Now lets explain that to religious zealots when it comes to why gay men fuck so much and do such stupid shit. Why their STDS rates are up the wazoo.

I see straight men who hate gay men just not understanding their own sexuality.

Guys, New Rule: No hot chicks in outer space.

Men are busy tuning phaser banks, or loading tricorders into the photon torpedoes or whatever. Important stuff. Women are just a distraction.

Listen, if you were floating in a tin can… far above the world, trapped up there and unable to go out and chase new girls and charm them, or phone old ones and beg forgiveness, wouldn't this be the most erotic thing you'd ever seen?

'Planet Earth is blue, and there's nothing we can do,' Sweetheart... So what say you 'n me swing by the nutrition module for a sip of Tang,™ and then maybe duck into my bunk for some calibrations...?

Seriously-- Don't blame feminism, especially the kind that's been making noise for the last thirty years. Nobody looks to those people for instruction in the crafting of their own souls... And any who do pay attention are as likely to have already had their expectations corrupted by Disney or Cosmopolitan magazine.

Blame the excellence of Western culture, which has allowed hundreds of millions of women to learn to read, to work, and to make meaningful choices about the path of their lives with minimal distraction to the hazards of untamed masculine stupidity. In the one-quarter to one-third of the planet where women aren't free to piss away their years in bitter (if naive) chatter "demonizing" manly nature, you'd find much less to admire... Certainly in your own life.

This is kind of like the boorish presumptions of the Europeans (and others [Hi Canada!]) in world affairs. We kind of wanted them to have nothing to do besides whine about the faults in American supremacy.

Well, I dunno if "pigs" is the accurate animal, maybe bonobos. It does seem to me that our genetic wiring should not be something we're constantly insulted for. And we ought to get some credit that we daily prevail over thousands of years of genetic hard-wiring.

The explanation provided in the original post is overly exaggerated.

fMRI studies of men and women have conclusively demonstrated that both sexes are physically aroused by visual stimuli.

The difference is simply that men on average are more aroused by visual stimuli than women are.

To say that women "aren't turned on by mere parts" while men want to have sex with moles is a gross over exaggeration (in both directions) of what the research suggests.

If women "weren't turned on by mere parts" they would have had zero brain activity response in the regions associated with sexual arousal during fMRI studies when subjected to visual stimulation (i.e. pornographic scenes and videos). That isn't what has been observed.

Men and women do have differences, but in many cases it is differences in degree rather than differences in character.

Part of the reason male sexuality has been demonized at all is due to the misguided belief that the way men and women experience sexual attraction is completely and utterly distinct from one another. There are certainly differences that must be recognized, but there is also statistical overlap that must be taken into account. We would be much better off if we recognized that the world is much more nuanced than exaggerations would indicate and instead we live in a world of overlapping distributions with women tending to be more one way and men tending to be more another way, but neither is so utterly and completely different that men want to dry hump mannequins while women are completely and utterly immune to physical attraction at all(i.e. "mere parts").

These types of exaggerations are actually part of the problem. We can correct this by talking about it as matters of degree instead of acting like men and women are subjected to completely different forces of attraction.

In a word, yes.

Being attracted to beautiful women is BAD. That's been made utterly clear to me.

Have to disagree with Crid on this one... Postmodern feminism's influence in Western civilization has been subtle but deep. Last week a female Facebook friend (whom I thought had more sense) posted a link to some far-right article that claims whenever a married man looks at porn, it constitutes adultery. It instructs women that catching their husband looking at porn (and their definition of "porn" stretches to attractive women wearing anything less than a mu-mu) constitutes grounds for divorce and shunning. It says absolutely nothing about romance novels, the Lifetime Movie Channel, or work-husbands.

The point is, my friend felt comfortable posting this because the culture has taught her, and all of her friends, that male sexuality is inherently bad and needs to be contained to the maximum extent possible. She doesn't worry that anyone will disagree with her or take issue with her post, and she's not prepared to defend her stance. It has been given to her as received wisdom, of which questioning it would be a faux pas. Therefore, it need not be actually thought about. That's how far this tenant of postmodern feminism has embedded itself in our culture.

I would comment, but I've been reliably informed that any attempt to explain or defend male sexuality would make me a "rape culture apologist."

"Men are pigs" is generally a statement of personal bitterness.

Some people, though, are very crass. So I'd guess it isn't so much the wanting of variety, but the actual chasing of variety while committed to someone else.

So, Sam Malone, for example, can be an admirable character while Diane's cheating professor is a jerk.

Look at Don Draper. Outwardly wants to project being a committed family man, but peel back the facade and he's even put off by his own reputation.

I dunno. I guess some distinction needs to be made for thoughts, words, and deeds.

The problem arises when some men translate "this is what I prefer sexually" to "I will express every thought, feeling and sexual impulse I have, when I have it."

Civilization works only when we rein in our biological impulses. Thinking a woman has great tits is fine. Even telling her she's attractive is fine. Leering at her breasts is not OK and will get you labeled a pig. Continuing to comment on her appearance when she is giving you no sign the attraction is mutual will do the same.

to care about whether a guy seemed like he'd pick her some flowers the next day and all the days after that, and bring home some meat to feed the kiddies

And then there are the women who go after men who will never bring home the meat, and will probably just beat them. My brother is like this, and he has a line of women ready to keep his bed warm. Socioeconomic status seems to play a role. My brother attracts trash, not educated women with options.

@Brad: I dunno. I guess some distinction needs to be made for thoughts, words, and deeds.

Oh, so many places one could take this discussion. But Brad's hit on the quasi-religious aspect of it. In the Lutheran liturgy (and probably many others), the ceremony for confession and forgiveness at one point included the following (paraphrased): "We have sinned against you in thought, word, and deed, by what we have done and what we have left undone." This would be followed by a reminder that we could be forgiven in spite of our shortcomings.

The idea that "all men are pigs" seems like the first part without the second, further reinforced with a bit of self-righteousness. If you believe that all men are pigs, then one's own shortcomings aren't so bad in comparison. Asserting that other people are beyond redemption because you don't like them isn't a particularly feminist position, unless one's feminism is couched in "us versus them" terms, which would put one in company with religious hypocrites the world over.

"Women are turned on by video of men, women and bonobos having sex,..."

Whoa! Well...no. I have to draw the line somewhere. Welll..

I do think male sexuality is demonized. I often find myself telling girlfriends not to frame their boyfriends/husbands/ect in what THEY would do bc the male brain is different. Not better not worse just different. It brings to mind the old saying "there is more than one way to skin a cat" We can arrive at the same place attraction/sex but through different means and I Think that's ok however many people (mainly women in my experience) get bogged down wanting things to be the same so they are equal. I think its silly to make round pegs fit square holes I have better use for my time.

Us men can no more stop being aroused by pretty women than someone can stop enjoying the flavor of foods they like. It's an involuntary reaction.

Being married doesn't change that any more than going in a diet makes food less appealing.

It's just a shaming tactic. For example, I've found pictures of Amy attractive and i like her figure. That doesnt mean she's an object I have no respect for or that my wife is deficient. You either find someone attractive or you don't. It's the actions one must control.

It's like telling women not to find soap opera or twilight guys appealing. They can choose to not have unrealistic expectations of their husband, but being drawn to a certain personality is largely involuntary.

Whoa! Well...no. I have to draw the line somewhere. Welll..

I don't think Miss Alkon meant "at once."

Did she?

wow Crid, you almost sound optimistic...

seems like it would be easier to put up with something if you can find something to admire about them... but this is why the demonization is so pernicious.

The POV of men and women is different, and that is why the "male gaze" is given such a nasty connotation, but it is a continuum.

JUST BECAUSE, a guy likes to see a nice rack, doesn't mean there is an action to follow. But somehow that is ignored in favor of the idea that he shouldn't be looking... and then it isn't TOO MUCH'A stretch that he doesn't clean the dishes right, and he NEVER FOLDS THE SHEETS RIGHT, and why does he go hunting when he can just go too the grocery store?!?!

What is REALLY important, is the outsize effect that outliers have on our perception.

A guy cheats > "I wonder if MY guy will cheat?"
A woman nags her spouse > "All women are b*tches..." and we get a whole does of what we know, ain't so.

It IS worse when you end up with one of the outliers, and once you are older, you may just decide that it's not worth the compromise, but I dun think it's solely the sexuality, rather it's the "otherness", the former is just easier to disapprove of.

> culture has taught her, and all of her friends,
> that male sexuality is inherently bad and needs
> to be contained to the maximum extent possible.

Dood, this is, like, meta-wrong. It's wrong in a feminine (not feminist) way. It's wrong for the same reasons Amy's so simplistically wrong about Islam.

Everything that's wrong with these populations --both with militant Islamic 14-year-old boys in undeveloped nations who will never grow up , or sexually skittish (not just erotically skittish) 18-year-old girls in women's studies programs-- is that their primitive settings have nourished the resentments, cowardice and narcissism that would have been in their hearts anyway, just by being young human beings. These faults are inherent in us all. Good parents & better culture will spank them out of us.

These evils don't need to be "taught." The idiotic song from Broadway is just the usual liberal showbiz bullshit. (You'll notice that showbiz, seeking to maximize ticket sales, will often target the soft spots of the undersocialized, noting that everyone has the same ones. See also: Pornography.)

(So to speak.)

And it's feminine for you to sign on to their parameters of argument, mirroring their presumption that the only reason men behave that way is because culture teaches them to. No, little lady-- Men aren't like women, and women raised to be observant and courageous aren't afraid to recognize this, say so, and deal with it.

Similarly, it's foolish for Amy to assume that the most violent and oppressive expression of Islam --the one favored by 14-year-old virgin boys and no one else-- is somehow the most authentic. She too is retreating to the comfortingly familiar terrors of naiveté.

Damn, that was a good one. Right?

Totes!

OK, have a great lunch, people.

-I don't think Miss Alkon meant "at once."-

What if the bonobos identify as consenting adult male-or-female-bodied people? (Oh,George Carlin, you died too soon.)

"Similarly, it's foolish for Amy to assume that the most violent and oppressive expression of Islam --the one favored by 14-year-old virgin boys and no one else-- is somehow the most authentic."

I do not have the same understanding of Amy's writings. Could it be that I am integrating into what she writes what I already believe and therefore, come to a different conclusion than you do? Or, am I just ignorant of the fact that Amy clearly wrote such a thing and I missed it?

The earlier verses -- the ones that command the death or conversion of the infidel -- abrogate the earlier nicey-peacey ones.

You mean the later verses command the death or conversiuon of the infidel.

The Doctrine of the Abrogator and the Abrogated (al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh) states that when a conflict in the Koran arises, what was written earlier in the Mecca period is abrogated by the later Medina verses. The Mecca period is about establishing in writing that Islam is the one true religion, while the Medina period is about imposing that religion on everyone by force, since people weren't cooperating.

The most important Koranic passage is the Verse of the Sword, Sura 9:5.

"When the sacred months are over, kill the infidels wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful."

Islam divides the world into two houses: Dar al-Islam (the House of Submission) and Da al-Harb (the House of War). The House of War includes all people who haven't yet submitted to Islam.

The Verse of the Sword commands Muslims to wage war on unbelievers until we convert, become dhimmis, or die.

> Crid does not understand Islam.


It's great when pop psychology majors pretend to be grad students in Religious Studies.

So I just "do not understand." But because of that article you read in the Aspen Pennysaver that one time, you know all about this stuff.

And the 1,609,383,341 Muslim believers scattered across this big blue marble who aren't practicing violence and oppression, and aren't even interested in doing so? Well...?

…Well, doggonnit, those 1.6 BILLION Muslims just "do not understand Islam" either! The non-observant Jewish girl from Detroit knows EXACTLY how these people should be practicing their faith! She won't make time for slackers! All the Christians are Jerry Falwell, running naked down Main Street USA with a crackling bullwhip, and all the Muslims are roaring across the planet waving scythes and sabers!

Yeah.

Right.

You know what everyone else's interior life is supposed to mean.

You call to mind the joke from Louis CK: "Quit being a fa**it and suck that dick!"

http://tinyurl.com/mmubz2b

I mean, you sure do know who you wanna be afraid of....

"Demonizing!"

Aiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...........

Something I try to explain to my girl (usually when asked why I still masturbate on days when we've had sex), is that she would understand if she had 20 to 40 times more testosterone running through her veins.

Episode 220 of This American Life, on testosterone, has a segment with an interview of a fellow that had male to female sex reassignment surgery. I think his words, about what testosterone did to the way he looked at women, should be something that every woman listens to. Here is that segment. I highly recommend it: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/220/testosterone

For me, I don't need women to be perfectly Ok with what we are. I'd just like for them to make at least some effort to understand it, and to not treat us like monsters for it. After all, it is these differences that have allowed us to thrive as we have...

Thanks for starting this conversation, Amy!

And the 1,609,383,341 Muslim believers scattered across this big blue marble who aren't practicing violence and oppression, and aren't even interested in doing so?

A few days ago, I had to cut off a Muslim acquaintance I'd known for a several months. He's a Pakistani, an IT expert. Educated, a father of two, funny, interesting, and very nice.

Suddenly he began talking religion. I'm not religious. Every conversation became about what God wants us to do.

"Are you a Sunni or a Shi'ite?" I asked.

"There's no such thing as Shi'ite Islam," he said. "It's a conspiracy invented by the Jews. The good are always attacked by the evil. The Muslims are kept down by the Jewish conspiracy all over the world."

Name on branch of Christianity that denies the existence of another branch of Christianity.

My former acquaintance is clearly a Salafist and likely a Wahabbist. Who knows what sort of contributions he makes to various causes? Taking up arms isn't the only way of supporting terrorism.

99.9% of rapists are men. And when you consider that one third of women have been sexually violated, it's no wonder there is a feeling by many women that "men are pigs".

Been studying Islam pretty intensively since 2001. Can quote the Quran. You?

He's a surface skater, reacting purely with emotion. What you wrote about the Doctrine of the Abrogator and the Abrogated is factually correct and a basic tenet of Islam.

He'd never heard of it because he doesn't actually know anything about Islam. Not knowing about the Doctrine of the Abrogator and the Abrogated is like not knowing that Christians believe in forgiveness.

His ad hominem attacks, sneering, sarcasm, and superficial generalizations show that he's on the defensive. He's embarrassed by his own ignorance.

99.9% of rapists are not men, Amazon Drone. 60% are. And of those who rape men, half are women.

99.9% of rapists are men. And when you consider that one third of women have been sexually violated, it's no wonder there is a feeling by many women that "men are pigs".

Well, according to the most exhaustive study done on sexual assault, one in five women report either having been victims or almost been victims.

http://tinyurl.com/czw4xkp

Along with including almost-victims, the survey also included "sexual violence other than rape, psychological aggression, coercion and control of reproductive and sexual health."

Given that those are wildly broad categories, it's clear that one-third of women have NOT been sexually violated.

Sexual assault is a real problem. Let's not tart it up and make it seem even more prevalent in order to satisfy some private need.

First of all, what happened to your pronouns?

> Been studying Islam pretty intensively since 2001.

Are your studies, in your most compellingly pompous wording, "rigorous"? I mean, do you have a degree?

Because if you did, youd've had to have studied people, too, which is something you've always avoided. For many years, just the Christians... But now you can't be bothered to look a community of living Muslims in the eye --or even in the statistics-- either.

For Fuck's sake, Islam is the religion of illiteracy... Do you think the least-modernized personalities on Earth are fussing over paperwork? Are you that white?

> Can quote the Quran.

We all love parlor tricks! I can play the opening themes of Stairway to Heaven on a guitar. This gets me laid at parties.*


Be as terrified as you want, OK? Your own mood is your own business. But don't pretend to have special insight to what's really going on out there... From Venice.

 

 

* No.

> He's embarrassed by his own ignorance.

That's not true, you simpering, trisomy little fuckwad.

We cannot un-say something. I wish "Crid does not understand Islam" had not been said.

Perhaps then Crid could, would, give us his mind dazzling response he is so capable. I have never disagreed with what Amy has said about Islam. I have learned a lot from her about Islam. It is somewhat disheartening to know that another knowledgeable person disagrees with her but never lays out something that I can fully understand (although, it could be possible that I am just not endowed with the ability).

"That's not true, you simpering, trisomy little fuckwad."

I hope Thomas is not offended. I do not know if he knows the style of our Crid. Anyway, Thomas is a good read so I like to keep him around.

That's not true, you simpering, trisomy little fuckwad.

I love it when people accuse others of misusing words and then smash a custard pie into their own faces, so to speak.

"Trisomy" is a noun. What you meant to write is, "That's not true, you simpering, trisomic little fuckwad."

I don't know what a fuckwad is, but you still had never heard of the Doctrine of the Abrogator and the Abrogated, while I had.

My extra copies of chromosomes apparently make me more informed than you.

> never lays out something that I can fully
> understand

No. Re-read. I said it in the fewest, clearest, shortest words available.

> tell me where I've supposedly gone wrong

I've done nothing less for the past nine/tennish years. You can't read the words on your own servers because you don't want to.

> you still had never heard of the Doctrine of
> the Abrogator

Kiss a girl, you silly priss.

Kiss a girl, you silly priss.

Will that make you stop misusing words and make you less ignorant?

If everyone who reads this blog kisses a girl at the same time, will you suddenly become intelligent?

I'm willing to give it a try. Maybe Amy can arrange a time for everyone to kiss a girl so that Crud can be brought up to the level of the other readers.

Think of it as a telethon of sorts.

OK. I'll think of it as a telethon. We'll all thing of it as a telethon... of sorts.

Power insight. Writing it down.

The thing that I noticing is where in the hell does Amy's understanding of the Muslim religion have anything to do with the title of this blog post? The title is "Do You Think Women Demonize Male Sexuality?. She did not mention Islam in the original post. It did not come up until Crid took it off-topic.

So Crid's a Feminist? The lack of logic, the constant put downs to opposition instead of logical debate... all makes sense now.

Power insight. Writing it down.

Wow. Totally out of gas already.

You're not much of an opponent, Crud. I guess I was supposed to be intimidated by you projecting all your own psycho-sexual issues onto me, but it didn't work out that way, did it?

Oh well.

> She did not mention Islam in the original post.

Ah, a topic-monger! We love you guys, because you make sure that every exchange is simple and digestible and untroubled by challenging nuance or metaphor. So keep up the good work! M'kay? Because you know what everyone is supposed to say next, and that's a compelling superpower, and we need you to use that superpower on our behalf. Here, in this forum. Because if anybody says anything new or unexpected... [etc.]

> Totally out of gas

Well, don't pretend you were interested in an exchange... That's never the point for this topic.


This weirdness has been going on for years. Amy says 'I have special knowledge about Islam!' and then posts these dry & odorless muffin-crumbs from terribly learned and authoritative sources… But they're tepid and academically non-prescriptive. So we read them and are left to conclude…

…Nothing. If we try to talk about them, and their implications, she calls a halt. Amy says 'I have special knowledge about Islam, and it's totally unprecedented!'


Well, Okay, Amy…

So we ask if geography might be a factor for consideration. Would it matter, say, that Bouazizi's self-immolation, triggering the Arab Spring, happened in a less-integrated part of Tunisia, 80 miles south of a line in the otherwise-featureless desert drawn by a Roman general twenty centuries ago to demark the…

No! Amy says 'I have special knowledge about Islam, and it's totally unprecedented!'


Well, Okay, Amy…

So we wonder if comparative religion might guide our thinking in some respects. After all, throughout history, every religious text has been regarded as unimprovably interpreted right up to the moment when adherents decided that it wasn't… From the Old Testament to the New and straight on through to the shabby paperbacks of L Ron Hubbard, which Scientologists revere as the unalterable word of…

No! Amy says 'I have special knowledge about Islam, and it's totally unprecedented!'


Well, Okay, Amy…

So we ponder the implications of globalization, and the advance of modernity in the most general sense. As trade and commerce march through ever-more territories, improving lives and broadly distributing new wealth, their pitiless disciplines (literacy, feminism) stretch the social fabric of every clan they touch; and ancient cultures have always reached to religion as a handhold in the tornadic disruptions of economic…

No! Amy says 'I have special knowledge about Islam, and it's totally unprecedented!'


Well, Okay, Amy…

So we reflect on possible responses to the threat, in both individual and policy contexts. Our preparations for these events might include expectations of…

No! Amy says 'I have special knowledge about Islam, and it's totally unprecedented!'

Well, Okay.

[Click.] I get it.

This isn't about Islam. It isn't even about other people. It's about Amy, and maybe her new friend, while all others are ignorant.

Understood. Gotcha. Comprende-mundo, Captain Knowledge! Carry on, you Seer of the Future, you!

It's not at all correct to say that women, across the board, don't see strangers and want to have sex with them. That isn't helping.

In my experience, and I think that this is pretty much conventional wisdom, is that a bunch of aggressive, entitled guys have poisoned the well for some people by harrassing women on the street or at work (and it's really the biggest turnoff ever when a man either doesn't or pretends he doesn't know the difference between this really egregious depressing stuff, or WTF creepiness, and regular old public mating calls; I feel like if their daughters or sisters were describing the problem behavior, these particular guys would get it; also, there seems to be a much higher percentage of them on message boards than in the general population), and generally doing reductive things that make it clear that they don't think women are people. It's the most depressing goddamn bullshit, and unfortunately the only people guys like that will listen to on this topic are other men.

I mean, if you have a friend or two who regularly says hugely sexist things and seems to mean it, could you think about making it clear to him that this is actually serious business, and as unacceptable as being a giant racist?

I'm not sure how it's possible to have a conversation about this and act like there's not this weird and stressful background of harassment, objectification not just as a sexual thing but as a normal part of Life in These United States, and a whole lot of rape. Not stranger-in-the-alley rape, but rape by dates and people you know. And it's not a normal, unfixable state of being (any more than Jim Crow was, surely?). Consider where we came from: a hundred years ago, women didn't have the vote. They couldn't get their own credit cards until 1970.

But yes, take some of the fucking stress out of the culture, some of the background knowledge that if you wear certain clothes or walk around late at night by yourself people will blame you if you get raped -- not necessarily something all women believe by any means, but something that men, not being subject to being attracted exclusively to a gender than consists of 6'9" linebackers, a few random members of whom think that men aren't really human -- the situation will calm down considerably.

If you want your wife/girlfriend to enjoy hearing about all the different women you were interested in having sex with, that's another article, or possibly a specific website.

Anyway, I think the long-term solution to this isn't talking to full-grown dudes, but making a practice of giving little kids really good books and movies about girls as well as boys, no matter the gender of the kid. This deal where girls are OK with reading about any gender but boys only read about boys is just about the most unhelpful thing I can think of.

Boom! Nice comment.

Name on branch of Christianity that denies the existence of another branch of Christianity.

I'm Catholic. (Well, I was when I was younger.) We moved to Midland, TX when I was 16 and my new friends were members of First Baptist Church. It was a fascinating experience. "I believe Catholics can be Christians, but..." was one conversation. I was bemused. (The "but" was whether I believed one could be saved by faith alone, which is so alien to how Christianity is presented in the Catholic church that my only answer was "um, sure".)

And Crid has been perfectly clear on his position on Islam. Amy is wonderful but can be amusingly absolutist in her positions, whether it be the danger of Islam or the necessity for all women (ALL women) to wear eye cream.

For me, I don't need women to be perfectly Ok with what we are. I'd just like for them to make at least some effort to understand it, and to not treat us like monsters for it.

Society has traditionally done a great deal to shelter their precious angels from the realities of male sexuality. It may be feminism now that takes the role of demonizing men's sexual drives, but Christianity and traditional families aren't far behind. I (vaguely) remember being an 18 year old girl and I had no clue about the strength and nature of a man's sex drive. I'm sure it made me come across as a tease to several guys.

"their primitive settings have nourished the resentments, cowardice and narcissism that would have been in their hearts anyway, just by being young human beings. These faults are inherent in us all. Good parents & better culture will spank them out of us."

Actually I get this. You are correct in that we are all (well, nearly all of us) are born as narcissists, and we have to learn to be civilized. That said, some of the learning comes from ordinary life, as long as one is not sheltered from it. For most people, these childish resentments will die away as they go about the business of earning a living, making friends, establishing a place for themselves, and just generally living an adult life.

"Primitive" is a good word to describe what is happening... I've been looking for an opening to write about it here. Postmodern feminism has given women encouragement to express their sexuality in a very primimtive way: look for a healthy and high-status male to reproduce with while seeking a steady and dependable male for support. As in the case of males, there were aspects of sexuality that were necessary for survival back in the caveman days, but were poorly suited to living in civilization. That's why we have sexual mores.

But influenced by PM feminism, women are reverting to primitive sexual behaviors, even while demanding that man conform to an ever-more-strict civil standard. They resolve this dilemma by priviliging certain highly desirable males to behave in the way that primitive female sexuality wants them to, the canonical example being Bill Clinton. These man can do absolutely anything they want with women, and women will applaud them for it, while a Joe Schmoe that tries the same thing will wind up ostracized or in jail.

"These evils don't need to be 'taught.'"

You're right; "taught" is not the right word. "Nourished" is closer to describing it.

Crid, what you should do is find some passage or blog item or bit I've written about Islam and tell me where I've supposedly gone wrong rather than taunting me that I am wrong.

Crid never provides an argument supporting his disagreement with a stance, that he disagrees is good enough, how dare you ask him to use reason and facts to debate the issue

Ah, a topic-monger!

Funny thing about this is, you are a topic-monger when it suits your purposes. Is there no limit to your hypocrisy crid?

Amy says 'I have special knowledge about Islam, and it's totally unprecedented!'

Actually Amy says she read the book and you can to. So why havent you? Oh thats right, once someone/thing is wrong to you facts become secondary to you opinion.

geography

If were a factor then there would be at least one country with a large portion of muslims that didnt commit acts of violence against non muslims, there isnt.

globalization

If globalization were a factor then why were muslims using their religion as an excuse to attack us 200 yrs ago? Why were they using it as an excuse to attack Europe 1000yrs ago on thru today?

In my experience,

Not a sufficently large data set

and I think that this is pretty much conventional wisdom,

Its not

is that a bunch of aggressive, entitled guys have poisoned the well for some people by harrassing women on the street or at work

Fair point

(and it's really the biggest turnoff ever when a man either doesn't or pretends he doesn't know the difference between this really egregious depressing stuff, or WTF creepiness, and regular old public mating calls; I feel like if their daughters or sisters were describing the problem behavior, these particular guys would get it; also, there seems to be a much higher percentage of them on message boards than in the general population)

Is it? Is it really? Cause I find it, more often then not, that women tend to cite an example that could be a harmless misunderstanding, and even if not is not that big of a deal. And then when a guy says something to that effect you jump on it and call him a rape apologist and then start spouting false statistics and mentioning real problems that were never mentioned in the initial exchange and claim his original response was directed not at your original question, but on the carp you brought out after you suckered him in with the small stuff

> Women, in general -- most women -- do not
> want to have sex with strangers.

True enough. It's why heterosexual Aids never happened in meaningful numbers.


> Crid has been perfectly clear

Damn. You married?

(Also, are you a woman?)

> Amy is wonderful but can be amusingly
> absolutist

Absolutist… Or oblivious… Or (less-amusingly) avoidant....

> the necessity for all women (ALL women)
> to wear eye cream.

What's eye cream? Does it gunk your ducts?

> Society has traditionally done a great deal to
> shelter their precious angels from the
> realities of male sexuality

And of their own.

I mean, in the case of Christianity, disregard of masculinity is like many of the church's teachings in that it's so obviously heedless of observed phenomena that the even youngest children will begin to smell a rat... And for older children, this shelter will nourish (almost charmingly) the allure of the forbidden.

Meanwhile nobody will deny the thundering, poignant beauty of girls and young women. So you've got all this noisy but never-mentioned machinery grinding away in one direction, the direction of distrust toward masculinity...

After which, (merely naive) expectations of symmetry will instruct our young hero (or young heroine) to listen for corresponding fables about the hazards of feminine nature.

But he or she will hear nothing but the wind in the trees.

Most women will be stunned, absolutely struck dumb, if you ask them to describe the hazards to their decency which challenge them because they are women. It's not that they won't have a list ready... They won't believe there's any such thing.

Whereas if you ask men how masculinity puts them at risk for being evil, they're know exactly what you're talking about. Everyone will know exactly what you're talking about.

This isn't meant to complain too much. These patterns represent ten thousand years of social progress, and have brought lives of comfort and safety and opportunity to two thirds of the people on the planet.

But humility has yet to come to half the human race. We're just getting started.

> Postmodern feminism has given women
> encouragement to express their sexuality in a
> very primimtive way: look for a healthy and
> high-status male to reproduce with while seeking
> a steady and dependable male for support.

Who & what women regard as "high-status" has always been confounding to me... Vive la différence and all that. Knowutimean, Jellybean? Women aren't like normal people.

But I very, VERY badly want women to "seek and reproduce" with a "healthy, steady and dependable male for support."

A globe of women who did that would be indistinguishable from Paradise.

Meanwhile, on this planet....

No! Amy says 'I have special knowledge about Islam, and it's totally unprecedented!'

Either you and I are reading different posts, or you're using the fifteen-year-old's fallacious debating technique of begging the question.

I have my suspicions which it is.

Most women will be stunned, absolutely struck dumb, if you ask them to describe the hazards to their decency which challenge them because they are women.

Easily the most gooberish, nonsensical statement I've ever read. What kind of person stereotypes an entire gender? My guess is you don't have much experience with the ladies. You seem pretty angry at them.

And "thundering, poignant beauty"? Christ. Get a new writer.

I need my own new writer.

I meant the fifteen-year-old's debate technique of creating straw men.

My mind was so battered by trying to wade through Crud's self-loving logorrhea that I suffered a TIA and momentarily blacked out as I wrote.

> Feel free to let me know what, specifically,
> I've supposedly gotten wrong about Islam.

READ YOUR OWN BLOG, AND READ MY COMMENTS THEREIN.

You cannot.

"Amusingly absolutist," says Astra. Maybe its comedic... You've always claimed to be ADD, so for years I thought that must be part of it.work

Feel free to let me know what, specifically, I've supposedly gotten wrong about Islam.

Never happen. Not in a million years.

Crud doesn't know enough about Islam to tell you what you've gotten wrong.

It was complaining about "avoidance" up there, but it consistently refuses to tell you what you've gotten wrong about Islam.

That post it wrote at 11:10 PM? Read it again. It's the longest self-administered tongue bath in history. It's got nothing to do with you.

None of its objections have anything to do with reality. It just wants to display it's thundering, poignant intellect.

Feel free to let me know what, specifically, I've supposedly gotten wrong about Islam.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 3, 2013 9:06 AM

Ok. Here is what I think you have gotten wrong about Islam. A fundamental assumption of cause and effect.

You want to pin all evil in the middle east and a poisonous cultural value system, on the influence of a religion, Islam, Rather than recognizing that Islam itself, as it is practiced in the middle east, is nothing more than a mirror of Arab culture, where it originated (and other cultures that practice it) and a perfect reflection at that.

Islam reflects Arab values, not the other way around.

I would be reluctant to call myself educated about Islam, unless I was first fluent in at least Arabic and Farsi, and had lived for an extensive period in two or three of the countries in question. Even then, my understanding would be imperfect at best.

No, Isab, you don't understand, there are no other factors, Amy read a thing, Islam isn't like other religions, this is unprecedented, it's not right to talk about other factors, you mustn't speculate or predict anything in any context, these cultures have no other aspects, you don't know about Islam, etc.

(Just speeding things along.)

Islam reflects Arab values, not the other way around.

This is a valid argument, up to a certain point. Islam reflects Arab values as they were in the bronze age, claims it as the final word of god, and encourages it followers to murder any who dare disagree thereby preventing Arab values from progressing like the rest of the world has

"And Crid has been perfectly clear on his position on Islam."

Oh now, that is just not so. If he was perfectly clear on his position of Islam we wouldn't be questioning him on why he has such a long historical disagreement with Amy. And, if in fact Crid has been perfectly clear, to you, please state his position.

My best guess is that he would prefer that Amy expand her comments on Islam to include other issues. Because she knows something about Islam is just not enough. He appears to want her to expand her knowledge to all things Arab (Isab).

"I would be reluctant to call myself educated about Islam, unless I was first fluent in at least Arabic and Farsi, and had lived for an extensive period in two or three of the countries in question. Even then, my understanding would be imperfect at best."

Wow. Using this description of being educated would seem to leave the world uneducated.

"(Just speeding things along.)"

Methinks you are just stirring the pot. Not that that is a bad thing.

Luj hit some strong points (my opinion). I would have thought someone would have learned something from them. Sigh.

"Amy is wonderful but can be amusingly absolutist in her positions, whether it be the danger of Islam or the necessity for all women (ALL women) to wear eye cream."

Oh Jebus. Women.

Look, as a guy, when Amy says Michelle O is attractive, I just roll my eyes. When I see her walking, Michelle, not Amy, I see a wookie. But that's just me. I do not attack her ability to see attractiveness. You see absolutist, I see opinions - not the same.

> Oh now, that is just not so.

You're a consistently condescending guy, remarkable for someone with comprehension, um, blind spots.

And Michelle may be reprehensible in several ethical contexts, but that happens to stone foxes, too.

One cannot be "perfectly" clear and misunderstood at the same time. Part of my Jesuit training. Since I am not perfect, I could be wrong, but that doesn't stop me from having opinions.

"You're a consistently condescending guy"

I think you are exaggerating now. I don't think I do anything consistently. Just ask my ex.

I would never call a stone fox a wookie.

"Amy is wonderful but can be amusingly absolutist in her positions, whether it be the danger of Islam or the necessity for all women (ALL women) to wear eye cream."

Oh Jebus. Women.

Look, as a guy, when Amy says Michelle O is attractive, I just roll my eyes. When I see her walking, Michelle, not Amy, I see a wookie. But that's just me. I do not attack her ability to see attractiveness. You see absolutist, I see opinions - not the same.

You seem to be misreading my statement, though I will refrain from generalizing to all men based on that. I enjoy Amy's opinions, love opinionated people (I'm a scientist--we live on professional conflict), and am not attacking her for making judgements. I was simply pointing out that her opinions often leave little room for nuance or differing experiences amongst people.

As for Crid's argument, the short version is that while Amy is accurately quoting the Quran concerning war on infidels, the stated creed of a religion is often at variance with the lived faith of its adherents and to point to its more extreme members as proof of the creed being ubiquitous is misleading.

By the way, I agree with Crid to a point, but not all the way. Islam as a religion is a mess and one that will drive many of its members to conflict with many of the western values I most value. My roommate my freshman year of college (1989) was Muslim. She was a great: kind, intelligent, sincerely religious, and personable. And she supported the fatwa against Salman Rushdie for blasphemy.

For the record the greatest number of Muslims are found in the Asia Pacific... Where their observance is subject to playful innovation. (Sorry, Amy! We're sure they're all just sick about disappointing you!)

As Isab suggests, only a fifth or so are Arabs. In the centuries when it floated across the Indian Ocean to distant (and continuing) outposts, it developed the diversity you'd expect, entrepreneurial and otherwise. See this guy.

> the stated creed of a religion is often at
> variance with the lived faith of its adherents

Yes. Say that again. No, wait, I got it:

> the stated creed of a religion is often at
> variance with the lived faith of its adherents

OK. We saw that with, like, Christianity, too, right? Yes... Yes did.

(This is the point where we hear "No!" Amy says 'I have special knowledge about Islam, and it's totally unprecedented!')

> And she supported the fatwa against Salman
> Rushdie for blasphemy.

So did Pope John Paul II, the Cardinal Archbishop of New York City and the top Rabbi in Israel. And probably your local grade school principal.

Well, not really, but they all said the problem was blasphemy, not fatwa.

"(This is the point where we hear "No!" Amy says 'I have special knowledge about Islam, and it's totally unprecedented!')"

Uh, no, not really. You hear it Crid, not we.

"So did Pope John Paul II, the Cardinal Archbishop of New York City and the top Rabbi in Israel. And probably your local grade school principal.

Well, not really, but they all said the problem was blasphemy, not fatwa."

Did you hear that? I sure didn't. I remember just about everybody condemning the fatwa, except dear Keith of MN.

I would argue that I am turned on by looking at nude males. Sometimes I think their mouths get in the way of attraction and I wish they would stop yammering on and on. I would also argue that I have had sex with a stranger, not many but that is more about a scale of worthiness of my time and energy than lack of horniness. But definitely with no strings attached on my end, just to get it out of my system.

I mean if men are having sex with strangers? Arent the women they are having sex with, having sex with a stranger too?

I think two things aren't addressed here. 1) There are a lot of married or in relationships women with the higher sex drives than their male partner. Men are reticent to do anything about it because of appearing unmanly or it is possibly a power struggle issue within the relationship. Sex as the manipulation tool with the table reversed. Women dont want to sound like whore for wanting sex everyday either.

2)I argue men need to nut up and admit what they find sexy, not just get into a competition who has what society deems they should like. Example: Schwarzenegger liked his house keeper, he had a very long term relationship and child with her. My guess,that's what he really likes in woman but instead he married who he should have because it looks good on paper. Lets not go into the morality clause here but when people looked at her many commented on how unattractive she was to them. Why her?

Just like Yoko and Linda McCartney. John Lennon and Paul McCartney could have super foxes and they picked these weird, not super foxes and people went crazy. They were still doing it to Linda until she died. I will argue this Paul hasnt made a good album since Flaming Pie the one he made while Linda was in chemo. She told him the truth and had his back, that goes way farther than the prettiest girl at the party.

So men are visual, so are women. We are a rainbow of tastes as to what turns us all on but I did read an article not that long ago that said the most downloaded porn on the internet was overweight women in their 40s. Seriously, whose doing that? the pets? I dont think so. Just own what you like.

Islam reflects Arab values, not the other way around.

That's not true at all.

Prior to the introduction of Islam, Arabs drank alcohol, valued foreign sciences, were world travelers, and worshiped female deities.

Get informed.

Islam reflects Arab values, not the other way around.

That's not true at all.

Prior to the introduction of Islam, Arabs drank alcohol, valued foreign sciences, were world travelers, and worshiped female deities.

Get informed.
Posted by: Thomas Wictor at December 3, 2013 4:39 PM

News for you... They still do. You are confusing the tenants of Islam with the actual practice of it's adherents. (Again)

Islam has been valuable as an organizational tool, to keep the illiterate masses marching in lock step against the Joooos., and to divert their attentions away from their own rulers, who became rich overnight from mineral extraction, without changing their medieval culture at all. In fact, the evolution of Arab society was effectively short stopped by the infusion of huge amounts of unearned money.

The Jihad is just a dog and pony show to focus the disenfranchised on those evil westerners, and western values, rather than on the undeserving "haves" who govern the countries in the middle east.

> News for you... They still do. You are confusing
> the tenants of Islam with the actual practice of
> it's adherents. (Again)

Lookit'er go!

Seems to me the Old Testament is full of passages where the Chosen People slaughter their enemies down to the last infant with the full encouragement of the man upstairs.

> The difference is that

You keep saying that.

As if every other holy book had a few chapters of improv exercises in the middle. (And as if we hadn't heard you hammer the point twice a month for the last five years.)

For all your self-proclaimed learnedness about the religion, that's all you got: No history, no geography, no economics, no demographics, no recognition (whatsoever) of texture in practice, no context. Again, this isn't what Islam means to others, it's what you choose to be intimidated by. The Quran tells you to be scared, and you trust it.

This is not a sophisticated consideration.

(If Allah ever says anything about a waist-to-hip ratio, you'll fall into a loop so tight you'll need and IV for nutrition.)

> I'm still waiting for your vetting on the
> specifics.

Yonder.

But you've essentially conceded:

> Many people do not practice Islam as it is
> commanded to be practiced

Right! Islam's injunctions aren't a comic-book superpower, however odious their wording. They don't portend some mysterious new component of human nature.

How could it be otherwise? Is it a surprise that the most impoverished, least-connected, least-literate people on the planet prefer texts which promise they won't be bothered with more reading later on?

The dimmest people burdened by the most constraining book... We can deal with this.

So you don't have to be afraid of the book, and you don't have to be afraid of the people...

What's on your mind, Big Red?

Besides pretending you know things that others don't, things which you can't seem to share?

"Who & what women regard as "high-status" has always been confounding to me..."

Yeah, I know. It doesn't necessarily mean what us guys think it means, or ought to mean.

> the way Christians have been a majority
> in the USA

The USA, where Christianity was oh-so-recently hospitable to abject slavery?

> There is no debating this.

It's fortunate, then, that no one's debating any such point.

Would you have been as terrified by the Bible in 1790 Baltimore, with so much evidence of horror all around you, threatening to roar in to the future?

Or is it just that you prefer wars which are over to those just underway?

…Golly. who doesn't?

> It doesn't necessarily mean what us guys
> think it means

I should have been more patient with your wording, but that's the irony: When women are living at their best, they're going to be making judgments which men find inexplicable and unnecessarily challenging.

Just for example, COusin, the little witches will rocket into outer space with you and then let their girlish blond hair fly all around the cabin while you're trying to concentrate. On your work.

(Then Rhetorical Symmetry Achievement Certificate 
with Bonus Argument Coherence Points has been
Awarded----> Uncle Cridmo!)

(Committee issues press release 04Dec13: 
One point deducted for spelling errors.)

(Awardee: Nolo contendere.)





(But let's get serious...

Did Obama return his Nobel?)

The USA, where Christianity was oh-so-recently hospitable to abject slavery? -- Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 4, 2013 11:19 AM

Yes slavery happened until after 1860's in the U.S. But before you condemn the U.S., and the Christians please show me what other countries also prohibited slavery before then.

And I would still to know how the whole discussion of slavery and Islam relates to Do You Think Women Demonize Male Sexuality?

> what other countries also prohibited slavery
> before then.

It's my understanding that France never made much space for it, and legally disregarded it's most obnoxious expressions in the years just after our own constitutional convention. Hitchens suggested (deets unknown, it was a book tour appearance at Skirball) that's perhaps why Sally Hemings was eager to travel with Jeff to Paris... By the law of that nation, once her feet touched French soil, she'd always have a homeland as a free woman. (IIRC, they regarded this emancipation as globally applicable; never again would Frog presumption be so charming.) Also, she was apparently ready for some intense fashion-shopping. (Seriously, Hitch said that. I still haven't read the book.)

He, or maybe someone-else-God-Knows-Who, also said that she's buried under this parking lot. Because 'Merica.

Furthermore, a wise man once told me that the United States was only the second nation in the hemisphere to abolish slavery... Never soon enough, but that might still be worth noting in the context of the times.

> how the whole discussion of slavery and Islam
> relates to Do You Think Women Demonize Male
> Sexuality?

See comment at December 2, 2013 11:43 AM, above. (I'm pretty sure that all your confusions about things I say can [and certainly should] be corrected through careful re-reading and thoughtful reflection on your part, Jimpers.) Another commenter ascribed some popular foolishness to a famous set of trendy, media-beloved noisemakers; it was obvious to me that the foolishness is in human nature. Since I was looking at Amy's blog when that happened, her own similar error came to mind as a handsome parallel.

So... We 'bout done here? All of life's a circle, J-man!

"Just for example, COusin, the little witches will rocket into outer space with you and then let their girlish blond hair fly all around the cabin while you're trying to concentrate. On your work."

That happens all the time anyway. Darn luxurious blonde hair in my face while I'm trying to build the perfect DO-WHILE loop. (If it was red hair, that would be different.)