3 ms·

"female sexuality is framed as something which exists for the pleasure of men." I must say I have never noticed this, so I am not sure what to say. I can't rea

by Tichy 14y ago

"female sexuality is framed as something which exists for the pleasure of men." I must say I have never noticed this, so I am not sure what to say. I can't really make sense of it either. My impression was sex exists to create babies, not to pleasure men. I don't say that to try to be funny, just to express that it seems a very long way from that to "female sexuality exits to pleasure men". Or do you mean the use of women in advertising, their sexiness associated with chocolate or cars or whatever? I guess it could be interpreted like that, only I wouldn't have referred to a woman's presentation in a (supposedly) sexy way as her sexuality. With "female sexuality" I thought about what arouses women. Maybe I misunderstood. My interpretation of women is advertising is simply that men desire women, not that women's purpose is to pleasure men. Actually, isn't it rather the other way round? You want that car because supposedly it helps you get the woman, it seems to be more about pleasing women than men? Edit: also, my apologies, I am getting tired and HN is probably not well suited to this kind of discussion. I am interested in it, though.

Mz 14y ago
I really do not know where to begin. Yes, biologically, sex is to make babies. But culturally, there is a very strong bias globally that men are entitled to such pleasure, women are not (to the point that some cultures cut away the clitoris to try to keep women faithful to their spouse). I have met men who thought they were enlightened, new age men because of their attitude "I do not mind if you enjoy the ride, honey". These men have no clue. None. If he doesn't get it that making sure I enjoy it is his job, I have zero reason to service the selfish, disrespectful, clueless asshole. If it is my job to make sure I enjoy it, I can do that without the extra work of servicing him or the exposure to risk of pregnancy and disease. It's called masturbation. I do not need a man's company for that, thank you. Buying a car to impress a lady is not about what she wants. It is about what you want. Most women do not have orgasms because they saw a nice car. The point of such activities is rooted in the fact that most heterosexual relationships involve some degree of a man buying his way into a woman's bed. That makes her a servant. He who has the gold makes the rules. Unless you bought the car as a gift for her, it isn't even a generous thing to do. It is merely bragging that you can afford to buy your way into her bed. And women are kind of stupid to go along with that paradigm. The typical outcome is that she becomes his maid and property, not some pampered person of privilege. But since women are the ones that get pregnant, that paradigm isn't going to go away any time soon. The nuclear family with male breadwinner model works pretty well on the whole and beats the hell out of the often hostile American model of women's lib which declares "I don't need a man!" Most women want babies. A baby is a big burden. The single parent thing is an extremely hard row to hoe. But planning for the fact that sex leads to babies, at which point you will be better off if the father makes enough money to support a family, in no way makes that about her sexual gratification. I have talked to plenty of people over the years and read plenty of books and articles on human sexuality. An awful lot of people express the idea that it is perfectly okay if she doesn't orgasm every time, women just aren't biologically the same as men, blah blah blah, it is reasonanle for him to get his anyway. And it is true, we are different, biologically. But the big difference is that women are far more capable of being multiorgasmic than men are. The degree to which it is assumed that sex is primarily or solely for male pleasure is pretty rampant. There is zero biological reason to frame it that way. I am also tired and should probably drop out of this conversation. I have spent years backpedaling from a pattern of being a loudmouthed brassy broad and getting lynched for it. It isn't a hobby I care to resume.
wilkie 14y ago
If you are truly interested in it... I'll just dump some things here. :) "Female sexuality is framed as something which exists for the pleasure of men" is a true statement in general media. So. [Most] Porn. Watch it. Who's orgasm is displayed? Who's orgasm is typically non-existent (to the point it is fetishized when it does occur?) Make a judgment. Why is this true? See my earlier post about "bisexual porn." Ok. Advertising. "With 'female sexuality' I thought about what arouses women." Good. That's a part of what sexuality is but not what it is framed as in terms of its portrayal in media. "You want that car because supposedly it helps you get the woman, it seems to be more about pleasing women than men?" I kinda hope you don't mean that. :) How in the world does 'getting a woman' as a heterosexual man 'please women?' If you are thinking about answering that question... don't! It would be pleasing to women if their needs (sexual needs in terms of porn, practical needs in terms of cars) were met in media. However, only the needs of men (getting women somehow in BOTH cases) are being portrayed. That's a problem to men because it reduces us to gullible sex drives, yet it is worse for women because it reduces them to objects of that drive... dismissing any quality that a woman can have as an individual. This is an example of the objectification you see discussed here. Women are the object, men are the subject, we see this in porn, advertisement, and even employment posters (gee, we wonder why 52% of women drop out of the programming field after college.) It's kinda gross and defeating when you take the "red pill" and start to see it everywhere. Even more daunting when you go against the grain of prevailing thought and start talking about this being an actual problem. It just seems like everybody else took the "blue pill" and just don't want to see it. But it does have a negative effect that has been thoroughly studied. If we accept these tenets as true, and I do and will strongly suggest that you do as well, then we have to see the attack here as sexist. The attack serves to objectify in the same manner as media: by removing individuality, quality, and self from the person. It uses the sexualized images of women just as media uses for this purpose. It is done against a woman, who as I've discussed are oppressed as opposed to men who are simply (at most) discriminated against. It was done so in an obviously malicious manner (that is, beyond parody) in order to hurt their reputation by targeting the fact that they are female (given the nature of their attack,) not by aspects of their character or refuting the merit of their knowledge. That serves to oppress via discrimination determined by their gender: sexist.
- 14y ago
Mz 14y ago
Your most recent reply is also showing as dead. So I cannot reply directly to it. And I kind of see no point. I know you said you are short of time, but it sounds to me like you concluded I am some frigid manhating bitch who can't find a decent man cuz I have issues or something. Not a place I care to go and not a discussion that will enlighten anyone. Best of luck with whatever you were hoping to better understand when this conversation began. Peace. Out.

by Tichy 14y ago

Mz 14y ago

I really do not know where to begin. Yes, biologically, sex is to make babies. But culturally, there is a very strong bias globally that men are entitled to such pleasure, women are not (to the point that some cultures cut away the clitoris to try to keep women faithful to their spouse). I have met men who thought they were enlightened, new age men because of their attitude "I do not mind if you enjoy the ride, honey". These men have no clue. None. If he doesn't get it that making sure I enjoy it is his job, I have zero reason to service the selfish, disrespectful, clueless asshole. If it is my job to make sure I enjoy it, I can do that without the extra work of servicing him or the exposure to risk of pregnancy and disease. It's called masturbation. I do not need a man's company for that, thank you. Buying a car to impress a lady is not about what she wants. It is about what you want. Most women do not have orgasms because they saw a nice car. The point of such activities is rooted in the fact that most heterosexual relationships involve some degree of a man buying his way into a woman's bed. That makes her a servant. He who has the gold makes the rules. Unless you bought the car as a gift for her, it isn't even a generous thing to do. It is merely bragging that you can afford to buy your way into her bed. And women are kind of stupid to go along with that paradigm. The typical outcome is that she becomes his maid and property, not some pampered person of privilege. But since women are the ones that get pregnant, that paradigm isn't going to go away any time soon. The nuclear family with male breadwinner model works pretty well on the whole and beats the hell out of the often hostile American model of women's lib which declares "I don't need a man!" Most women want babies. A baby is a big burden. The single parent thing is an extremely hard row to hoe. But planning for the fact that sex leads to babies, at which point you will be better off if the father makes enough money to support a family, in no way makes that about her sexual gratification. I have talked to plenty of people over the years and read plenty of books and articles on human sexuality. An awful lot of people express the idea that it is perfectly okay if she doesn't orgasm every time, women just aren't biologically the same as men, blah blah blah, it is reasonanle for him to get his anyway. And it is true, we are different, biologically. But the big difference is that women are far more capable of being multiorgasmic than men are. The degree to which it is assumed that sex is primarily or solely for male pleasure is pretty rampant. There is zero biological reason to frame it that way. I am also tired and should probably drop out of this conversation. I have spent years backpedaling from a pattern of being a loudmouthed brassy broad and getting lynched for it. It isn't a hobby I care to resume.

wilkie 14y ago

If you are truly interested in it... I'll just dump some things here. :) "Female sexuality is framed as something which exists for the pleasure of men" is a true statement in general media. So. [Most] Porn. Watch it. Who's orgasm is displayed? Who's orgasm is typically non-existent (to the point it is fetishized when it does occur?) Make a judgment. Why is this true? See my earlier post about "bisexual porn." Ok. Advertising. "With 'female sexuality' I thought about what arouses women." Good. That's a part of what sexuality is but not what it is framed as in terms of its portrayal in media. "You want that car because supposedly it helps you get the woman, it seems to be more about pleasing women than men?" I kinda hope you don't mean that. :) How in the world does 'getting a woman' as a heterosexual man 'please women?' If you are thinking about answering that question... don't! It would be pleasing to women if their needs (sexual needs in terms of porn, practical needs in terms of cars) were met in media. However, only the needs of men (getting women somehow in BOTH cases) are being portrayed. That's a problem to men because it reduces us to gullible sex drives, yet it is worse for women because it reduces them to objects of that drive... dismissing any quality that a woman can have as an individual. This is an example of the objectification you see discussed here. Women are the object, men are the subject, we see this in porn, advertisement, and even employment posters (gee, we wonder why 52% of women drop out of the programming field after college.) It's kinda gross and defeating when you take the "red pill" and start to see it everywhere. Even more daunting when you go against the grain of prevailing thought and start talking about this being an actual problem. It just seems like everybody else took the "blue pill" and just don't want to see it. But it does have a negative effect that has been thoroughly studied. If we accept these tenets as true, and I do and will strongly suggest that you do as well, then we have to see the attack here as sexist. The attack serves to objectify in the same manner as media: by removing individuality, quality, and self from the person. It uses the sexualized images of women just as media uses for this purpose. It is done against a woman, who as I've discussed are oppressed as opposed to men who are simply (at most) discriminated against. It was done so in an obviously malicious manner (that is, beyond parody) in order to hurt their reputation by targeting the fact that they are female (given the nature of their attack,) not by aspects of their character or refuting the merit of their knowledge. That serves to oppress via discrimination determined by their gender: sexist.

14y ago

Mz 14y ago

Your most recent reply is also showing as dead. So I cannot reply directly to it. And I kind of see no point. I know you said you are short of time, but it sounds to me like you concluded I am some frigid manhating bitch who can't find a decent man cuz I have issues or something. Not a place I care to go and not a discussion that will enlighten anyone. Best of luck with whatever you were hoping to better understand when this conversation began. Peace. Out.