Faithful Reader Ian would like us to have a discussion. He sent these two music AI-created music videos (which is a thing, I guess?)
and then poses the question:
"These cowboy songs perhaps hold the promise of replacing Dad jokes and enabling adult male talk among men via humour.
It's even worse with women feeling they are the only ones deserving choice over sex and not understanding that every time a woman chooses not to have sex, they are also choosing for men, who get no independent choice of their own. There's a queue of men behind every woman waiting for them to say yes, but not the reverse, because men's sexual expression is currently tied to womens choice. That isn't to say we advocate for men overriding women's choice over sex, but men need to be able to make their own choice over sexual expression and have that fulfllled like every woman on this planet potentially can, if they only said yes, and this means breaking the monopoly women have over sex by making men aware of other possibilities that gay men have understood for ages because of need."
Well, I think women are becoming more sexually active, but they do get to decide --- like everyone should --- who they will engage with.
What's your take, Readers?
33 comments:
Faithful Reader Ian would like us to have a discussion. He sent these two music AI-created music videos (which is a thing, I guess?) and then posed a question for discussion.
All I know is all the guys I work with said your so lucky to be gay!! I cant really say to much more having never dealt with women or had sex with any.
If a man defines "sex" as strictly as "intercourse with a women", then yeah, his options will be extremely limited. Even so, I get the impression that this guy feels resentment when women won't sleep with him. As if he's entitled to it. I find that disturbing. He needs to talk to a professional because that kind of thinking usually does not end well.
I do not think this is a matter of being a man or a woman, and who's got power over deciding this or that.
It all comes down to the sexual appeal two people feel towards each other, whatever their respective gender, and leading them to a consensual intercourse. Consensual being the number one condition.
It may take some game of seduction and the rules attached in order to get to the point. That's what most species do (have you ever witnessed a peacock trying to seduce a female? :-)
If the way one tries to seduce another is not up to their expectation it's a sign they're not made to 'mate'.
And if to try and seduce someone only aims at fucking/get fucked to release the tension well... there are back alleys/bushes/bars to to that without the hassle of useless preliminaries.
Back to the matter: many historians have written about the strong power some women had over prominent men over the centuries - Cleopatra's over Caesar is not a a legend.
But a woman's refusal or agreement to have sex is not to be seen as a way to manipulate her man. A woman, as any individual, is driven by all the things she has to care and worry about, which is usually more than a man does and, contrary to men who tend to compartmentalize and box up their thought when their balls awake, most women need to feel their concerns are secure with the partner they are engaging with. Hence their need to be listened to, and that is definitely not a step a man wants to skip or fail.
PS: I've listened to those two AI songs. They reminded me, in a much different way, of what a work-in-progress-AI did a fews years ago trying to put out what would be a Beatles' song. To the point, but charmless.
I do not believe in the religious concept of soul, except when it comes to Art.
Even with Gays, both have a choice and can say no at times (but not often).
Sexuality is far more complex than people realize. If it’s consensual what the hell is the problem ?! The evangelicals and their ilk are anti-sex either because they’re miserable and not getting any, have immature sex hang ups or are sex fiends themselves and are on a guilt trip.
-CA jock
I’d like to voice a counter-opinion here. All the rules, hang-ups, and customs, especially the different approaches to sex between the sexes (generally), can ultimately be traced back, from distant antiquity, to the principle “Fucking causes people.” Remember, the birth control only dates back to 1960. Even modern birth control is not 100% effective. Given the fact that childbirth is probably among the most dangerous things a woman can undergo, it’s not surprising that women, in general, are wired to engage in sex at a somewhat different rate than men.
Also it’s not uncommon for masturbation among men to be as much a social activity as a sexual one, not involving long term consequences.
I agree this is not a male or female issue, it’s a person issue. And each person has the right to say yes or no. I think sex with women is more complicated because they bear the burden of pregnancy and always have.
Hugs and bisous
I think you miss the point: men's sexual expression is tied to women's choice, which in a relationship (that is normally considered monogamous) gives women complete control over sex; not simply choosing for herself, but also for her male partner. That choice is also dependent on her emotions, so sex can be weaponised if she is upset, beyond simply being a choice: she can deny her partner sex, because she can and if he seeks it with anyone else, she can threaten to dissolve the relationship. That is basically a hostage situation.
This is not a denigration of women, just saying openly how it is, because I don't think many in society bother to think about the power imbalance that exists now with women controlling men's sexuality through their personal choice. In reality, sex is about the lives of 2 people, not simply the choices of one of them. It's not all about women.
It isn't just men in relationships: there is a growing number of young men not only denied a sexual relationship, because women choose the top 20% of men, but are vilified as incels and women-haters if they complain about the situation. Effectively society is changing from one where both men and women have an expectation of sexual fulfilment to a more primitive survival of the fittest arrangement fully dependent on women's choice of the fittest, where men miss out, but women only have to say yes to obtain sex from a growing sex-starved cohort of men.
It's a problem for men because society doesn't facilitate them with other socially recognised options for sexual fulfilment; in fact, it has suppressed other options for centuries, starting with masturbation and segueing into vilification of same sex activity (for men only, women somehow ignored) that is still prevalent. Men having sex with each other is still shamed or made a joke unless they are homosexual to dissuade other men.
In case you are thinking "well a man can just masturbate", ponder a moment on how you are deciding his sexual expression for him and making the same mistake as French aristocracy in "let him eat masturbation". If masturbation was adequate sexual expression, men wouldn't bother with sex with women as too much trouble.
As for assertions of resentment, shouldn't every human have expectations of sexual fulfilment as a normal part of life, or is it reserved for a select minority only who are able to pass women's personal choice? If the latter I think you need to educate the public as to the actual reality, as there is an expectation of the former. No skin off my nose either as I don't have sex with women to be troubled by the situation I see affecting far too many men.
The fundamental point though is not about women at all, but men having other options for sexual fulfilment (and knowing they have those options) that don't involve the limitation of his life by her choices, simply because women currently are facilitated to have a monopoly over recreational sex.
Full marks for the attempt at gaslighting this issue.
The problem is about whether sexual fulfilment should be a human right (able to be fulfilled in avariety of ways that don't impact on another humans rights) or a human fight (that is subject to the arbitrary choices of another person that not only affects them but the person seeking sexual fulfilment too).
Rights are principles, not actions: the right to sex does not mean an obligation on another person to provide it.
The issue is not actually about choice or consent but individual sexual opportunity that does not infringe on either. Men in society are not afforded opportunities for sexual fulfilment that are either independent of another person's choice or more congruent with another persons choices (than they are with women).
I don't consider masturbation to be sexual fulfilment, yet that is the only other option generally available to men and even that is still a source of ridicule and shame.
I don't think male FWB are accepted in society, it's still a shameful secret to be hidden and not talked openly about for fear of ridicule, or openly encouraged; unless you are openly homosexual.
I can kind of understand why: male liberation will threaten women's sexual monopoly and power, not to mention resentment at sex without personal cost of issues of conception and child rearing. However, this is not the end of the world because procreation is still important, yet procreation only makes up a tiny fraction of sexual activity, so it makes sense to finally separate them instead of forcing them into a single main feature of human life.
Those songs were generated by AI I believe, however the point is they are openly saying what many men have been concealing, but in a humorous way that is more accessible to people because of the form of the music accompanying the lyrics. They aren't meant to be charming works of art, but I think they will have more appeal because the lyrics are carried on a trojan horse of cowboy music that will get into people's heads.
If "the fundamental point though is not about women at all, but men having other options", then men do indeed have options aside from relying on their spouse/girlfriend for intercourse. They can always pay for it. I still contend that it's all about his resentment for not getting sex when he wants it because he's probably stuck in a monogamous relationship that he chose to be in.
I may have to make a few comments as I have a busy day and don't have much time to articulate everything I want to say in one comment. First: I totally agree that women have more choice over sex than straight men. I don't think that reigns true for gay / Bi men however. But I find it rather cruel to deny a partner sex on a consistent basis. especially knowing that by nature we are highly sexual beings. If a woman chooses not to engage in intimate relations anymore , then I firmly believe that the man should have the courage to share his needs, let her know that those needs are not being met, and honestly discuss other options for him to get his fulfillment if she is not going to provide that. I don't believe sneaking on the low to get those needs met would be healthy for their agreement if they are both under the assumption that monogamy is part of that agreement. I believe most women would lose their freaking minds if the husband came to them with this proposal , however If a man makes it clear that it is not fair for him to not get fulfillment and that There must be a way for him to get that fulfillment , The ball is now in her court to make some serious decisions on what to do. I fill more straight men should hold their wives accountable for their part of the agreement. But honest about it. because once you start to sneak, the blame is going to fall back on the man when he is caught. When. not if.
It is not a male or female issue, far more complex than that, however, each has a choice to say yes or no and there are other ways that intercourse to satisfy one's sexual appetite.
Male to male sexual activity was apparently all the rage in ancient Greece and ancient Rome, albeit more about pederasty than peers, although I'm not sure there is enough written history to know the truth.
Whilst I can appreciate a woman's concerns with conception, women aren't the only factors in the equation and males have a biological sex drive to deal with. In nature rape is common and biology does nothing to prevent it, because procreation is the key. Civilised human beings however can appreciate ethics and acknowledge women's choices over sex, but ethics also suggest that males should also be able to choose to have sex, except this is not possible as the choice is governed by women ( the reverse is not true). The only solution to this dilemma is to facilitate options for men that also preserve womens choice. Unfortunately it is not a solution that society has pursued, instead insisting that women's choice is all that matters.
I put it to you that masturbation between men is largely hidden within society through shaming, particularly comparing men who engage as being effeminate or gay, when it's a male activity that has nothing to do with women or femininity, except for some women being uncomfortable or offended by it (once again, a matter for men, but women affected).
I think we need to be careful when talking about social and sexual activities, because sex is fundamentally about procreation, however its encouragement through making it pleasurable means it is much more than simply about procreation: conflating those 2 purposes into a single term of sex is, I believe, part of the problem.
The right to say yes or no to sex is meaningless if sex is not available, because saying yes to a vacuum is the same as saying no. Consent is only one small part of the overall story and to reduce it down to that, to protect women but deny men the opportunity for sex, is somewhat perverse and discriminatory.This is not only about women, yet so many have become so brainwashed as to believe women are the only ones who matter and at the expense of men to boot.
I'm trying to remove the blinkers, so we can develop a better solution outside the box, not encourage rape of women.
Contraception, regular testing and early stage termination are absolutely a necessity for women to have control over their bodies and assuage their concerns over pregnancy, but similarly, men also need greater control over their own bodies in terms of sexual fulfilment as a similar principle to women and pregnancy, as the opposite side of the coin. Men can't get pregnant, so that is not their concern, but they do have a strong biological sex drive that must be addressed.
@Anon: Incel is a whole ideology. Basically the idea is that virgins will rise up, kill the chads, and redistribute the pussy.
All of that, and Tinder exists.
His resentment doesn't exist because he is me and I have no interest in sex with women anyway to get resentful over, but I do see the problem many men are having with women having monopoly control over men's sexual expression: it only happens if women allow it, not necessarily when men want it for themselves.
Monogamous relationships are expected and yet no man expects the sex to dry up, even though it often does. Therefore, agreeing to a limiting monogamous relationship based on false expectations is not informed consent.
In many parts of the world, prostitution is being reduced: in scandinavia they have made it legal for a woman to sell sex, but illegal for a man to purchase sex. Availability of prostitution is likely to have a short future lifespan.
In any case, I am mainly advocating for men to be educated about and encouraged to explore avenues of sexual fulfilment that don't rely on involvement with the nature of women at all.
The problem with accountability is that was extinguished when conjugal rights were removed from the equation, but monogamy was not. Entitlement to sex and sexual fulfilment is also not mentioned anywhere because it does not exist as part of the marriage/relationship verbal "contract" but assumed to happen naturally; however it is anything but a natural situation when a woman has monopoly control over a man's sexual expression and he can only have it when she wants it and no-one else.
Dissolving the relationship over sexual compatibility is also not as easy as it sounds, with women able to garnish 50% of a man's income and assets on leaving, especially with children who are forced to be supported but the man restricted or denied visitation through various family court tricks including false accusations that are not subject to the burden of proof as the crimes they are supposed to be, but guilt assumed on accusation.
It isn't a simple case of a choice of yes or no: each persons choice affects more than just them and relationships are not things to just casually take up and let go at will because of the investment in them by the parties involved and also the unwritten restrictions within them. That doesn't mean, as many propose, that this advocates for men raping women to achieve the sexual fulfilment they want, in the face of women's refusal, but rather looking to other sources of sexual fulfilment that don't involve women at all and so avoid much of the conflict. Sadly most men have never even heard of such alternatives because they never expected to be in a position to need them to explore anything else, until it happens to them. Even sadder is the still entrenched homophobia in society that will prevent many from exploring some avenues. Gay is still a term of ridicule and disparagement in certain circumstances.
I'm really quite disappointed the discussion was unable to see beyond womens consent to the much broader picture involved, as if that was all that should ever matter.
This topic can take a very problematic turn... Whether it's a man or a woman, every sexual relationship depends on someone's permission. If you have a partner who says no to sex, you either endure the urge and masturbate, or if there's mutual agreement, you find someone else to have sex with. Sometimes people make it seem like only women say no. Men also have the right to say no. And this applies to both straight and gay relationships.
This topic can take a very problematic turn... Whether it's a man or a woman, every sexual relationship depends on someone's permission. If you have a partner who says no to sex, you either endure the urge and masturbate, or if there's mutual agreement, you find someone else to have sex with. Sometimes people make it seem like only women say no. Men also have the right to say no. And this applies to both straight and gay relationships.
There's a lot of that sentiment among straight men who think gay men do nothing but have sex every spare minute.
Yes, but I ****think**** the OP's issue is that a straight man's options are limited because M-M sex is still frowned upon and masturbation is ridiculed. I could be wrong, but trying to interpret from his response above.
I think I finally understand your point: options for straight males are limited because M-M sex is still frowned upon (even illegal in some countries) and masturbation is still ridiculed by many.
I think they have more sex than straight men, because they don't have to limit themselves to a woman's different focus and sex drive, where her choice decides for him too (and he doesn't dare do anything about it because MONOGAMY and the weaponisation of sex by her emotions).
It's more than that: options for men in relationships are limited to what women will accept, yet it is rarely threshed out before the monogamy contract is signed because most men do not think their access to sex will change; and once they are in the relationship it is the woman who decides what is acceptable as she is the limiting factor that can not legally be overriden. Your previous posts make this quite clear with men having to ask permission to express their sexuality with another man, even though it likely won't deprive her of resources, or children, or sex she wasn't going to offer anyway, as if his sexual expression is completely owned by the woman and her feelings (not about his sexual needs at all). Relationships come with a monogamy clause, but not conjugal rights clause to nullify it. Dissolving a relationship over sexual incompatibility is a bigger deal than people make out, because women get the better bargain, especially when they have the children they want. A man has had to satisfy himself with less satisfactory masturbation for a number of years, than the sex he wanted, and then when she gets the children and resources she wanted, he often gets kicked out, no sex, no children, half his resources taken. It should be a cautionary tale for men entering into a relationship with unrealistic expectations and uninformed consent.
Masturbation is still ridiculed by many, however the main issue is that masturbation is not what men seek: if it was they wouldn't bother chasing women. There is something about a shared sexual experience that makes it better than masturbation, which brings us back to the issues with pursuing M-M sex as an alternative.
It isn't just M-M sex and masturbation being frowned upon, but a man's own sexuality held hostage to a woman's feelings and consent, without a get-out clause except for dissolution of the relationship (which comes with consequences for him, not for her).
You never hear "happy spouse, happy house", but "happy wife, happy life", which is an indication of where men are in terms of importance. Imagine being held hostage to someone else's happiness.
Men's sexuality: women most affected; a completely ridiculous situation because of no socially recognised or approved alternatives to the monopoly control of sex by women.
The right to say yes or no to sex is predicated on sex being available, which is not the case when availability is constrained by one partner's choices. A man can't say yes to sex if it isn't offered, only no to sex that is.
Of course there will be natural occasions of incompatibility when one wants sex and the other doesn't, where the options are to find an alternative because dissolving the relationship over the odd incompatibility would not be reasonable. The real issue is when the expectations of sex aren't realised and it not only has not been discussed prior to a relationship contract (which contains an assumed monogamy clause), but there is no conjugal rights clause that allows obtaining surplus sex outside the relationship that is not subject to a partner's permission. Of course this works both ways, however in general, men desire more sex than women but never imagine those occasional imbalances may turn out to be far more frequent or may even increase at some point. The problem is that men are signing a constrained contract that gives them no autonomy plus consequences if they tear up the contract, without being fully informed, in their eagerness to obtain sex. This is because they are not educated as to alternatives to sex with a woman, or informed about the state of relationships today, to give informed consent to a biased contract in favour of women.
Sexual fulfilment doesn't have to depend on someone's permission (those that are autonomous methods) and where it does, that person can be far more sexually compatible (in terms of sex drive, concerns about conception, emotional fickleness and understanding the sexual needs of the other person) than heterosexual involvement: it's just that society hasn't explored other options for men because the current system is far too beneficial to women to be permitted to change.
Straight men's sexuality is constrained and held hostage to women's feelings in current society. Having sex with someone (including oneself) should not require the permission or approval of someone else, unless embodied in a contract undertaken with fully informed consent, but that is exactly what is happening (or not happening) to men today.
It's so difficult to get around the gynocentric perspective today that has men's sexual autonomy - women most affected, blinding everyone to the failure of men's sexual autonomy.
Even looking at sexual consent (relating to permission), today in many parts of the world, women aren't required to give consent but men are required to cognitively evaluate whether enthusiastic consent exists and not pursue sex if it isn't, effectively making him her protector and the denial of his own sexuality to protect her as if he knows her wishes. If a woman is intoxicated, that automatically nullifies consent, including retrospectively, despite intoxication lowering the threshold to primitive emotional impulse and thus the appearance of enthusiastic consent, however if a man is intoxicated he is still expected to cognisently process the existence of consent and moderate his actions accordingly, to protect her, even though intoxication impairs cognition and lowers the threshold to primitive impulses.
Effectively, women have no responsibility over their sexual actions and all the responsibility is put onto men to protect womens assumed virtue, plus women decide the sexual expression of men, in a monopoly situation, not men themselves.
Men have no sexual autonomy because it all depends on womens permission (both natural and malicious). The male sexual deprivation this creates ensures women only have to say yes to sex for it to be available, whilst the reverse is not true for men. This is not about consent by women but permission for men to express their sexuality based on womens choice, a completely different thing, but masquerading as womens choice as the only thing that matters.
Post a Comment