Tag Archives: gender issues

How Men Are Set Up To Fail With Women

When it comes to seeking love and sex, I kind of need to be on top of things. I’m trying to get into the business of writing sexy romance novels. I’ve got another novel coming out in a couple months and a couple manuscripts I hope to submit to my publisher very soon. If I want to tell quality romance stories with the right amount of sex appeal, I need to know about the dynamics of these intimate processes.

Unfortunately, that’s a lot harder than it sounds and few people who aren’t billionaire rock stars/supermodels would contest that. Finding love and finding sex aren’t always mutually exclusive, but they tend to be linked for reasons I don’t think require much explanation. Humans are a sexual, passionate species. Ideally, we should make the process of seeking those experiences clear, efficient, and understandable.

I’ll give everyone a moment to stop laughing because I know we’re a long way from that ideal. In some respects, we’re doing the exact opposite. We’re actually making it harder on ourselves to find love, sex, and everything in between and I’m not just talking about the effects of recent sex scandals. We’ve gotten to a point where men and women aren’t just on the same page. They’re not even reading the same book.

This brings me to a recent article from Cracked.com. I know they’ve been hit or miss lately. Between their poor understanding of what makes someone a pervert and their knack for complicating ideas of consent, they’ve had a bit of a regressive streak lately. They’ve been less focused on humor and more focused on pushing the kind of everything-is-sexist agenda that is rarely funny.

This time, however, they’ve managed to step back from that agenda and offer some insight into the other side of that equation. Yes, women do face their share of challenges in pursuing love and sex with men. Sifting through the crop of potential partners, trying to figure out who one wants something meaningful and who just wants a quick romp, is frustrating and the source of nearly every romantic comedy ever made.

However, the other side of that struggle with the men, has its own set of challenges and our culture does plenty to add to the difficulty. Since I am a man and I’m familiar with some of these challenges, I feel it’s worth talking about. I’m also glad Cracked.com took the time to write something like this. For those interested, here’s the link:

Five Ways Society Trains Men To Expect Sex From Women

This is one of those articles that will likely generate plenty of discussions among feminists, MRAs, egalitarians, and romance fans, like myself. There are some parts of it that still come off as overly-gendered preaching. However, I think the article presents the situation in a way where those discussions need not involve threats or insults to each other’s mothers. Then again, this is the internet.

Chief among the arguments that this article makes involves how our culture, from movies to TV shows to comic books, gives the impression that good men have do things a certain way to get love and sex from women. However, those things rarely involve the kind of work, strength, and achievements that women and men alike find attractive.

Instead, sitcoms and romantic comedies constantly feed men the idea that just being meek, passive, and constantly friend-zoned will eventually earn them their dream girl. At no point is there any effort to actually find out what that dream girl actually wants in a lover because that just wouldn’t make for a good romance movie, even if it makes total sense. The article puts it even more succinctly.

The idea that women will eventually find their lengthy secret crushes cute if they cling to them is an anxiety-reducing godsend. So they keep waiting and waiting for the “right” time. But that time never comes, because their life isn’t being written by a hack. So they get bitter and frustrated, because they don’t just feel rejected; they feel ripped off, like they were owed love, but it was somehow denied them.

It’s basically an extension of the old “nice guys finish last” diatribe that I’ve criticized before. I admit that even I bought into that growing up and my lack of romantic interest from other women is testament to how flawed this concept is. It also says something that my favorite romantic movie, “Crazy/Beautiful,” does not follow that trope.

It gets even worse than that, though. Beyond presenting a false understanding that good men have to be meek to get the girl, there’s also this weird/unhealthy idea that every romantic pursuit has to be its own epic narrative. In the same way people erroneously believe they’re the hero of their own story, they believe they’re one of the lovable nerds in “The Big Bang Theory” who ends up with the cute girl.

Never mind the fact that some of the romance in that show may be very unhealthy, there’s a sense that sex and romance has to fit into this narrative or it’s a total failure. There’s no room for more mundane notions that a guy just asks a girl out, she says no, and they get on with their lives. That story just seems wrong and doesn’t fit the epic love story/sexual conquest that men build up in their minds.

This is where it gets really soul-crushing for men looking for that kind of romance and sex that bad Julia Roberts movies are made of. For men who try to play by those rules, being the meek and lovable underdog that they think will get them love and sex, what happens when it fails? What happens when Leonard Hofsteader doesn’t get the girl and ends up alone, heartbroken, and frustrated?

It can be pretty traumatic and the article points that out, giving the impression that men have no room for error. If they fail to get the love and sex they seek by playing by the rules laid out in every romantic comedy ever made, then they will die poor and lonely.

So Nice Guys see countless stories wherein women vent about creepy encounters they’ve had with men who interrupted their days, and it freaks them out. That venting is understandable — I’d be angry too if I was constantly getting harassed about my chiseled good looks while trying to run errands. But Nice Guys end up under the impression that every encounter ends in either a sweeping success or a reminder of why mace was invented. They think there’s no margin for error, because there’s a constant fear that failure will end in loneliness and humiliation. There’s a brutal contradiction. Nice Guys are told that they need to meet new people, but also that if they fuck up even a tiny bit, they will be mocked.

This is also where some of the gender disparities really show, especially from the male end of the equation. That’s because within this epic romance narrative that men think they’re part of, there’s one component that amplifies the tension between gender. It has to do with who decides the when, where, how, and why of love and sex.

Even within a society where women are vulnerable to various forms of sexual misconduct, they are still very much the sexual and romantic gatekeepers, as the article calls it. In that narrative, the women are the ones who decide whether or not anyone has any sex. The women are the ones who decide whether or not a relationship ensues. It’s not like sex and romance have any cooperative elements, right?

That last part was meant to be sarcasm, but it’s no laughing matter in the context of the narrative that men think they have to follow. So much of it is built on the idea that women are the final decision-makers. It’s an idea that frustrates men and is rarely acknowledged by women, creating the kind of inequality in a relationship that is rarely healthy.

It’s a component that does more than just set men up for heartbreak and women up for frustration. It can be downright unsexy when it comes together. The article puts it better than I ever could.

So while many men from generations past thought that the female orgasm was a myth and that a clitoris was an African insect, most Nice Guys readily accept that a woman’s sexual satisfaction is important. But in getting that message across, we’ve accidentally started telling men that while it’s wrong to try to seduce women in most situations, when sex does happen, you’d better be goddamn incredible at it.

Think about the disconnect in that dynamic. Since women are the sexual gatekeepers, men can’t readily seduce a woman without coming off as a creep or a Biff Tannen wannabe. Even when they do get the go-ahead for sex, if they don’t satisfy the woman with the prowess of Wilt Chamberlin on crack, then they’ve failed.

Considering sex, like anything in life, takes practice and cooperation, this kind of imbalance is bound to make for some less-than-romantic situations that’ll leave everyone involved unsatisfied. Men, particularly, build up all these expectations around what they think movies, TV shows, and bad porno says is important and grade themselves on that steep curve.

It’s not too hard to imagine why men get so frustrated and women are so disappointed, which only serves to heighten the hostilities between genders. Real life simply doesn’t play out the same way that movies, sitcoms, or sexy romance novels do. If they did, then there would be no appeal to those things in the first place.

That’s probably the most important take-away from this article. Yes, there are still parts where it tacitly mentions the ongoing sex scandals that make men groan, but the message is fairly concise. The way we’re going about finding love and sex is exceedingly imbalanced. It’s making men and women despise each other far more than they should.

Being the optimist I am, at heart, I believe that our inherent desire for love and sex will gradually change this narrative. Men and women, as hostile as they can be to one another, still seek love and the toe-curling pleasure that comes with making it. It may take time and more frustration, but we’ll find a way to go about it. Genuine love and great sex is worth it.

Leave a comment

Filed under gender issues, sex in media, sex in society, sexuality

Why Our Assumptions About Male And Female Promiscuity May Be (Very) Wrong

most-sexually-charged-excerpts-from-erotica-books

When it comes to assumption, we tend not to question them, by default. That’s why they’re assumptions. It’s literally in the definition. It’s entirely natural to make assumptions, especially when they have some sort of inherent logic to them. It’s just how we, as a species, make sense of a chaotic world that we’re trying to survive.

The problem is, as I’ve pointed out many times before, our caveman brains aren’t wired logic. They’re wired primarily to help us survive and reproduce. That’s why our brains are so prone to all sorts of logical fallacies. That’s also why it’s hard to let go of assumptions, even when empirical data a very different story.

This brings me to our assumptions about sexual promiscuity. I’m hope I have your attention now because I knew a bland article about logical fallacies, caveman logic, and false assumption wasn’t going to get anyone excited. Put it in a context that’s both sexy and relevant, especially to an aspiring erotica/romance writer, and there’s much more appeal.

Sexy or not, the issue of assumptions in our sex lives are a lot more relevant in the era of “fake news” and “alternative facts.” These days, people are more likely to cling to their assumptions than ever before, even in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary. Hell, “South Park” even did an entire episode about this concept.

There are all sorts of complex psychological and social reasons for this, some of which I’ve covered before in other less sexy discussions. However, I’m not going to belabor those concepts. Most people know that humans can be exceedingly stubborn, even when faced with undeniable data that counters their assumptions.

That becomes a bigger problem, though, when you’re actually trying to make sense of something on an academic level. Our collective sexuality is one of those things that we try to study and understand, even if our efforts turn out to be disturbingly wrong. I like to think we’ve gotten better at it in the modern era, but sometimes fresh data reveals there’s still room for improvement.

This leads me to one of the most common assumptions about sexuality and the particulars of sexual promiscuity. You’ve probably heard it articulated at some point. It’s the basic structure surrounding male promiscuity versus female promiscuity. It goes like this:

  • Men are promiscuous because sperm production is cheap and there’s an biological incentive to have sex with multiple females in order to sire multiple offspring
  • Women are more selective about their sex partners because bearing children is risky and requires resources, which incentivizes securing men who will stick around to care for those children

There are all sorts of jokes and colloquialisms about this, men being dogs and women being angels. It’s also reflective of the most obvious double standards surrounding male and female sexuality and for most people, it makes sense.

A man can have sex with a thousand woman and, in theory, sire a thousand children. Ignoring the egregious child support payments this man would have to pay, it is consistent with the biological imperative to survive and reproduce.

Conversely, it makes just as much sense for a woman to secure a male partner who won’t just have children with her, but stay with her and invest in raising those children with her. This bears out in the many benefits ascribed to two-parent households.

However, if these assumptions were so logical and so biologically sound, then that would be reflected in the data we gather about our sexuality. Logic should be consistent with data, right? That’s the entire foundation of the scientific method, after all.

This is where the details get sketchy, but in a sexy sort of way. In an article from The Conversation, much of the biological data behind these assumptions about sexual promiscuity among men and women gets an added bit of scrutiny. In doing so, some revealing details emerge. Here is a brief excerpt that should raise a few eyebrows, among other body parts.

The common belief was that males and females were radically different. Moreover, attitudes about Victorian women influenced beliefs about nonhuman females. Males were considered to be active, combative, more variable, and more evolved and complex. Females were deemed to be passive, nurturing; less variable, with arrested development equivalent to that of a child. “True women” were expected to be pure, submissive to men, sexually restrained and uninterested in sex – and this representation was also seamlessly applied to female animals.

Although these ideas may now seem quaint, most scholars of the time embraced them as scientific truths. These stereotypes of men and women survived through the 20th century and influenced research on male-female sexual differences in animal behavior.

Unconscious biases and expectations can influence the questions scientists ask and also their interpretations of data. Behavioral biologist Marcy Lawton and colleagues describe a fascinating example. In 1992, eminent male scientists studying a species of bird wrote an excellent book on the species – but were mystified by the lack of aggression in males. They did report violent and frequent clashes among females, but dismissed their importance. These scientists expected males to be combative and females to be passive – when observations failed to meet their expectations, they were unable to envision alternative possibilities, or realize the potential significance of what they were seeing.

The same likely happened with regard to sexual behavior: Many scientists saw promiscuity in males and coyness in females because that is what they expected to see and what theory – and societal attitudes – told them they should see.

There’s much more to the article and I strongly recommend everyone take the time to read it, in full. It’s somewhat long because it references a lot of old research on animal behavior, as well as cultural attitudes towards sex and gender. However, the underlying theme is fairly clear.

The assumptions about coy, reserved females and aggressive, promiscuous males aren’t clearly reflected in the observed data. In fact, cultural attitudes going all the way back to the Victorian Era may have influenced our interpretation of the data, leading us to negate anything that countered those assumptions. That’s confirmation bias at its most basic.

This is similar to the message in the book, “Sex At Dawn,” which basically argues that our caveman ancestors had much better sex lives than we did. In that context, male and female promiscuity plays out in a very different way that also clashes with many of our assumptions.

In both “Sex At Dawn” and the article, the data seems to suggest that promiscuous females have higher rates of reproductive success. Biologically speaking, this makes sense because she’s getting a diverse sample of sperm and the higher quality material eventually finds a way to win out.

I’ll resist the urge to paint too crude a picture, although I will say that women pursuing a variety of men and attempting to weed out the best among them should not be too shocking. When you’re looking to find love and/or a baby daddy, you want quality and you can’t really be sure of that quality unless you find ways to test it. That’s not quite as dirty as it sounds, but it’s close.

With men, the data also clashes with the assumptions that men need only hump as many things with a pulse as possible. The article questions the idea that sperm is cheap and men’s contributions are purely resource-driven. The data actually suggests that men exercise a considerable degree of selection in choosing their partners. Just having a pulse and a vagina is not the only criteria.

As is now also well-documented, sperm production is limited and males can run out of sperm – what researchers term “sperm depletion.”

Consequently, we now know males may allocate more or less sperm to any given female, depending on her age, health or previous mated status. Such differential treatment among preferred and nonpreferred females is a form of male mate choice. In some species, males may even refuse to copulate with certain females. Indeed, male mate choice is now a particularly active field of study.

In essence, men are capable of being selective and downright loyal to their partners. Women are also just as capable of being sexually open, seeking out a variety of lovers in search of quality partners, both for social and reproductive success. In that sense, the promiscuous tendencies of both genders are a lot more level than any Victorian Era assumption would have us believe.

Add on top of this the documented health benefits of sexual promiscuity, as well as the sexual mores of our hunter/gatherer ancestors, and it’s increasingly clear that our assumptions about the sexual promiscuity are not consistent with biology, logic, or reality in general.

In a sense, our society already reflects this. The growing prevalence of blended families shows that the Victorian ideals that later played out in 1950s sitcoms aren’t accurate reflections of human nature. I doubt that this data will shatter the various assumptions that many still have on sexual promiscuity, but as with most excuses, they can only clash with reality so much.

Leave a comment

Filed under gender issues, polyamory, sex in society, sexuality

Why The Term “Toxic Masculinity” Should Be Retired

There aren’t a lot of terms in the English language that I wish could be uninvented. As someone with a strong appreciation for language, as well as someone who aced every essay question in school, the concept of throwing away words is akin to throwing away a box of fresh donuts. It’s an abhorrent thought.

That said, I do find myself making exceptions every now and then. Sometimes, you have to because a set of words comes along that’s so loaded, so skewed, and so esoteric that its only real use is to embolden assholes and inspire disdain. Given how there are enough assholes in this world, male and female alike, such words can be powerful weapons.

That leads me to one of the few terms I wish we could expunge from the English language, as well as every other language, including those invented by Tolken and Star Trek.

Toxic Masculinity

You’ve probably heard it before and never in a positive context so get ready to cringe. You may find yourself cringing again, just by reading over it. For that, I apologize. However, this term and what it entails is worth discussing because it affects men, women, and everything in between.

In terms of contemporary meaning, it’s worth noting that the idea of toxic masculinity is fairly new in terms of context. It only recently emerged as a major buzzword of third wave feminism, which I’ve mentioned before and is still evolving. It’s definition is somewhat vague, which is one of its many problems, but according to Wikipedia, it embodies all sorts of problematic concepts.

The concept of toxic masculinity is used in the social sciences to describe traditional norms of behavior among men in contemporary American and European society that are associated with detrimental social and psychological effects. Such “toxic” masculine norms include dominance, devaluation of women, extreme self-reliance, and the suppression of emotions.

Conformity with certain traits viewed as traditionally male, such as misogyny, homophobia, and violence, can be considered “toxic” due to harmful effects on others in society, while related traits, including self-reliance and the stifling of emotions, are correlated with harm to men themselves through psychological problems such as depression, increased stress, and substance abuse. Other traditionally masculine traits such as devotion to work, pride in excelling at sports, and providing for one’s family, are not considered to be toxic.

In simplest terms, toxic masculinity is the idea that the very traits and social norms associated with manhood are both destructive to modern society and detrimental to women. It is basically the invisible hand that guides people towards regressive, patriarchal attitudes that prefer that everyone live in a 50s sitcom.

Granted, that’s an extremely oversimplified understanding of the concept, but it would take way too many blog posts to get into all the nuances that have been ascribed to toxic masculinity. For this piece, I want to focus on the bigger picture and not the fine print.

Now, to be fair, the idea of men being beasts is not new. It pre-dates feminism and modern society by centuries, going all the way back to pagan folklore. However, that concept always came with a particular context, one that the very idea of toxic masculinity seems to ignore.

Dig deep into any mythos about snarling, beast-like men and you’ll usually encounter the same themes. Put a man in a situation where he’s stripped of humanity, love, community, and family and he becomes a pretty dangerous person. That’s basically the entire concept behind the appeal of characters like Wolverine from the X-men.

With toxic masculinity, though, that important caveat gets overlooked or cast aside. In applying toxic masculinity in its current context, there’s no circumstance behind all these negative traits associated with men. Just being a man and having any concept of masculinity is inherently toxic.

This is the most nefarious, not to mention insulting, aspect of the concept. It eschews any idea of context and calls the entire experience of being masculine toxic. It creates a situation where the only way to not be toxic is to be feminine, which is overly convenient for those arguing certain brands of feminism.

In essence, it readily embraces one of the most common and well-known fallacies of all time. You’ve probably heard it before, but it can’t be belabored enough.

Correlation does NOT imply causation.

It’s behind every major superstition and many failed scientific observations. It’s also the only way in which toxic masculinity works, with respect to criticizing an entire gender.

With toxic masculinity, there is no circumstance or context. There’s no need to subject anyone to a dehumanizing process, be it complex social pressures or an adamantium bonding process. Just being a man who exercises his masculinity in any capacity is inherently toxic.

That’s a wonderfully simplistic understanding that encapsulates an entire gender for all the wrong reasons, but as is often the case with wonderfully simplistic ideas, it’s not accurate. With toxic masculinity, though, it’s far more dangerous.

Being such a new word that hasn’t had time to develop traditions and complexity, toxic masculinity is a lot like other concepts, such as “fake news” and “alternative facts.” They’re so new and so vague that you can basically use it as linguistic cheat code to discount anything that you either don’t agree with or don’t care to scrutinize.

A man commits more crime than a woman? That’s toxic masculinity.

A man blames a rape victims for putting herself in a dangerous situation? That’s toxic masculinity.

A man makes an inappropriate joke that offends women? That’s toxic masculinity.

A man denies sexually harassing a woman? That’s toxic masculinity.

A man uses vulgar, profane insults while playing video games? That’s toxic masculinity.

There’s a clear pattern here in that there doesn’t need to be a pattern. Just take any undesirable trait ever ascribed to a man and call it toxic masculinity. Then, like magic, there’s no need to scrutinize context or circumstance. There’s no need to run any tests or dig deeper. You know the diagnosis and the treatment is obvious. If masculinity is so toxic, then that means we just have to discourage masculinity altogether.

Again, it’s an overly simple interpretation of an exceedingly complex phenomenon. It’s one that lumps all men, as well as the many dynamics behind masculinity, into a singular collection of traits that just happen to have all sorts of negative connotations. It provides a clear antagonist for those seeking gender equality or women’s rights. It also provides a potent mechanism for shaming men.

Ironically, this concept of treating certain gender traits as outright diseases is not unprecedented. In fact, there was a time when the roles were reversed and it was feminine traits that were considered “toxic.” However, people didn’t call it that. They actually had a medical term for it, which was “female hysteria.” Look at the definition and notice some of the parallels to toxic masculinity.

Women considered to have had it exhibited a wide array of symptoms, including faintness, nervousness, sexual desire, insomnia, fluid retention, heaviness in the abdomen, shortness of breath, irritability, loss of appetite for food or sex, and a “tendency to cause trouble”.

It seems funny and disturbing now, but back then, it was a serious issue. Society really did get to a point where being too feminine was considered a disease. Just being a woman carried with it an inherent shame that people couldn’t escape.

However, at least with female hysteria, the treatment wasn’t that bad in that it involved regularly being masturbated to orgasm. In terms of medical treatments, that beats the hell out of headaches and constipation. For toxic masculinity, though, there is no such treatment.

Since the term is so vague and its concepts so loaded, it creates a situation where the only way to avoid it is for a man to constantly denounce, deny, and disparage a core part of his identity. That usually involves a lot of virtue signaling and adopting the role of a beta male. The fact that approach has one too many similarities to gay conversion therapy should give anyone pause.

As it stands, the newness and ambiguity of toxic masculinity makes it a useful term for those who need an easy way to disparage men or extrapolate specific male behaviors to suit an agenda. That’s what makes it such a dangerous term for men and women alike, but that’s also what makes it an easy term to drop.

Now, I’m not denying that men have their share of undesirable traits. I also don’t deny that there are some aspects of masculinity that are worth scrutinizing. However, little good has ever come from creating terms that treat basic human traits as a disease. It creates a dangerous precedent that skews what it means to be sick and healthy.

Since it’s in the best interest for society and aspiring erotica/romance writers for genders to get along, ditching such a flawed concept like toxic masculinity will definitely help. It won’t solve all the issues associated with masculinity and feminism, but if we can do it for female hysteria, we can do it for toxic masculinity.

 

2 Comments

Filed under gender issues, sex in media, sex in society

An Important Question That Feminists And MRAs Must Answer (Honestly)

There are certain debates that I try to avoid. Sure, I’ll contribute to a debate between Marvel and DC fans. That often inspires some trolling, but it won’t inspire outright threats. When those debates revolve around unpleasant issues like race, religion, gender, or anything having to do with politics since last year’s election, I avoid it like the plague.

Every now and then, though, I feel compelled to at least comment on an ongoing debate. While I doubt that comment will resolve anything, I try to make sure it’s something worth adding to the conversation, if only to provide perspective. In my experience, perspective is the first thing lost when people start insulting each other’s mothers.

Before I started writing erotica/romance novels, I actually enjoyed debates. I thought they represented meaningful dialog. Then, I learned the hard way that the desire to win an argument often gets in the way of having productive discussions. There are few topics that don’t involve religion where this plays out more in gender issues.

Sometimes it’s between sex positive feminists and sex negative feminists. Sometimes it’s between feminists and men’s rights activists. Sometimes it’s between alpha males and beta males. In any case, the drama and the vitriol is the same. The sides of the argument are passionate and committed. Neither is likely to ever sway the other.

I can understand that, to some extent. There are undeniable gender disparities in this world, as well as a few subtle disparities that rarely come up in debates. I can also understand why certain people take the sides they do. Feminists, no matter what type they may be, are going to argue for women’s issues. MRAs, no matter how adversarial they may be to feminists, will take the side of men.

There are important issues that are worth debating, regardless of how much or how little you care about gender disparities. Even if neither side can completely win the argument, the debates do inspire all sorts of ideas that enrich everybody involved.

That being said, I still feel compelled to inject a little perspective into the debate. I think emotions on both sides are in overdrive after some pretty major sex scandals, which is fueling more outrage than discussion. As such, I’d like to reorient that perspective by asking one basic question to feminists, MRAs, and gender-driven ideologues of all types.

Do the goals of your ideology directly benefit you to the direct detriment of another?

It’s a yes-or-no question, but I imagine it’s one of those questions that few can answer honestly on a whim. That’s the key part that I want to emphasize. Anyone who answers this question, regardless of which side on gender issues they take, should answer this question with the kind of brutal honesty usually reserved for British TV personalities.

That’s because the question is twofold. The first part is somewhat a given. If you’re in the business of discussing gender issues, you usually have a goal. A part of that goal usually involves benefiting you and others like you. That’s the point of any effort that requires you to endure arguments, insults, and trolling.

The goals of feminism, men’s rights advocates, and everything in between involve benefitting individuals within their tribe. That’s not the issue here. It’s the second part where the honesty is harder to discern because it requires a self-assessment and a greater understanding of the bigger picture.

If you’re looking to achieve a goal that hurts or inconveniences no one, then chances are it’s not going to inspire many debates. Those efforts rarely face any political or social overtones. They’re as simple as being low on marshmallows and wanting to get more. The only one you’re inconveniencing is yourself.

When that goal involves something detrimental or inconvenient to someone else, regardless of whether it’s real or perceived, that’s when you run into problems. If that benefit you seek requires someone else to pay a price, then you’ve got a problem. It’s not always a bad problem. There are times when that the absence of that benefit is an injustice. Issues like voting or protection from violence are good examples.

Those kinds of goals tend to be simple with tangible, documented harm that is directly linked to a gender disparity. It’s the more complicated goals, such as those involving body image, mass media, or cultural trends, that tend evoke the kind of cyclical vitriol on both sides that never seems to abate.

These issues can’t be easily solved by passing a law or flipping a switch. They often require large groups to change their attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions about the world. In the same way people struggle to break bad habits, this sort of thing is not easy to do. It plays out in all sorts of ways.

“Stop admiring sexy women! That’s sexist!”

“Stop asking for free stuff because you’re a woman! That’s fascist!”

“Stop demanding that I find you attractive! That’s body shaming!”

“Stop enjoying what you love because it’s perpetuating misogyny/racism/misandry/homophobia/transphobia!”

However it plays out, the end result has a similar dynamic. In achieving the goal for one side, it negatively impacts the other. Sometimes their power and influence isn’t as great. Sometimes they’re shamed for liking something or supporting a certain position. Sometimes they have to pay a price, sometimes with money and sometimes with other forms of social currency.

In that situation, it creates a predicament to whoever is arguing on the other side. It undermines they’re objectivity. That person, be they a feminist or an MRA, has something to gain by their side prevailing. Like an investor who has a vested interest in a product failing, they’ll argue louder than most that the product is crap.

This is difficult to acknowledge because it undermines someone’s inherent sense that they’re the hero in this story. If Superman only did what he did because he acknowledged he got free ice cream for every criminal he stopped, then that would affect how people saw his motivations.

I don’t doubt that feminists and MRAs are motivated to pursue what they feel is an objective good. However, if they have something to gain from their side prevailing, then there’s a non-zero amount of subjectivity involved. Absent that perspective, the effort becomes less about confronting those gender disparities and more about maximizing your own personal advantage.

Let’s not lie to ourselves. If life were a video game, we would want to use cheat codes every now and then. It’s not wrong to admit that or even to seek advantages that others can’t have. However, to not acknowledge those self-serving facets of an issue is to claim your character is somehow greater and your opponents might as well be Nazis.

Very little good can some from any debate when both sides think their opponents are just monsters to be slain and not people with their own interests at heart. I don’t doubt that debates over gender disparities and gender-related issues will continue. I also don’t doubt that some of those debates will be as rational as the “Deadpool 2” synopsis.

It’s for those reasons that this question needs to be asked and answered honestly. I get it. Honesty is tough in a world of fake news, internet trolls, and all-around assholes. That’s why, if we’re serious about achieving our goals, we need to value it in any discussion about gender. The future of the human race literally depends on it.

Leave a comment

Filed under gender issues, Marriage and Relationships

Why People Blame The Victim (And How To Avoid It)

In wake of recent social trends and lurid scandals that took way too long to expose, we’ve entered a precarious moment in our history. I’m not just talking about ongoing issues surrounding gender inequality or trends in our sexual behavior, either. We, the same people who can’t even agree on the color of a dress, have come to a rare consensus on an issue.

Blaming the victims a sexual assault is BAD.

I’ll give everyone a moment to stop cringing and rolling their eyes. I know. This feels like one of those issues that shouldn’t even be an issue to begin with. Unfortunately, it evokes all sorts of heated emotions between men, women, feminists, men’s right’s activists, the transgender community, and certain species of baboons for all I know. It’s that a very loaded, very unsexy a topic.

Now, before I go any further, I want to make one thing abundantly clear. In talking about the particulars victim blaming, I’m not getting behind a particular movement or agenda. I’m choosing to confront this issue for the same reason I’ve used for confronting many unsexy issues.

Issues like sexual assault, and the victim blaming that comes with it, tie directly with our sexuality and our ability to love one another, albeit on the more sinister end of the spectrum. Given my efforts to become a successful erotica/romance writer, I can’t ignore these issues, nor do I want to.

I apologize if the way I go about discussing this issue offends or upsets some people. It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been clumsy or misinformed with my words. However, this is one issue that nobody, be they a Hollywood producer or erotica/romance writer, should avoid. Sexual assault and sexual harassment are bad enough. Blaming the victim is just the napalm that gets dumped on that fire.

Overall, I think it’s a good thing that there’s rising awareness about sexual misconduct, especially among those in positions of power. Sure, it has been prone to a few misguided controversies, but the overall intent is good. Sexual misconduct is a serious crime. Who could possibly be against it?

That is a rhetorical question, by the way. I’ll skip the part where I recount how various internet trolls would answer that and get to victim blaming, which is where this inherently noble endeavor hits a brick wall and tries to pick a fight with it. Given that brick walls are undefeated against people armed only with profanity and alcohol, it’s a fight that tends to leave everyone bloodied.

It happened with the Harvey Weinstein scandal. It happened with Corey Feldman. It will likely happen again with the next major scandal to break. At some point in the narrative, someone will imply or state outright that the victims bear some or all of the responsibility for what happened to them.

Some will say they put themselves in a bad situation. Some will say they secretly wanted it and just played the victim to score sympathy. Some will say they dressed in a way that made them deserving of it, which is especially common among those who decry beautiful women in sexy attire. There’s another term for this kind rhetoric. It’s called being an asshole.

There’s really not much context here because by every measure, blaming the victim of a crime is a pretty rotten thing to do. Whether you’re a man, a woman, or something in between, scolding someone who just endured a traumatic injustice is right up there with strangling a puppy, drop-kicking a kitten, and slitting a unicorn’s throat.

As nasty a reaction it is, there is also an underlying mechanism behind it. Some of it is tied to the flawed wiring of our caveman brains, but I would argue most of it stems from the inherent difficulty of thinking rationally when we’re in such an emotionally charged state. Given the seriousness of crimes like sexual assault, emotions are often in overdrive.

The moment we hear about sexual assault, it triggers something in our collective minds that makes us want to lash out. It’s such an egregious injustice and most decent human beings seek to right an injustice. It’s actually one of humanity’s best qualities and one of the reasons I believe people are generally good.

However, sexual assault is not like a stolen phone, a damaged house, or a black eye. You can buy someone a new phone. You can help them fix their house. You can give someone with a black eye and ice pack to help sooth their suffering. You can’t easily do that with someone who endured a sexual assault.

Many times, as was often the case with perpetrators like Bill Cosby, the injustices aren’t tangible, nor are they easy to remedy. However, we’re still appalled that such an injustice even occurred. That innate sense of justice that we have hardwired into our brains at birth urges us to right this egregious wrong.

Unfortunately, our brains are still crude instruments that can’t always tell the difference between perpetrator and victim, especially when we’re in an emotional state. As a result, we have a hard time separating the crime from the actual people involved. It’s not some shady, patriarchal agenda. It’s just a byproduct of our inherent need to maintain a just and fair world around us.

Then, there’s the extreme tribalism that comes into play. Yes, that lingering flaw from our caveman past plays a part in this too. Think back to any case involving a sex scandal, be it one involving a celebrity or someone in a position of power. Then, look at those who did the bulk of the victim blaming. Chances are they’ll have some sort of allegiance or admiration to the accused.

That makes sense because we instinctively defend members of our tribe. Whether we share a political affiliation, an ideology, or a fondness for Bill Cosby’s brand of comedy, our first reflex is to defend our tribe, even if it means turning a blind out to cold, hard facts. This is why some people will still defend men like O.J. Simpson against all evidence to the contrary.

On some levels, it’s understandable, even if victim blaming is such an egregious act. Nobody wants to believe that they’re a bad person. Some want to believe they’re the hero of their own story and the world around them is full of villains. That’s where victim blaming becomes a dick move disguised as a defense mechanism.

If anything associated with their tribe becomes affiliated with something as horrible as sexual assault, then it becomes personal for them. When it becomes that personal, then other people can only be targets. As a result, the people those victim-blamers target will, in turn, fire back with the same tactics. Again, the people become disconnected from the injustice and it just becomes a glorified shouting match.

It basically adds another injustice on top of another, turning a crime into a personal struggle to protect your tribe, identity, and certainty that you’re a decent person and those who don’t agree with you are assholes. It’s a great way to rally a tribe in the struggle for survival. In an era where false accusations and poorly-worded tweets ruin lives, it’s downright dangerous.

Within this danger, though, lies the key to confront the fuel that feeds the fires of victim blaming. It’s impossible, at least for now, to know the pain a victim feels or the veracity of an accusation. Absent that certainty, the best we can do is focus on the underlying injustices surrounding sexual assault.

Whether it’s a man exploiting his power to abuse women or a woman going out of her way to ruin a man’s life, the connective tissue to the entire issue revolves around justice. Our desire to live in a just world is one of the few things that transcends tribalism.

To illustrate how that plays out, here’s a quick scenario.

Person One: Help me! That asshole has been sexually harassing me for years!

Person Two: What? What the hell happened? What did you do?

Do you see the disconnect there? The foundation for victim blaming is right there in the initial reaction. If the accused is someone the second person likes or respects, their first instinct will be to defend them. That’s hard to avoid and both sides can turn on each other quickly.

Now, here’s the same scenario with a key change.

Person One: Help me! That asshole has been sexually harassing me for years!

Person Two: What? That’s terrible! Nobody should have to endure something like that.

See the difference? This time, the second person doesn’t immediately personalize the issue. He and the victim are on the same page. They both understand that this is a crime. This is an injustice. That serves as a foundation for fixing it.

I don’t deny that it’s only a minor change and one that’s difficult to utilize in every instance. That’s unavoidable for emotionally charged issues like sexual assault. However, that’s exactly why the effort is so important. Anything we can do to stay on the side of the victims and confront the larger injustices of sexual assault will be far more productive than just attacking one another.

Until we can finally upgrade our caveman brains, egregious acts like sexual assault and victim blaming will likely remain. There are many mechanisms behind it, but there are far more that transcend it. Whatever the long-term outcome of the ongoing efforts to confront sexual misconduct, we have many more reasons to come together than we do to keep casting blame.

2 Comments

Filed under Current Events, gender issues, sex in society, sexuality

Gender Equality, Artificial Ovaries, And The End Of Menopause

There are certain situations where, if you take away modern medicine, social institutions, and various life hacks, there’s an inescapable gender disparity. I know that by saying that, I’m inviting all sorts of nasty comments. There are those who claim that just hinting at inherent gender differences is to empower the patriarchy, oppress women, and probably strangle puppies in the process.

This piece isn’t directed at those people, nor is it directed at those who want to fight Round 2,697,206,077 of never-ending the gender wars arguments that the internet has made exceedingly easy to wage. I write this with the intent to inspire hope, excitement, and maybe a few sexy thoughts beyond those I share every Sunday.

When it comes to helping men and women operate on a level playing field, technology has been the great equalizer. It’s because of technology that we’ve helped women gain a greater level of control over their fertility. It’s because of technology that men who otherwise wouldn’t have been able to have children can now do so. A huge chunk of modern society is built around having greater control over our sexual health.

For men, that control has gotten pretty darn robust. Thanks to advancements in modern medicine, as well as tireless marketing efforts from pharmaceutical companies, men can enjoy continuous sexual function well into old age. Say what you will about the greed of pharmaceutical companies, but the collective sex lives of men are better because of it.

While that’s great news for men who want to stay sexy into their golden years, this does widen a particular gender disparity that is rarely discussed, if only because it evokes distressing thoughts about what our grandparents do in their private time. While modern medicine allows men to keep humping like they did in their youth, women face the biological equivalent of a brick wall as they get older.

It’s called menopause and like reverse puberty, it’s a fact of life for women. It typically happens in a woman’s late 40s or early 50s. It’s effects vary from woman to woman, but its signature trait is that a woman stops menstruating. That means they no longer have periods, they no longer ovulate, and they can no longer have children.

At the moment, it’s basically a fact of life. If a woman lives long enough, this is what they deal with. It’s like graying hair, wrinkly skin, or liver spots. At a certain point, their reproductive systems cease functioning. While they can still have sex, the various biological changes associated with menopause can make that difficult.

In terms of the gender scorecard, this definitely deducts some points for women. Whereas men have a way to keep their dicks functioning well into their elder years, women’s options are much more limited. Sure, there are a few medical ways to deal with it, some of which can be purchased at a local pharmacy for less than twenty bucks. However, the biology is still behind the curve.

What if a woman wants to continue having children late in life? What if a woman couldn’t have children in her youth, but later wants them even after her fertility has declined? Whereas men can still father children into their 90s, women seem to be out of luck.

However, and this is where I offer a glimmer of hope to those dreading their unsexy elder years, that may change thanks to recent advancements in biotechnology. According to MIT Technology Review, our ongoing research into regenerative medicine is drawing us closer to the day when we can actually regrow a woman’s ovaries. Here are the basics of this amazing and inherently sexy work.

The work, carried out at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, suggests a potential alternative to the synthetic hormones millions of women take after reaching middle age. A paper describing the findings was published Tuesday in Nature Communications.

When tested in rats, the pieces of tissue, known as organoids, were better than traditional hormone replacement drugs at improving bone health and preventing weight gain. The treatment was also as good as hormone drugs at maintaining healthy tissue in the uterus.

In essence, this is like treating your organs as rusty car parts that need replacing. Ovaries, like any other organ in the body, tend to break down as time goes on. We’ve already grown some basic organs in the lab. Growing ovaries, though, has far greater implications than simply keeping your body humming along.

Ovaries, as anyone who sat through a health class knows, are the organs that produce the various hormones and androgens that make up a woman’s biology. It plays key roles in just about everything having to do with female sex and reproduction. Once it shuts down, it’s like the main generator of a building going down. Sure, some parts have backup power, but that’s not enough to keep it running.

The ability to regrow fresh, healthy ovaries completely changes that dichotomy. In some respects, it puts the women out ahead of the men in terms of sexual function in their golden years. Unlike little blue pills or even bionic penises, these re-grown ovaries are entirely functional organs. It’s like resetting, rebooting, and re-energizing a woman’s sexual function.

This doesn’t just mean that women can still have healthy children well beyond their golden years. It means they can also avoid the various downgrades to their sexual function that often comes with menopause. They don’t need to take pills or constantly replenish hormones. They’ll have entirely functional organs inside them to do that for them.

Now, ignoring the possibility that creating new ovaries may also lead to creating enhanced ovaries, this does more than just improve the sex lives of older women. In many respects, it puts them on the same level as their elder male counterparts.

Their sexual function and their reproductive function don’t have to decline with age. Like older men, they can still have sex for fun. They can still have sex to make babies. Their options are just as open. If you’re a fan of gender equality, then this is an advancement that’s every bit as vital as advances in male birth control.

While I’m sure this will still generate some unpleasant mental images about our parents and grandparents, the incentives are already in place and too great to ignore. Sure, there will be some women who opt not to get fresh ovaries, just as there are some men who don’t mind having a less active penis later in life. However, the fact that medical science will give people these options is a true game-changer.

Technology has always changed our society in immense ways, but technology that affects our sex lives and our reproductive health tends to have bigger impacts than most. What happens to our family structures when our grandparents are still having children at the same time as our parents? What happens when getting older is no longer associated with succumbing to menopause and sexual dysfunction?

These are the kinds of questions that don’t have easy answers now, but those answers may end up finding us sooner than we expect. Since I’m in the business of erotica/romance novels, it may very well affect me at some point. Then again, having more people who stay horny into old age might be good for business.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under gender issues, Second Sexual Revolution, sex in society, Sexy Future

When Sex Robots Come (And Have Children)

It has been a while since I talked about sex robots . For that, I apologize. I like to think I keep up with all things related to sex robots, be it major news regarding the first sex doll brothel to deeper insights on how sex robots will affect society. Let’s face it. There are many implications with sex robots, as is often the case with anything that affects our sex lives.

More recently, most of those implications have centered around what happens when sex robots gain a measure of intelligence. We already have non-intelligent sex dolls that have the look and feel of real human flesh, even if they’ll never be mistaken for a real person. Sex robots that utilize artificial intelligence are still a ways off, but they are coming.

I realize that’s a crude joke that most would expect of someone who writes sexy novels in his spare time. I’ll try to limit those remarks for now because this particular issue regarding sex robots is no laughing matter. This time, it doesn’t involve the dangers of artificial intelligence, if you can believe that. Instead, it involves the very real possibility that sex robots may one day bear children.

I’ll give everyone a moment to stop rolling their eyes and/or cringing. I realize that possibility probably hadn’t crossed your mind until I mentioned it. The very concept seems antithetical to the purpose of a sex robot. Isn’t it just supposed to be the perfect sexual outlet for horny men and women? The robot getting pregnant would seriously undermine that use.

Well, maybe that applies in the world of softcore porn where there are no children, pubic hair doesn’t exist, and underpaid baristas are ridiculously hot. In the real world, there are more complexities to people, society, and the desires that drive them. Chief among those desires is the urge to reproduce.

Sure, sex is usually the primary component of that desire, but it’s not the only one. Deep within that longing for the toe-curling pleasure that we seek, be it through a lover or a sex robot, is also a desire to create the next generation. It’s kind of an important desire since it’s a big reason why humanity is the most dominant species on this planet.

So where exactly do sex robots play into this? Well, there are already people out there who have given this subject much more thought than I have. Granted, some of that thought is way beyond current sex robot technology, but the concepts and principles are already in place.

According to Sergi Santos, a sex robot inventor and enthusiast who might be to sex robots what Steve Jobs was to computers, the process would be fairly simple and not involve nearly as many labor pains. He described the process as follows.

Using the brain I have already created, I would program it with a genome so he or she could have moral values, plus concepts of beauty, justice and the values that humans have.

Then to create a child with this robot it would be extremely simple.

I would make an algorithm of what I personally believe about these concepts, and then shuffle it with what she thinks and then 3D print it.

That’s it. I 3D print the robot that is the child of me and the robot, I don’t see any complications.

Granted, it’s not a very sexy process and it lacks all the nine-month rituals that we’ve come to associate with creating new life. There are no baby showers, ultrasounds, or pregnancy cravings. The entire process is largely mechanical, using the same principles that comes with shuffling genes and traits, but implementing it in a more technologically-driven manner.

It basically takes Aldous Huxley’s dystopian fever dream, “Brave New World,” to a far greater extreme. It doesn’t just reduce reproduction to a process that’s not unlike getting a car custom made. It utterly separates it from the physical act of sex. Sure, some of the genetic material might be utilized in some way, but the actual gestation process is not the same.

Rick and Morty” already toyed with this concept in an episode that involved sex robots, gender wars, and a scene inspired by “Flashdance.” I swear I’m not making any of that up, but it’s a concept that addresses a serious issue that may very well arise once sex robots mature.

Once these devices get to a point where they’re intelligent, realistic, and capable of providing the necessary fulfillment that people seek, then what happens to our species’ ability to propagate? If sex robots get to the point where anyone can basically design the perfect lover, then what use will anyone have for old fashioned reproduction?

Don’t just think this will apply to men, either. There will be sex robots for women as well because, contrary to popular belief, women do get horny too. Those robots will be able to have babies too. I’ll give everyone a moment while their heads stop exploding.

How that process might play out is not something that Mr. Santos or Huxley even imagined. However, if the only ingredient necessary is a woman’s biological material and a sex robot with the right materials, then there’s no reason it can’t make a baby as efficiently as their male counterparts. Maybe the woman will want to carry it or opt to just have it printed. Sufficiently advanced sex robots will give them many options.

Sure, there may always be people who favor making babies the old fashioned way. That’s why there are still communities that shun modern technology. However, there’s a reason why those communities are small, secluded, and have limited influence. The appeal of technology and the promise it offers is just too enticing to most people.

Make no mistake, either. While it seems strange and kinky now, the idea of reproducing with a sex robot will have appeal. Talk to any woman who has ever endured the rigors of pregnancy and all the complications that come with it. If the process that Mr. Santos described above is even half as effective as he proclaims, then that’s still plenty enticing for those seeking an alternative method of propagating the species.

Imagine a process that doesn’t take nine grueling months. Imagine a process that doesn’t require morning sickness, frequent check-ups with a doctor, or stretch marks. Again, ask any woman who endured a rough pregnancy. Few will say it was easy, let alone comfortable.

A sex robot that can have a child, whether it’s through an artificial womb or the 3D-printing process imagined by Mr. Stantos, provides that last critical function for a sex robot. Now, it won’t just be the perfect sexual partner. It will also be the perfect breeding machine.

It’s impossible to overstate how huge the implications are of something like that. If every individual on the planet just used a sex robot for their sexual needs, then our species would naturally go extinct. That’s just basic biology. However, give those robots the ability to reproduce and the rules of basic biology are no longer applicable.

As I’ve noted before, nature sets the bar pretty low when it comes to evolutionary success. If a trait helps a species survive and reproduce, then everything else on top of it is just icing on the cake. A sex robot that can both help us reproduce and give us great sex may very well rewrite the template by which our species operates.

The possibilities are both extraordinary and kinky. It may very well serve as the basis for one of my novels in the future. Most people alive today will still see the idea of a sex robot having children as a strange, if not obscene idea. Even our kids may feel that way, albeit to a lesser extent.

Then again, the same could be said for previous advances in reproductive technologies, such as in-vitro fertilization. Just this past year, the first child ever born through a transplanted uterus was born. The way humans reproduce is already changing and it’s going to keep changing.

Like everything else in our lives, we humans are going to find ways to make amazing tools to help us survive. It’s only a matter of time before we use those same tools to help us make better, healthier, sexier babies. Sex robots, whatever form they take, will likely be part of that process.

Leave a comment

Filed under gender issues, sex robots