Scifi with aggressive sexuality

[BigJake]

Um.

Just to pick one of many incredibly wrong things at random here:

. . . we live in a society that doesn't have any trappings for masculine sexuality.

Your reading of the Rocky Horror Picture Show is wrong on so many levels and in so many ways, but this one is one of the most glaring (though not the most insulting).

Our society is dripping with the "trappings" for masculine sexuality. That's what action movies mostly are. That's what Clint Eastwood and Sean Connery built their entire careers around. That's what Captain Kirk in Star Trek is. That's what the mythology of the male superhero is built around. The trapping of masculine sexuality are about wealth and physical power and impunity and being the man of action upon whom women automatically fawn (or fawn with at least a little more prompting in our age's often minimal nods to feminism). These trappings are not purely sexualized because masculinity is privileged and has the luxury of being both sexual and standing for effective action in the realm of necessary affairs, indeed of dictating what is good and what is bad and who lives and who dies. None of that has gone anywhere despite female protagonists getting to see a little more profile in the modern action film. If you cannot perceive this, you really shouldn't be sounding off on masculine or feminine or trans-sexuality at all.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

The thing about "the friend zone" is that we live in a society that, while awash in sexual images, is also cluttered with sexual shaming. We've perpetuated this idea that sexual intimacy is only appropriate when it's done with someone for whom you also feel emotional intimacy. So, while no one is ever entitled to anything, it is understandably heartbreaking in a relationship when one party feels BOTH emotional intimacy & sexual attraction and the other does not.

What does that have to do with anything?

Meanwhile, the "nice guy" mentality is, I think, a result of how certain women sexually respond to men in our society. Many of these "nice guys" don't conform to the "alpha male" stereotype, which many women seem to respond to. Many of these "alpha male" types then turn out to be physically abusive or unfaithful or otherwise mistreat their women, something which many of these women then tacitly accept by staying in the relationship. So, while many of these "nice guys" might not actually be that nice, the "alpha males" have set the bar so low in so many cases that just not-hitting-her qualifies as "niceER." It's not that "Women only date assholes." It's just that pretty much every asshole out there has a girlfriend.

Nah, the "nice guy" phenomenon is entitled dudes thinking that just because they aren't literally abusers and rapists that they deserve to have women falling at their feet. Surprise: they don't. "Nice guys" also tend to not be all that nice when you get right down to it.

It's true that women have their own experiences that affect their outlook. But so do men. So, let's try to look at it from another perspective. Suppose people treat other people the way that they want to be treated. So, suppose that when a man "catcalls" a woman, what he thinks he's doing is providing her with unsolicited validation of her sexual attractiveness. Now, it may be unwanted, ill-timed, ineffective, & unwise, but suppose that's the intent. You may be dealing with a man that does not receive a lot of sexual validation within his own life. Perhaps he's just hoping that you'll reciprocate?

Do you know that woman? If not, leave her the hell alone. Why in the world would you think it's OK to catcall her? What makes you think she wants your attention?

The problem with the feminist narrative is that it tries to reduce every male/female interaction into an issue of "control." They insist that men want to control women at every juncture. Based on my experiences as a man and from other men I've known, I just don't see that and I don't know where feminists get that from. Not every issue relating to sex is about control. Usually, sex is just about sex!

Your failure to comprehend feminism, as evidenced by your bizarre strawmanning of it, is definitely not feminism's problem to solve.

Now who's demanding control? You're suggesting that, when you go into public spaces, people can only behave in the way that YOU want them to; that people can only react to you in the ways that YOU are willing to allow regardless of how they feel.

Actually, she is demanding the respect to which all people are entitled. Is there some reason you are unwilling to respect other people's basic autonomy?

Unfortunately, the world is too complex for anyone to actually control more than a small part of it. I've been accosted by strangers on the street. I've had strange men proposition me; not a joke, not flirting, not asking me for a date, just flat out asking me for sex. Once, a man sat next to me on a bus bench, whipped his dick out, started masturbating, and asked me, "So how many bitches have you fucked?" I've seen full-on vaginal intercourse on the light rail train. (That's why I never sit in the back row anymore, even if it's the only seat available.) I haven't been able to control any of these situations. I've discovered that 99% of life in public spaces is just minding my own business and trying to put off everyone else with a casual don't-fuck-with-me attitude. The other 1% is completely out of my control.

I'm sorry you've had those experiences. Certainly none of that justifies the anti-feminist tripe you're peddling here, though.

Here's the rhetorical problem with the concept of "privilege": If the stated social problem is "People are treated unequally by society because they belong to Different Group X," then I don't see how constantly pointing out our differences will lead to greater equality in the future.

That's not a "rhetorical problem," it's an acknowledgment that different people bring different perspectives and experiences to the table, and those differences need to be accommodated and understood for any kind of productive discussion to happen. For instance, when a man declares that problems women are reporting aren't real problems, he is being an obstacle to discussion, rather than an aid.

 

[Manticore]

That's not a "rhetorical problem," it's an acknowledgment that different people bring different perspectives and experiences to the table, and those differences need to be accommodated and understood for any kind of productive discussion to happen. For instance, when a man declares that problems women are reporting aren't real problems, he is being an obstacle to discussion, rather than an aid.

I seriously don't get the whole "by focusing on problems that different groups have, we won't achieve equality!"

No, that's completely and utter tripe. By focusing on problems that groups have, acknowledging them, and working to correct them, you are increasing equality and lowering divisions. There is no use in saying "Yeah, we're all equal, all the same" without making effort to make it so.

Please do. I could hardly muster the energy to respond to yet another of these kinds of posts. I still replied because it is indeed important but at this point I'm pretty tired and worn out.

I honestly don't know how you deal with this; I'm pretty worn out from these arguments, and it's not even my life.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

All that amounts to is that sexism is women's fault. Nice job well and truly missing the point, and that is a very pedestrian attempt to deflect the conversation away from what was being said at the end there.

I'm not trying to assign blame at all. Many have previously stated in this thread that men cannot truly understand the female experience. That may be true. But then, by the same token, women can't understand the male experience. If we're to understand gender relations, we all need to understand both sides as best we can. I'm just trying to provide a flipside male perspective.

And I wasn't trying to "deflect the conversation" at the end. I was trying to steer it back towards something marginally relevant to the SF/F forum that this thread is in.

Funny enough, I don't see nearly as many women complaining about being "friend zoned". Maybe we feel less entitled to sex just because we're being nice to our friends?

For every man complaining about being "friend zoned" there's a woman complaining that her man "won't commit." It seems like it tends to cut in the opposite direction. Men enter into emotional relationships that are not sexually reciprocated. Women enter into sexual relationships that aren't emotionally reciprocated. Both are equally unfortunate.

That is such an old myth.
This is something lonely guys like to tell themselves. They think they're nicer than the guys who actually do have a girlfriend (which isn't true).

It's not always true but it does happen. There are lots of truly depraved men who manage to find women who are attracted to them and stay with them even after they do some pretty horrible things. Like I said, a lot of these "nice guys" are at the very least nicer than the men these women are with because those abusive bastards set the bar so ridiculously low.

In reality, it may not happen often enough to be significant. But it happens often enough to create this perception.

And asshole girls have boyfriends, too.

And doesn't that drive you mad?

The stereotypical "forever alone nerds" aren't forever alone because they're "nice guys". They're alone for other reasons.

Which are?

How is that an excuse for sexual harassment?
Context matters so there are definitely many times when telling a complete stranger "Hey beautiful, you're hot!" is completely inappropriate.

I'm not excusing the behavior, just speculating on the cause of it.

And while context does matter, how is a stranger supposed to know what your specific boundaries are? Like I said, perhaps he's merely treating you the way that he wishes you would treat him? Have you ever tried?

I don't think I'd frame it as a control-issue. But it's an issue of objectification and entitlement.

The problem is that you assume that every man who is interested in sex or asking for sex believes that he is entitled to sex. That's just not true.

Just because you feel threatened, it doesn't always mean that a threat is there. Sometimes it does. But, statistically, you're no more likely to be victimized by a violent crime than anyone else, male or female.

No, I demand nothing of the sort. I demand that they respect my agency and don't feel entitled to my attention, attraction or my body simply because THEY find ME hot.

Just because someone asks for your attention doesn't mean that you have to give it.

Your reasoning is scary and dangerous.
You are complaining about the fact that I expect men to only act in ways I allow them to act regardless of how they feel.
I don't see how that is a valid complaint as long as we're talking about male actions that affect me. OF COURSE they can only go as far as I allow them to go.

You seem to be cherry picking the parts of my post that you can twist to conform to your worldview. What I'm saying is that none of us have full control over our outside environment. We can try to protect ourselves as much as we can but other people are unpredictable by nature. We are all at times subject to treatment from other people that we don't like. You try to rationalize it by saying that it happens because you're a woman and society doesn't respect women. In reality, most stuff happens simply because you were there and the other person has complex issues of their own.

 

[ancient]

oh boy this thread lol.

Um.

Just to pick one of many incredibly wrong things at random here:



Your reading of the Rocky Horror Picture Show is wrong on so many levels and in so many ways, but this one is one of the most glaring (though not the most insulting).

Our society is dripping with the "trappings" for masculine sexuality. That's what action movies mostly are. That's what Clint Eastwood and Sean Connery built their entire careers around. That's what Captain Kirk in Star Trek is. That's what the mythology of the male superhero is built around.

That's a lot of ranting to say that we still have the awesomeness which is masculinity in action movies. Yes, you're right. Those movies are quite rad.

The trapping of masculine sexuality are about wealth and physical power and impunity and being the man of action upon whom women automatically fawn (or fawn with at least a little more prompting in our age's often minimal nods to feminism). These trappings are not purely sexualized because masculinity is privileged and has the luxury of being both sexual and standing for effective action in the realm of necessary affairs, indeed of dictating what is good and what is bad and who lives and who dies. None of that has gone anywhere despite female protagonists getting to see a little more profile in the modern action film.

I haven't seen philosophy this deep since that emo kid who wrote poems in middle school.

If you cannot perceive this, you really shouldn't be sounding off on masculine or feminine or trans-sexuality at all.

Yes, the solution is for the other person to not talk. Perfect conversational technique.

 

[BigJake]

I haven't seen philosophy this deep since that emo kid who wrote poems in middle school.

I'll take this hilariously lame response to mean I made my point.

Yes, the solution is for the other person to not talk.

Well, not talking looks like something you could profitably try, if that post is the best you've got. (Of course you or the poster I was replying to can always keep talking, nobody can stop you 'cept a moderator. Just don't expect it to redound to your credit if your talk is spectacularly ignorant.)

 

[Manticore]

I'm not trying to assign blame at all. Many have previously stated in this thread that men cannot truly understand the female experience. That may be true. But then, by the same token, women can't understand the male experience. If we're to understand gender relations, we all need to understand both sides as best we can. I'm just trying to provide a flipside male perspective.

That'd be great if the rest of your own post hadn't been so awful.

Seriously, defending the concept of "The friend zone"?

And doesn't that drive you mad?

Why should it?

Which are?

Depends on the individual.

The problem is that you assume that every man who is interested in sex or asking for sex believes that he is entitled to sex. That's just not true.

If someone is catcalling someone else, what other reasonable assumption is there?

You seem to be cherry picking the parts of my post that you can twist to conform to your worldview. What I'm saying is that none of us have full control over our outside environment. We can try to protect ourselves as much as we can but other people are unpredictable by nature. We are all at times subject to treatment from other people that we don't like. You try to rationalize it by saying that it happens because you're a woman and society doesn't respect women. In reality, most stuff happens simply because you were there and the other person has complex issues of their own.

The concern is not individual interactions, it's the overwhelming trend of actions. There is a massive, overwhelming trend towards sexism in Western Society. It's not as bad as it used to be, nor is it as bad as in other countries, but that does not excuse it. To dismiss it does millions a disservice.

I haven't seen philosophy this deep since that emo kid who wrote poems in middle school.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here; nothing he said was unintelligent or emo.

 

[ancient]

I'll take this incredibly lame response to mean I made my point.


Well, not talking looks like something you could profitably try, if that post is the best you've got.

As much as I'd like to deconstruct your point, I ran out of time trying to find it. As a double asexual trout-kin, I can safely say that I am the most qualified to speak about the plight of people upset about movies with men in them, especially when they aren't even representing my culture by laying their eggs in a shallow river. No one else should speak on this issue tho, fair warning.

 

[BigJake]

As much as I'd like to deconstruct your point, I ran out of time trying to find it. [blah blah]

Bored now.

 

[Manticore]

As much as I'd like to deconstruct your point, I ran out of time trying to find it. As a double asexual trout-kin, I can safely say that I am the most qualified to speak about the plight of people upset about movies with men in them, especially when they aren't even representing my culture by laying their eggs in a shallow river. No one else should speak on this issue tho, fair warning.

I love this strawman. "I think that a concept [that affects actual people's lives] is ridiculous, so I'll say that identify as something ridiculous", completely dismissing actual scientific and psychological evidence in favor of one's "common sense".

 

[Awesome Possum]

As much as I'd like to deconstruct your point, I ran out of time trying to find it. As a double asexual trout-kin, I can safely say that I am the most qualified to speak about the plight of people upset about movies with men in them, especially when they aren't even representing my culture by laying their eggs in a shallow river. No one else should speak on this issue tho, fair warning.

I take by your constant failed stabs at humor that you don't have a logical response. Perhaps you should try your own material instead of copying a 12 year old troll from Tumblr next time.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I love this strawman. "I think that a concept [that affects actual people's lives] is ridiculous, so I'll say that identify as something ridiculous", completely dismissing actual scientific and psychological evidence in favor of one's "common sense".

They aren't affected and can't feel any empathy, so it can't possibly exist. Since there isn't a real problem then they're free to mock.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

The stereotypical "forever alone nerds" aren't forever alone because they're "nice guys". They're alone for other reasons.

Which are?

I'll go with blaming women for being alone, instead of treating them as individuals, with their own individual thoughts, needs, wants, desires, interests and abilities to seek out and find those things that bring meaning and happiness to their lives - things which, by the way, do not include being cat-called, objectified (without a tacit, explicit indication of such), harassed, or having to repeat, ad nauseum why all of these negative things, reinforced for decades by media, keep them from being able to achieve their happiness and meaning as easily as men.

By the way, cat-calling, commanding a woman to smile, or even believing in the "friend zone" does not make one a "nice guy." Those things tend to make a guy ... well ... alone.

ETA:

Here's the rhetorical problem with the concept of "privilege":

Here's the actual problem with privilege: It means that one group, by definition, is not granted the same opportunities as another. As a very privileged white, suburban, (raised but no longer) protestant male, I've lived a life of privilege. And I know, beyond shadow of doubt that, for all the trials and tribulations of my life ... those hardships would have been much worse without my privilege.

 

[Manticore]

They aren't affected and can't feel any empathy, so it can't possibly exist. Since there isn't a real problem then they're free to mock.

Something something PC?

 

[fireproof78]

That is such an old myth.
This is something lonely guys like to tell themselves. They think they're nicer than the guys who actually do have a girlfriend (which isn't true). And for some reason "being nice" is really the only thing that matters?

Being a "nice guy" doesn't entitle people to anything apart from being treated in a nice way, too. It's the most basic form of human decency not to be a jerk so I don't see why being a "nice guy" is all that remarkable anyway. Most people I meet are "nice guys and gals".

This thread is likely going to exhaust many, but I wanted to address this point. I was the "nice guy." Sorry if I'm some mythological creature out of the aether to terrorize the populace, or whathaveyou. I won't go in to my relationship history, but I was single from high school until grad school. I tried to be nice, to be there, and watched many of my friends who were girls go after jerks, bad boys and trouble makers. Some of them, frankly, were lucky not to end up in jail.

Now, do I think being a nice guy "entitles" me? Nope. I have no right whatsoever to a woman, period. I would argue that being nice and polite and friendly is a standard than men should strive towards, regardless of how its received.

No, I'm not trying to be argumentative because I recognize that there are institutions within society that perpetuate sexist stereotypes, male and female, but females still end up with it a lot worse.

But, nice guys are not a myth, at least not in my experience, not with my circle of friends.

Back to your regularly scheduled ranting, everyone.
ETA

Here's the actual problem with privilege: It means that one group, by definition, is not granted the same opportunities as another. As a very privileged white, suburban, (raised but no longer) protestant male, I've lived a life of privilege. And I know, beyond shadow of doubt that, for all the trials and tribulations of my life ... those hardships would have been much worse without my privilege.

Hey, me too, save for the Protestant part. Still that

 

[Awesome Possum]

Something something PC?

Being PC is actually basic human decency. Some people just don't want to extend it to certain groups of people.

 

[ancient]

I take by your constant failed stabs at humor that you don't have a logical response. Perhaps you should try your own material instead of copying a 12 year old troll from Tumblr next time.

This was very sexually aggressive towards me.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Women don't need men to comment on their appearance for validation. That's what mirrors and self-esteem are for.

But perhaps this theoretical man is seeking for himself some kind of outside sexual validation from a woman that he sees and finds attractive? How would you suggest that he obtain it?

And let's not forget, Rocky Horror Picture Show is about an out of control *alien* who coerces anyone it pleases in the guise of a human, raping and murdering them if they don't go along, serving the body as a meal to further conquests. A being that demonstrates throughout that it has no interest in the free will of anything it sets it's eye on.

To the point it's own kind murder it in turn for having gone way too far. Surely you can't be using that as a basis for anything healthy.

I'm not using it as a "basis" for anything. I just think it's an interesting exploration of the subject.

Our society is dripping with the "trappings" for masculine sexuality. That's what action movies mostly are.

And yet action movies are a genre constantly criticized of sexism and of pandering to the "male gaze." They traditionally appeal mostly to men. They're marketed mostly to men. Rarely do you see one that is an example of raw female lust for the male form. (Although I've known a couple women who got pretty hot & bothered by 300.)

The trapping of masculine sexuality are about wealth and physical power and impunity and being the man of action upon whom women automatically fawn (or fawn with at least a little more prompting in our age's often minimal nods to feminism). These trappings are not purely sexualized because masculinity is privileged and has the luxury of being both sexual and standing for effective action in the realm of necessary affairs, indeed of dictating what is good and what is bad and who lives and who dies.

But none of what you're talking about actually has anything to do with sex. That's my point. In our society, a man can't just be sexy of his own accord. He has to be able to do something. Women can wear make-up & stockings & high heels & corsets & all manner of things that serve no purpose except to make her sexier. She can take steps to sexually objectify herself if she chooses. What recourse is there for heterosexual men who want to be sexually objectified?

Depends on the individual.

If it depends on the individual, then why are we talking about it as if it's some surging trend?

If someone is catcalling someone else, what other reasonable assumption is there?

As I said, just because someone is requesting something, it doesn't automatically mean that the asker feels entitled to it. That's just an assumption that you are making. A request in of itself is just a request. It can be declined or ignored.

But if we're going to be talking about gender relations, one of the questions we need to ask is: Why does this seem to be happening only one way? Why are men interested in sex with strangers while women are not?

 

[ancient]

Being PC is actually basic human decency. Some people just don't want to extend it to certain groups of people.

For example, a bunch of people in this thread were very scornful of my identity and failed to treat me with respect just now.

 

[Amaris]

This was very sexually aggressive towards me.

For example, a bunch of people in this thread were very scornful of my identity and failed to treat me with respect just now.

No one is impressed. Wait, let me rephrase that: No one who has anything beyond a frat boy mentality is impressed. Your post is not funny, it is not insightful, it is not witty. It lacks basic comprehension, and the barest of human empathy. In short, your post lacks anything that approaches a human thought or emotion that is willing to actually understand or engage in anything. Your post is pablum.