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

[nearly_takuan]

In my less charitable moods, which is pretty often, I too would characterize something I had to go out of my way to do that didn't benefit me, anyone I particularly cared for, or anyone I would eventually particularly care for, as a waste of time. I'm not generous enough to spend more than $10 on a stranger, and my time and social will separately cost more than that.

I'd also characterize an extended interaction with a salesman or an evangelist-at-work or a telemarketer or a random person on the bus as a waste of my own pool of resources, regardless of their gender. I fully recognize that they are people, but the difference between a person I don't know and a person I sort of know is that when I spend resources on the former, I keep track.

And yeah, it is a transaction, because interacting with people is costly. Pentuply so for people I neither know nor trust. People for whom it is not costly can afford to view it differently. Still savoring that fantastic Anatone France quote.

[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.

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.

This looks like an irreconcilable point of difference - an almost literal glass half full/half empty situation. But I tend to be wary of people who so ideologically and stylistically hidebound that you don't need to read the question to guess her answer. It's like a Republican who proposes tax cuts as cures for unemployment, interest rates and the common cold.

Obviously, I see it differently, at least some of the time. There's no doubt that some guys see women as these weird creatures who operate by a hidden set of inscrutable rules and speak a language that you need a translator to really understand. Half of those guys do so because they think of themselves as the ones who are sub-human or not quite fully formed. Those are the ones who think everyone around them has the secret code and that everyone is tuned in but them, constantly finding great romantic and sexual partners with a minimum of effort. This board is particularly thick with advice-seekers who think that way. Do they really fail to see women as people, or do they fail to see themselves as human?

Two sides of the same coin, I guess.

[PintsizeBro]

If socializing is so difficult for you that you see meeting a potential new friend for coffee as going out of your way to do something that doesn't benefit you or anyone you care about, then I really don't know what to tell you, dude. I'm sorry.

That's not sarcasm, either. I think of myself as being not particularly social, but I take for granted that if I like someone and enjoy their company, grabbing a caffeine- or ethanol-based beverage with them is a fun, low-stress activity.

[Enail]

Obviously, I see it differently, at least some of the time. There's no doubt that some guys see women as these weird creatures who operate by a hidden set of inscrutable rules and speak a language that you need a translator to really understand. Half of those guys do so because they think of themselves as the ones who are sub-human or not quite fully formed. Those are the ones who think everyone around them has the secret code and that everyone is tuned in but them, constantly finding great romantic and sexual partners with a minimum of effort. This board is particularly thick with advice-seekers who think that way. Do they really fail to see women as people, or do they fail to see themselves as human?

Two sides of the same coin, I guess.

Hmm. While I certainly sympathize with someone who has a hard time understanding women or indeed people in general and doesn't truly see themselves as human, I can't say I have much tolerance for people who feel their internal struggles should excuse them from seeing others as human.

And I don't agree with you that the only men who sometimes fail to recognize women as fully-fledged human beings are those with self-esteem problems; I think it's something our culture encourages in all men (and even all people in general), and that we're none of us totally exempt from that influence. I also take some issue with the idea that being capable of treating women with humanity and respect is reserved for those with iron-clad self-respect; I've certainly known people who struggle with interpersonal skills or self-esteem and yet work hard to undo harmful mindsets and treat others with respect and kindness, and I'd say we've seen examples on this forum, in fact.

[The Wisp]

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.

Sorry about that. As rj3's link shows, though, it's not an uncommon line for some feminists to take (well, they say he can have the boundary but he's guaranteed to be a misogynist asshole, oh and bad in bed). That said, sorry again for the generalization. That was not fair of me to be so sweeping.

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.

Fair enough. The cynic in me says she would change her tune if she couldn't find a guy to partner up with in this way, but I have no evidence that that is true. She may not change her tune in such a case.

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.

Yeah, my initial thought was something like she did a bait-and-switch "hey why don't you come up and eat me out" which I think normally would imply some sort of reciprocation and then she kicked him out promptly, or a guy who's so desperate he's just hoping she'll give him something eventually.

I actually consider myself to have a submissive streak, too, but emphatically not in that way, so the possibility that he might get off on it himself didn't occur to me.

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.

While the guy may enjoy it himself, I should note her current partner is getting no orgasms. Not even her cuddling him while he masturbates.

Also, I dislike that sort of arrangement, the guy gets an orgasm from PiV while the woman gets hers from oral, being presented as fair. Just because an act cannot cause an orgasm doesn't mean it's not physically pleasurable. So, the woman gets physically pleasurable acts throughout AND and orgasm, while the guy has to devote half the time or, more likely, more than half to something that gives him no physical pleasure whatsoever and the rest is pleasurable for him and he gets an orgasm. The male partner never gets to purely receive, to relax and not have to perform or worry about their partner in such an arrangement.

re Prajna: Oh, I'm so sorry my post caused you pain I think you're reasons for not giving oral are perfectly valid and should be respected and I don't judge your for having them. I think there's a difference between just not liking something because you're selfish, and disliking it for physical and/or psychological reasons.


In general one of my biggest fears is being trapped in sexual and romantic relationships with selfish, taking women, so things like Vice article are things I'm very sensitive about.

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.

Funny, I felt I was always taught to see women as more than, and not always in a Victorian pedistalization way either. Admittedly, that may be idiosyncratic to me and my weird psychology, though. I guess, maybe, I'm one of those that the advice wouldn't help, IDK.

[Prajnaparamita]

re Prajna: Oh, I'm so sorry my post caused you pain I think you're reasons for not giving oral are perfectly valid and should be respected and I don't judge your for having them. I think there's a difference between just not liking something because you're selfish, and disliking it for physical and/or psychological reasons.

Yes, but think about how this comes across. Suppose you didn't know me or anything about me and I said "I won't give oral--that's a hard boundary" (which isn't actually true, but hypothetically speaking here)? What would your reaction be? I want to be charitable here, but from your attitudes so far it sounds like you'd be like "oh my god how selfish" and I could expect that from a lot of men too, who wouldn't even bother to think about the multitude of reasons a woman might have certain boundaries in regards to sex. Why do I need to prove that I have legitimate (and who gets to determine what is "legitimate"?) physiological/psychological issues in order to be deemed not one of those awful, selfish women?

In general one of my biggest fears is being trapped in sexual and romantic relationships with selfish, taking women, so things like Vice article are things I'm very sensitive about.

Yes, and one of the things I fear a lot is being trapped in relationships with men who pressure me, gaslight and guilt trip me for my feelings and boundaries. Probably because this is something I experience on a near-daily basis from the men around me.

[Guest]

I mean, in that particular situation the dude seems to be fine with the situation, inasmuch as he started doing so on one of their first few dates and they've been seeing each other for two months. You would not believe the number of people who would offer to eat a woman out, sight unseen, no return necessary - and while the jury's out on whether even a significant minority of the men offering would actually hold to that, the thought at least has occurred to all who'd make such an offer.

As far as the future, there's a fair number of dudes who don't really get much out of head, but love going down. If it's a dealbreaker for her, there's more than a few guys who'd be fine with such an arrangement. I don't see the furor if everyone she involves herself with is down with it.

[eselle28]

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.

Fair enough. The cynic in me says she would change her tune if she couldn't find a guy to partner up with in this way, but I have no evidence that that is true. She may not change her tune in such a case.

Why would that matter either way? The world is full of people who have to make the choice between compromising with partners who don't meet all their preferences, sexual or otherwise, and holding out to meet someone who's a better fit while taking the risk they won't ever find that person. You've talked quite a bit about what you'd want in a sexual relationship in the past. Would you ever consider being more flexible about some of those desires if it appeared unlikely you'd meet someone who met all of them? If so, does that make your current desires somehow less important or valid or ethical?

Yeah, my initial thought was something like she did a bait-and-switch "hey why don't you come up and eat me out" which I think normally would imply some sort of reciprocation and then she kicked him out promptly, or a guy who's so desperate he's just hoping she'll give him something eventually.

I actually consider myself to have a submissive streak, too, but emphatically not in that way, so the possibility that he might get off on it himself didn't occur to me.

There are absolutely other ways of being submissive, and not everyone is going to find every manifestation of it appealing. This ventures a bit into TMI territory, but while I don't have a problem giving oral sex, I've had a couple of friends with benefits where the only activities we did were roleplaying and them giving me oral sex. It sounds like this sort of thing doesn't align very well with your fantasies, but there are other guys who find this sort of thing a turn on and who are getting as much out of it in their own way as the woman.

re Prajna: Oh, I'm so sorry my post caused you pain I think you're reasons for not giving oral are perfectly valid and should be respected and I don't judge your for having them. I think there's a difference between just not liking something because you're selfish, and disliking it for physical and/or psychological reasons.

I'm going to push back against the assumption that there are valid reasons for not wanting to perform certain sexual acts that should be respected rather than judged and selfish objections that are presumably invalid and should not be respected. What if someone has no explanation for not liking something other than that they hate it and find it to be a huge turn off? There are a handful of sexual acts, not all of them that extreme, that I find so unsexy that they make me lose any desire to have an orgasm or engage in any further sexual contact. Because of that, I don't do them, and I tell my partners at an appropriate point that a couple of acts are never going to be on the table. Why is it selfish of me to want to not want to have sex that gives my partner an orgasm but that I find scary or gross?

This line of thinking also tends to be pretty kink-negative if it gets stretched to its logical conclusions. I think almost all of us can think of some sex acts that make us have the feelings I described above but that other people have a kink for and might request. Would it be selfish for you to decline to fulfill your partner's desire to do those things? And if there's somehow a difference between declining to fulfill a cuckolding or a scat fantasy and declining to give someone oral sex, I think we end up descending into a conversation about minutiae where everyone has to try to decide which desires are normal and which ones are for weirdos and don't need the same consideration. It strikes me as a better solution to respect everyone's turn ons and turn offs and let people sort out for themselves what they want from their sex lives.

[Conreezy]

Also, I dislike that sort of arrangement, the guy gets an orgasm from PiV while the woman gets hers from oral, being presented as fair.

Fair or not, that's often reality.

[eselle28]

Also, I dislike that sort of arrangement, the guy gets an orgasm from PiV while the woman gets hers from oral, being presented as fair.[/quo
Fair or not, that's often reality.  

Fairness is kind of a tricky concept anyway, at least if people take it beyond generally being attentive to a partner's needs and satisfaction and try to start talking about specific acts. It's hard to talk about fairness when one partner despises and act and the other partner enjoys the equivalent one and would want it to be part of their sex life regardless, or when one person's ultimate fantasy is easily fulfilled and the other's involves hours of set up and requires finding third parties, or when only one person in a relationship is poly or bi or has a higher or lower libido than average.

[Werel]

I'm going to push back against the assumption that there are valid reasons for not wanting to perform certain sexual acts that should be respected rather than judged and selfish objections that are presumably invalid and should not be respected. What if someone has no explanation for not liking something other than that they hate it and find it to be a huge turn off?

I'm also curious about where the line between "selfish" and "psychologically motivated" lies, since selfishness is... well, psychological. If one's partner is into X, is "I just don't like X very much, sorry " selfish, or is it a healthy awareness of preferences that prevents the do-it-grudgingly-and-build-resentment cycle from being initiated?

For me, the important distinction would be whether X is something one's partner just kinda digs now and then, or whether it's an absolutely fundamental component of their sexual satisfaction. If they could not picture a fulfilling sex life without X, then the decision tree goes to "is X a hard boundary, and doing X would be somewhere between uncomfortable and traumatic, or is it a now-and-then-I-could-handle-it-even-though-it-does-nothing-for-me?" I don't disagree with Dan Savage's elaboration on the GGG principle which specifies that "anything which leaves you hating your partner or curled up on the floor crying is not a component of giving or game."

Selfish might be "I disprefer X, and while it's a major or even mandatory component of your satisfaction, I will never consider doing it now and then. Period." But even then, I'd hesitate to call that selfish; I'd just call that two sexually incompatible people. "Eh, don't wanna" is a valid reason for refusing anything in bed, and that probably only begins to change once you're dealing with an established, committed, monogamous relationship where you've agreed to exclusively meet each other's sexual needs to the very best of your ability.

TL;DR could you elaborate, Wisp? I guess I don't get the dichotomy.

It strikes me as a better solution to respect everyone's turn ons and turn offs and let people sort out for themselves what they want from their sex lives.

But also this, pretty much unto eternity.

[The Wisp]

I guess I interpreted the author of the Vice article as basically saying "I don't like doing anything that gives my partner physical pleasure but gives me no physical pleasure". Essentially, it sounded like she got nothing out of giving. She wanted to switch roles with the selfish guys who didn't reciprocate blowjobs. I would think somebody with that attitude can be judged. But...

It strikes me as a better solution to respect everyone's turn ons and turn offs and let people sort out for themselves what they want from their sex lives.

I do agree with this for the most part, however.

EDIT: But also, I guess I have this irrational fear in the back of mind that people would mostly just not be giving during sex if there wasn't the fear of being judged as selfish. That's why I have a hard time agreeing 100% with eselle's quote, even though I agree with it in the vast majority of cases.

[eselle28]

I guess I interpreted the author of the Vice article as basically saying "I don't like doing anything that gives my partner physical pleasure but gives me no physical pleasure". Essentially, it sounded like she got nothing out of giving. She wanted to switch roles with the selfish guys who didn't reciprocate blowjobs. I would think somebody with that attitude can be judged. But...

It seems like there's some resentment of her male partners mixed in with her feelings, but she specifically said that she never enjoyed giving oral sex, refers to motionsthat her hand or her vagina could perform instead, and doesn't sound like she actually enjoys intercourse all that much. It sounds like the his pleasure only options she's up for offering at least some partners are piv and handjobs. That's not everyone's cup of tea, but it doesn't sound like she's completely unwilling to do anything to give her partners pleasure.

I do agree with this for the most part, however.

EDIT: But also, I guess I have this irrational fear in the back of mind that people would mostly just not be giving during sex if there wasn't the fear of being judged as selfish. That's why I have a hard time agreeing 100% with eselle's quote, even though I agree with it in the vast majority of cases.

I don't think that would be the case. Most people I know find giving oral sex to be sexy, at least some of the time, and quite a few people of both genders consider it one of their biggest turn ons. A lot of people's sexuality is very tied up in pleasing their partners in various ways.

But let's say you're right. To me, that would be a very compelling reason to remove the "selfish" judgment, because it suggests that huge portions of the population are having sex they don't actually want. I find that to be horrifying and would never want to perpetuate it. And, yeah, if lots of people suddenly received permission to stop giving oral sex and were relieved to not have to do it again, life would be harder for people who really enjoy receiving oral sex. My response to that would be to point to everyone else who has unusual sexual desires and encourage them to set up spaces where they can find compatible partners. I wouldn't want other people to be pressured into having sex they don't want or enjoy for the sake of those folks, though, any more than I'd want society to pressure more people into enjoying BDSM so that I'd have more potential partners.

[reboot]

For many people, oral or manual or mechanical or PiV stimulation of their partner gives them no pleasure beyond their partner liking it. For many the acts are "meh" but not uncomfortable, for many the acts are uncomfortable to painful, and for many others the pleasure is purely mental (e.g. the joy of giving, the power of making someone feel something so intense, the power to bite a body part off) and each person's interest in a specific act, duration, frequency, etc is their boundary to set and their partner's to accept or to leave the relationship.  The reasons for setting any boundary do not matter. People can do whatever they want with their bodies and other people are empowered to decide to be with that person or not (which is also a boundary). Wisp, if you find yourself with a partner who has boundaries you cannot accept or that violate yours, you leave. That is your empowerment. You are never required to stay in a relationship that does not fulfill your needs.

On a side note, one of my friends was a human sexuality instructor. One of the assignments she gave to straight * people in her class was for women to taste and smell their vaginal fluids during masturbation and men to attempt to suck on an object the size and girth of their erect penis, without scraping with their teeth, for the length of time it takes them to orgasm during masturbation and discuss the experience. To so many it never occurred to them that what they were asking for during oral sex might smell/taste bad or be really uncomfortable, taught people to be conscious of what they were asking for, and to be understanding if a partner needed breaks or presex showers or whatever. I always thought that was an excellent learning tool and maybe something everyone should try.

* homosexual students could do it as extra credit, but since they were likely to give and receive oral sex from someone with the same genitals, their assignment was to write about what their experience was giving and receiving or (if they had never done oral) their hopes and concerns about the act.

[The Wisp]

Alright, I guess you guys are right. People should be able to set boundaries and the like for whatever reasons, otherwise there would be a lot of negative consequences. I still don't like the woman, but I accept her preferences and boundaries.

[reboot]

Alright, I guess you guys are right. People should be able to set boundaries and the like for whatever reasons, otherwise there would be a lot of negative consequences. I still don't like the woman, but I accept her preferences and boundaries.

So she is definitely not someone you should date

I know it seems tough to do, especially if you struggle with meeting people, but if you find yourself in a situation where you have started a sexual relationship and something like this comes up, end the relationship. It does not have to be harsh and ugly. A simple, "I like you and I care about you, but I just do not feel that we are compatible as a couple and if we continue we will make each other unhappy." It can be hard to do, especially if you like the PiV sex but, for whatever reason, your partner dislikes giving blowjobs and you really enjoy them, since you will end up having no sex at all until you find someone new, but it is better for both of you in the end.

[kath]

It seems like you are pretty attached to your assumptions about her because of something that's about your fears, not about her actual behavior and how ethical it is in a general sense.

Also, I found this interesting:

I dislike that sort of arrangement, the guy gets an orgasm from PiV while the woman gets hers from oral, being presented as fair

You may dislike that. Other men may find that to be completely fair. Why approach this as though it would be an objective thing? The woman in the vice article wasn't telling you to like that arrangement, which seems to be how you're reacting.

[Prajnaparamita]

Alright, I guess you guys are right. People should be able to set boundaries and the like for whatever reasons, otherwise there would be a lot of negative consequences. I still don't like the woman, but I accept her preferences and boundaries.

Great, you're not obliged to like anyone, certainly not random people on the internet who you will never meet in your life. All that is asked of you (not obliged, asked) is for the basic human decency to not belittle others for the boundaries and preferences they state.

[The Wisp]

Sigh

Men never get the benefit of the doubt in the dating world, even from other men.

[8bitGreyscale]

It seems like you are pretty attached to your assumptions about her because of something that's about your fears, not about her actual behavior and how ethical it is in a general sense.

I agree. The Wisp*, I've noticed a tendency of yours to read articles about these subjects** and interpret them through your biases and frustrations. Then you argue against ideas and arguments that the author didn't actually say/write. I saw this issue in the comments of DNL's May 4 2015 article 5 Critical Online Dating Questions Answered.


* BTW, do you prefer people to use your entire user name (The Wisp), or shorten it to just Wisp, or something else? I don't wanna be the person who is introduced to James and calls him Jim, and he goes by JAMES, jerk.

** dating, sex, relationships, gender, feminism, etc.

[Enail]

<mod>Hey, 8bitGreyscale, please don't bring up other members' comments from the blog or your opinions about their overall discussion style, unless there's something relevant to the current discussion here, or something that the member has recently given you reason to believe may be helpful in their comments. Responding to a month-old post only to make that sort of comment can easily shade into personal attack territory, which is not okay. Thanks! </mod>

[8bitGreyscale]

Crap, I'm sorry, Enail. I only posted because The Wisp had bumped the thread himself a couple days ago. I really like The Wisp and I truly wouldn't post with the intent to insult. I thought it was relevant to the thread conversation because it also involved an outside article that he interpreted quite differently than many others. He felt insulted/condescended to, but the others who read it didn't see the author as including guys like him in her criticism.

It makes me sad when someone feels hurt or insulted by something they read/heard. I meant to suggest that maybe there are posts/essays that feel hurtful upon first read, but they're actually criticizing behavior/beliefs/attitudes that don't apply to him, so yay! no need to feel bad!

Again, I'm really sorry.

[Enail]

No worries, we all get pretty personal here sometimes, so it's a tricky line at times!

[The Wisp]

FWIW, Greyscale, I wasn't really hurt or offended by your post, and I can tell you're just trying to help out! In fact, I was thinking about starting a new thread about how to identify, manage, and perhaps eliminate all these negative emotions I have around dating. But probably not until tomorrow, I'm working my final project tonight and tomorrow morning for a class (and then I'm done!!!!!!!!!... until summer classes start in June ). So, wait and we (and others) can talk about it then?

[Enail]

This discussion has taken on a life of its own, so I'm gonna split this out. Where to and what to title it, I'm not really sure...

ETA: The thread for discussion about ladybits, scent, hair, shame, what have you, is here

[Sponsored content]