Re: Reading too much into men's behavior women's, double standards, etc.

[fakely mctest]

The thing is you can be desperate, immature and confused and still manipulative. Manipulation is not often grand scheme, but more maneuvering to get someone to do something for your benefit.

Exactly this. I have no opinion on that particular guy in the CA column but, more generally, I think there's a very skewed idea out there about what a manipulative person looks like or behaves like. Manipulators very often aren't actually Machiavellian schemers with an overarching master plan. A person who's manipulative very often just wants to make their own lives easier and the way that desire manifests is in getting other people to go along with their version of how the world works. Very few are snakey, charming sociopaths.

The good news is that that means that it's easier to course-correct in terms of behavior patterns; the bad news is that far more people fall under that manipulative behavior umbrella.

[reboot]

The thing is you can be desperate, immature and confused and still manipulative. Manipulation is not often grand scheme, but more maneuvering to get someone to do something for your benefit.

Exactly this.  I have no opinion on that particular guy in the CA column but, more generally, I think there's a very skewed idea out there about what a manipulative person looks like or behaves like.  Manipulators very often aren't actually Machiavellian schemers with an overarching master plan.  A person who's manipulative very often just wants to make their own lives easier and the way that desire manifests is in getting other people to go along with their version of how the world works.  Very few are snakey, charming sociopaths.

The good news is that that means that it's easier to course-correct in terms of behavior patterns; the bad news is that far more people fall under that manipulative behavior umbrella.

Exactly. Manipulators are even confused about their own motives sometimes and frequently are reactive when they want something to happen and it does not. They are generally also not manipulative with all people at all times. It depends on the circumstances and the strength of their percieved need for a beneficial outcome. In general it is more done in reaction to disappointment and/or to make their lives easier in the moment than some advance plan.

[eselle28]

Well, here's a double standard. Slut shaming...done by a woman, about a man. Not really the sort of equality I'd want.

[Conreezy]

Well, here's a double standard. Slut shaming...done by a woman, about a man. Not really the sort of equality I'd want.

How does this woman keep getting work? Pretty sure discretion is high on the list of necessary traits for that line of work.

[Caffeinated]

When I read Ask Dr. NerdLove: Do I Have To Settle For Less? and #676: Romantic or creepy?, I was reminded of this thread.

In DNL, the second letter writer says that the women he's attracted to aren't attracted to him, and the women who are attracted to him he's not attracted to them, and then asks if he has to settle. In general, I liked the Doc's advice, but I noticed he did toss the word "entitled" into it at one point. And I didn't really think that belonged there. Like Enail pointed out in the comment section, there was no indication in the letter whether it was a matter of the women not looking like the top 1% supermodel type or if it was just a matter of him liking one type but attracted a different type and maybe there was some mismarketing going on.

In Captain Awkward, the letter writer asks if it would be romantic or creepy to contact a man she (I'm assuming she, although the letter didn't specify the writer's gender) sees regularly at the supermarket by an online message in a forum he frequents that she happened to find him on. CA says yes, it would be creepy, and advises to say something in person. And while CA says it would be creepy, she says so in a very soft tone and forgiving manner. And I did feel that if the genders (of the letter writer and the crush) were reversed it would be likely to be not quite so soft an answer. Or, while CA herself might still answer relatively softly, the comment section would have a rather different feel than it does. (The comment section, so far, has very much a feel of empathy about being shy but seconding CA's recommendation of saying something in person. No tone of condemnation for creepiness.)

[reboot]

I agree, Caffeinated. There is no way CA or the commenters would have handled it the same is a man saw a woman in IRL and they tracked her somehow to her hobby forum. That is over the top creepy and it kind of made me shudder in the letter.

For the DNL one it bothered me that the assumption was that the LW had standards on looks. Why assume that? It might be beliefs, values, lifestyle, etc., but because it was a man writing it was obviously looks and he is "entitled*"?? Wah?

* And even if it was looks, that does not mean entitled. Entitled is when you think the world/people owes you what you want

[Enail]

Wow, just read that Captain Awkward, and am weirded out by the gentleness of that response. That is a Class 1 Nopetopus-level creepy thing to do and called for a really, really firm, "never ever ever do this ever ever ever" response.

[reboot]

Wow, just read that Captain Awkward, and am weirded out by the gentleness of that response. That is a Class 1 Nopetopus-level creepy thing to do and called for a really, really firm, "never ever ever do this ever ever ever" response.

The cephalopod concurs

[eselle28]

Agreed both that the Captain Awkward one should have been tougher, because that LW was suggesting something super creepy, and that DNL was off a bit too. As I said in my response, I actually think the picky issue is more about how to handle being unhappy and also having friends than anything else.

[readertorider]

I think I agree that the tone of the comments would be very different in a genderbent CA letter, but I think a part of the gentleness could come from a dearth of  "approaches for shy women*" related advice whereas "this sort of thing is creepy and will make a woman fear for her safety" is all over the web and LW may not realize that men are also concerned for their safety (though she is over 40? maybe that explains why she doesn't understand internet privacy?). If the advice is still good though I don't think I'm too worried about people being gentle on the internet.

*not sure if LW is a woman, but I think approaching advice for shy gay men is also rather rare

...and that DNL was off a bit too. As I said in my response, I actually think the picky issue is more about how to handle being unhappy and also having friends than anything else.

I think your comment had the best solution to this guy's problem--I'm just rather uncomfortable with this bit in the letter:

Now my friends say that I should stop setting my standards so high and go out with one of the girls who like me and that I could learn to like them. I feel as though this is disingenuous to the girl and also that if I can learn to like someone then someone else can learn to like me[emphasis mine].

I think it could come down to the LW being the only person doing the asking and not wanting to approach people he's not interested in (or thinking that by approaching he is signalling attraction beyond what he feels), or the LW setting boundaries on his goal (which is fine to me if he accepts others' choices to likewise not try to learn to like him), but the whole "I don't want to do X, but I'm working under the assumption that someone else will do X in a way that benefits me" doesn't exactly scream humility (and that's two somewhat archaic words in this post now... I feel weird).

Edited to add: I'm sorry Wisp--I did ask for examples and Caffeinated found an excellent one and now all I'm really saying is that I think the situation is gendered (for a man to write the CA letter above about a woman, I think he must have ignored a million stop signs and stronger language is probably necessary, for a woman/gay man/other gender I could believe they honestly weren't sure about that situation) and that I don't care overly much. Tone is a legitimate thing to be upset over and I agree there's some bias (especially in the comment section). I will probably happily continue to read CA, however.

[The Wisp]

Sorry for necro'ing a month-old thread, but this is fitting IMO (and I started this thread, so... ).

DNL on Twitter basically defended a woman who wrote a Vice article where the woman defended not giving blowjobs. She talks about having this boundary not because of past trauma or anything, but because she used to give blowjobs or do PIV with guys and they wouldn't. So, she's currently casually dating a guy she doesn't have a future with where she asks him to perform cunnilingus but she doesn't reciprocate at all. She says she may be selfish but that this is "empowering".

Ugh, this upsets me so much. Imagine if a guy wrote an article defending his right to have women give him blowjobs and not reciprocate and call it "empowering". He'd be ripped to shreds by feminists everywhere. I wonder if such a guy could even be published in a place like Vice.

[Caffeinated]

Sorry for necro'ing a month-old thread, but this is fitting IMO (and I started this thread, so... ).

DNL on Twitter basically defended a woman who wrote a Vice article where the woman defended not giving blowjobs. She talks about having this boundary not because of past trauma or anything, but because she used to give blowjobs or do PIV with guys and they wouldn't. So, she's currently casually dating a guy she doesn't have a future with where she asks him to perform cunnilingus but she doesn't reciprocate at all. She says she may be selfish but that this is "empowering".

Ugh, this upsets me so much. Imagine if a guy wrote an article defending his right to have women give him blowjobs and not reciprocate and call it "empowering". He'd be ripped to shreds by feminists everywhere. I wonder if such a guy could even be published in a place like Vice.

I just read the article and I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with it. I also think that any guy who she might potentially date would be completely within his rights to say, "ok, I get that this is your boundary and I respect that, but getting blowjobs is an important part of sexuality to me, so we're not compatible".

Also, given the difference in how women are socialized from how men are socialized, I can see how it makes sense for it to be empowering for a woman to set a boundary that transgresses the usual narrative of being submissive (not necessarily in the kink sense) and doing whatever it takes to please your man. While for a man, who's been socialized that it's his right to be pleased, it doesn't really make as much sense to say that setting a somewhat unusual (but way less unusual) boundary is empowering.

[eselle28]

Sorry for necro'ing a month-old thread, but this is fitting IMO (and I started this thread, so... ).

DNL on Twitter basically defended a woman who wrote a Vice article where the woman defended not giving blowjobs. She talks about having this boundary not because of past trauma or anything, but because she used to give blowjobs or do PIV with guys and they wouldn't. So, she's currently casually dating a guy she doesn't have a future with where she asks him to perform cunnilingus but she doesn't reciprocate at all. She says she may be selfish but that this is "empowering".

Ugh, this upsets me so much. Imagine if a guy wrote an article defending his right to have women give him blowjobs and not reciprocate and call it "empowering". He'd be ripped to shreds by feminists everywhere. I wonder if such a guy could even be published in a place like Vice.

Can you please not put words in feminists' mouths? I'm just one feminist, but I would say that as long as the guy in question is honest with his partners about his boundaries, I don't have any objection to his preference. There are certainly plenty of men who share it. I've met a number of them. I tend to respond to this proposed set of sexual activities by breaking up with the guys in question, but I know a number of other women who have dated or married these men and who are presumably fine with the arrangement.

As for the empowering bit, I think it's worth considering that this is a woman who spent years performing a sexual act she apparently strongly dislikes. I imagine it is empowering for her to finally use her words. I'd wish the same for everyone else who's sexually active. I would also note that she never said she had a "right" to receive oral sex but not give it. If no one agreed to the arrangement, she wouldn't have a sexual partner, but I didn't see anything that implied that she would feel wronged if no one took her up on her offer.

As for the guy in the article, I suspect you may be thinking of him as being wronged or coerced or that he's agreed to this arrangement in hopes the woman will change her mind, but I think it may be more likely that this is his kink. There are a lot of guys out there who have a bit of a submissive streak and who would really get off on the idea of coming over to a woman's house to service her and then being sent home. It probably increases the amount of sex and good sex in the world to give women who'd otherwise not being having sex at all permission to go out looking for these dudes.

[Guest]

I see your point on this, Wisp, but I think two things are important to consider.

1. If she has a partner that she will eventually have PiV sex with, he will likely be able to climax from that (most men are) whereas she will not. Therefore, him refusing cunnilingus means he won't give her orgasms, and the reverse is not true.

2. The whole, "Women give blowjobs, and men don't go down there," is an incredibly pernicious narrative, because it basically means that women do activities that they frequently actively dislike and which are mostly pleasure-oriented for the man because that's the cost of keeping not just *this* partner, but *any* partner. And in exchange, many of them get no really satisfying sex.

But for one woman to say, "You know what? I want to orgasm. And I don't want to have to stick a penis in my mouth to be allowed to ask for that," doesn't significantly restrict the field for me, or promote a narrative that restricts that field.

I will also note, as someone who's done both, that while I don't HATE giving blowjobs, and while I enjoy giving pleasure to people I like, it is much more physically uncomfortable for me to perform fellatio than cunnilingus. It's hard to breathe, and hard to swallow, and my jaw aches from it.

[PintsizeBro]

I don't have to receive oral to enjoy sex with a woman. I'm quite happy to go down on her and then have penetrative sex without her "returning the favor" first. That's not a submissive thing for me, it's just that 90% of the time, penetrative sex is better than oral. Especially if she doesn't enjoy giving. Begrudging head given by someone who doesn't like to give is just not that fun.

I do expect a dude to return the favor if I go down on him first. Double standard? Absolutely. But with men, I don't even have to ask, so it's not a problem.

Of course, if I'm going to suck a guy's dick, I expect that he will have washed it recently. And a distressing number of women have told me that in their experience, straight men can't be trusted to have done that.

[Prajnaparamita]

Hey Wisp, before you get judgmental on this woman's decision to receive, but refuse to give head, I'd like to give you some context for why women might just not like it. (Hint: that's going to be the understatement of the year.)

So ever since I was a little kid I had about the most sensitive gag reflex you could possibly imagine. Seriously. I struggle to brush my teeth sometimes.

I've been really nervous around giving head even before I was sexually active, but my partner really gets off on it, so I've been trying. But here's the thing--I don't just retch easily, I retch heavily and for a long time, even after whatever was triggering my gag reflex is gone. This isn't nervousness--I've just always been this way. When I give head, I sound like a bullfrog loudly dying a slow and painful death. And you have to imagine how that feels on my end. Now that I've managed to convince myself (mostly) that I'm not going to die, I constantly feel like one second more and I'm going to projectile vomit all over his dick.

Also, because of the intensity of the retching, I often find tears involuntarily coming to my eyes, and I'll start shaking. Also for a little bit afterwards my throat just feels like it seized up, and I can't speak. So yeah... Attempting to give head usually leaves me shaking, crying, and unable to talk. My partner hasn't been pressuring me about this much (mostly because it's not hugely pleasant to be on his side of things) but I can clearly tell he's disappointed, and he keeps on saying stuff to me like "are you sure it isn't because you're nervous? Try relaxing a little." (No, this is how my body works, and it has always been this way.)

Sometimes I'm able to get into a kinky mindset and it's strangely fun after the fact, in a submissive sort of way. But I can't always do that. And shit, I really wish it wasn't this way. When he's not freaking out about how I sound like I'm dying, I can tell that he really gets off on the sensation, and I love that! But I've tried all sorts of things to make it better--I spent a month every day trying desensitization training with chloraseptic in the hopes of calming things down a little, but nothing has worked.

When I saw your post, I found myself strangely flooded with panic and I felt myself worked up into a panic attack. That isn't your fault obviously, my emotions are my problem, but initially I couldn't figure out why I got so worked up. And then I realized it. It's probably going to be the case that I'm going to have to say "look, blowjobs are not always going to be on the table, and that's not negotiable." And that makes me feel like a worthless, no-good, horrible, awful partner who is selfish and doesn't care enough about him. Which I know is irrational--first of all, this isn't about me or him, it's just about how my body works, but I still feel so guilty about it. But I don't know what else I can do...

[rj3]

Captain Awkward has a very distinct commenter culture that thrives on picking out any possible hint of a "red flag," the same way people used to parse Led Zeppelin records for references to satan. Sure, if you play it backward at half-speed and use tertiary dictionary definitions of words that have common conversational meanings, you can make anybody a monster.

It's just what they do there. Most straight cis men asking for dating/sex advice from the Cap'n are going to get an answer or comments that aren't the least bit directed toward his success and happiness.

And y'know what? That's OK. The commenters there know what's up and they play ball. If you don't like the game, go elsewhere. Maybe even here.

Oh, and the "Oral Is Mandatory for Dudes, Because Feminism" thing? This, to my knowledge, is the most discussed post in the genre:

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/08/08/dealbreaker-indeed/

[Caffeinated]

Most straight cis men asking for dating/sex advice from the Cap'n are going to get an answer or comments that aren't the least bit directed toward his success and happiness.

I'm going to disagree with you there. The Captain's most famous advice for dudes with dating/sex advice tends to be to consume more media made by women, as part of an overall effort to really see women as individual people and empathize more readily with women's points of view. And I think that advice is absolutely meant to be directed toward his success and happiness, because I think CA believes (as I do) that a relationship in which you (general you) truly see your partner as a real person and have empathy for them is going to be a much better relationship than one in which you continue to see them as some kind of lesser being. Sure, it may not be the kind of advice the person was hoping to get (all too often in dating advice there seems to be an attitude of "just give me the shortcuts and cheat codes please"), but it is meant to increase the asker's real happiness.

[waxingjaney]

So ever since I was a little kid I had about the most sensitive gag reflex you could possibly imagine.

You know, you don't have to choke yourself on it. That's just some cheesy porn shit.

[Prajnaparamita]

So ever since I was a little kid I had about the most sensitive gag reflex you could possibly imagine.

You know, you don't have to choke yourself on it. That's just some cheesy porn shit.

Hey, can you not assume that you know what I'm doing in my sex life?

[PintsizeBro]

Some gag reflexes are just that sensitive. Somebody who has issues brushing their teeth is going to have issues sucking dick.

[rj3]

I'm going to disagree with you there. The Captain's most famous advice for dudes with dating/sex advice tends to be to consume more media made by women, as part of an overall effort to really see women as individual people and empathize more readily with women's points of view.

See, that's the thing. She gives that advice to every dude who crosses her path. She regurgitates this because it's clear she thinks all men's problems are the result of not seeing women as people. Sometimes she's right, but it's reductive and politically expedient for her ideology.

When it comes to men, CA has the broken clock problem - right now and then, but not because gears are actually turning inside.

[PintsizeBro]

Captain Awkward is not perfect. The CA commenters especially; they seem to believe ideologically that all bodies are equally attractive (and that if you find your partner's recent weight gain unattractive, that's your problem and your problem alone), and frankly that is nonsense.

But as far as seeing women as people, she says it because it needs to be said. Just today on this very forum I saw a poster say that he sees grabbing a friendly cup of coffee with a woman who isn't a romantic prospect as a waste of time. A lot of guys talk a big game about how much they respect women, but what they are actually doing is putting women on a pedestal. And that is not respect at all.

[Prajnaparamita]

Just today on this very forum I saw a poster say that he sees grabbing a friendly cup of coffee with a woman who isn't a romantic prospect as a waste of time. A lot of guys talk a big game about how much they respect women, but what they are actually doing is putting women on a pedestal. And that is not respect at all.

Admittedly that dude was soon later banned for advocating genocide, so I don't know if he's the best example of general attitudes! But you have a point.

[Caffeinated]

I'm going to disagree with you there. The Captain's most famous advice for dudes with dating/sex advice tends to be to consume more media made by women, as part of an overall effort to really see women as individual people and empathize more readily with women's points of view.

See, that's the thing. She gives that advice to every dude who crosses her path. She regurgitates this because it's clear she thinks all men's problems are the result of not seeing women as people. Sometimes she's right, but it's reductive and politically expedient for her ideology.

When it comes to men, CA has the broken clock problem - right now and then, but not because gears are actually turning inside.

You know, our entire culture teaches men to see women as less than, so it's not an unreasonable assumption that any given man who writes her for advice has in fact been taught that too. I would say it's more fair to say she has the reverse of the broken clock problem, and that every once in a while someone might come along who's reached a point where that advice is no longer relevant, but that's the exception not the rule.

[Sponsored content]