men’s bodies can be sexual without an erection — look at the statue of David for a classic example.  There is nothing inevitable about the sexualizing of the female body and not the male one. 

She said it here.

Yeah, good thing Dr. Mena tiptoes around because feminists are all querrelous about Teh Sex! With Menz!

Seriously! (I know, I know, I’ve been saying that a lot.) For all those clichés about feminists scorning men it’s kind of… interesting just who keeps pointing out that men’s bodies ain’t exactly chopped liver… and just who insists straight women only see sexy in other women’s bodies. Sheesh! And people wonder why it would be in a male sex blogger’s interest to side with feminism?