Let's have a calm, polite and substantial discussion about gender and sex

[bedstuy]

I don't really see what your point is.

My advice is not to buy into this hyper-sensitive college-campus version of feminism.  It just exists as a vehicle for people to make themselves into victims so they can blame other people for life being complicated and difficult.  In your personal life, blaming other people is a horrible, pathological life outlook that will only bring you misery.

Just try to be yourself, treat other people well and start dating some girls.

[bedstuy]

I'm the same age as Antonio almost to the day, and have more romantic experience insofar as--and only insofar as--several of my more intense friendships have acquired romantic overtones, usually at the same time as they were falling apart because of irreconcilable differences in personality and values, or in one case because I had wronged the person in question during a period of psychosis in the past and it had become an issue again at the worst possible time almost a year later. (This, at least, I consider more my fault than not.) In none of these situations would I consider what I had in this relationship a 'boyfriend-girlfriend' or even 'girlfriend-girlfriend' situation. All were with women who identified as bisexual or pansexual. The first is...something I still have a hard time getting past, and something that's informed my subsequent relationships of this kind and made me to some extent actively resist this process because of how traumatic it was.

Even though it can be debated whether any of these connections were really romantic at all and even though none of them were in any way sexual I feel guilty, to be honest, about having been through this multiple times, both because people ended up hurt and because I have an unusually strong commitment belief in the idea of lifelong monogamy, both for religious reasons and reasons related to my personal and family background. I've had my attitude towards this described as a form of internalized slut-shaming but I don't think that's accurate, partly because this is a standard that I chose for myself that absolutely nobody has ever subjected me to even in the abstract (and that indeed several of my loved ones have unsuccessfully tried to get me to let go) and partly because 'slut' is one of those words that I object to using or accepting the use of even in a critical context.

(This is on top of my concerns about my gender identity.)

Independently of my own issues, I tend to disapprove on both religious-moralistic and feminist grounds of the way a lot of people--I don't want to say 'most', because who's to define 'most'?--but a lot--approach relationships and love, in particular as it relates to expectations of gender roles. Obviously people aren't all going to have pan-whatever orientations or non-binary gender identities (or 'gender identities' at all, as such; as I said in the Manning thread and afleitch, patrick, and maybe a couple of others seemed to back up, I've encountered the idea that to some extent thinking about gender identity as an explicit and somehow apprehendable thing is only really common about people whose gender identity differs from social norms anyway, and I think this is anecdotally a fairly compelling notion)--I for one have never had any desire for a relationship with a non-feminine (in presentation, in appearance, in demeanor) person so it would be even more than usually hypocritical of me to say that panromantic asexual non-binary identity or whatever is the only morally acceptable kind--but I see a lot of really damaging notions and dynamics that play out in what many people would probably consider relatively basic and inoffensive kinds of romantic and sexual interaction. I don't want to say that this is particularly the case among the youth, and I don't really want to call the youth 'the youth' because it makes me feel more-than-usually like an old fogey before my time, but being a university student I do spend most of my time around people roughly my own age and notice what they get up to more. (As such my views on what Problems In Modern Sexuality ™ are probably suffers from a sampling bias, possibly a severe one.) In particular I have a problem with what we might call the reification of sex. This doesn't refer only to casual sex and might not apply to all casual sex that people have but I think, especially considering the function of consumerism in late capitalism in general (among other things), there's a lot of overlap within the bounds of contemporary young-person sex and romance(treating a sexual experience as a transaction, treating a romantic relationship as a business relationship), and in addition to being (in my view) disrespectful of the entirety of the person on spiritual and feminist levels I think a lot of the types of less-serious or less-sincere relationships that certain folks have serve a profoundly alienating function. Again, this isn't limited to casual sex. I have the same problem with a lot of the dating culture around me even among people who do 'date' as such (a group that includes most of my friends, although many of them are in serious, respectful, seemingly well-lived relationships), although I find it harder to put my finger on what precisely about that bothers me.

Another thing that bothers me is the devaluation of femininity or traditionally feminine traits that one sees around, not because I think that these are traits or roles that I think it's better for women to have than other traits or roles but because I think that they're traits and roles that should be available to anybody who wants them or anybody to whom they are what comes naturally. There's nothing wrong with 'other girls' or being 'like other girls'--or even with the dreaded teenage or preteen girl except in the sense that the sort of culture that's made available to teenage and preteen girls is at this particular moment in this particular society generally terrible for reasons that have nothing to do with what teenage and preteen girls are or aren't capable of maintaining interest in and everything to do with the fact that we live in a culture that presupposes that teenage and preteen girls aren't worth providing with the culture that they could be and that culture involving traditionally feminine interests isn't worth working on hard enough to do well. Constructing femininity in such a way that it revolves around masculinity in some sort of off-balance yin-yang function or around presenting itself in a way that men want is an awful idea for reasons that should be obvious. Traditionally feminine traits aren’t just mirrors or shadows of traditionally masculine traits. They exist conceptually good and well on their own and the idea that they don’t is prima facie a whole load of crap.

It's tempting, to me at least, to advocate a return to some sort of more traditional setup only removing aspects of the variable of gender, but in my thinking about this recently I've discovered that it's actually a lot harder to divorce prescribed gender roles from other aspects of 'traditional relationships' than I would like, and besides, the 'traditional setup' isn't. It's an idealization of the past based on exemplary rather than representative examples and grass-is-greener thinking, and intellectually I know that out-of-hand idealization of the past is just as disrespectful to the actual conditions of history than out-of-hand demonization of it, even if I am more prone to it within the terms of my own psychology. What's needed, or what I would like to see (which isn't necessarily the same thing, obviously), is an ethic that treats past ideals with critical interest and attempts to unite moralistic and feminist/queer understandings. And I don't believe that such an ethic can afford to be generically 'positive' or generically 'negative' about sex, about gender or lack of gender, or about much of anything else that comes to mind right now. I could elaborate on this concept of a solution and how exactly it relates to the specific perceived problems that I’m discussing more later if anybody wishes.

Just to play the devil's advocate:

Is the reason that you're being so oblique and long-winded that if you expressed yourself with some degree of parsimony your argument would be ridiculous to most people, such as it is an argument and not ruminating on your own personal insecurities and quirks?

Is your attitude towards relationships and sex just a defense mechanism or an ex post justification of your own fear of rejection and pain? 

[bedstuy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Probably at least in part, but not entirely. Even if it was entirely that, I don't subscribe to the notion that attitudes derived from fear or pain are at all times inferior to or less well-considered than attitudes derived from satisfaction or happiness. Fear and pain are some of the conditions of my existence. My beliefs cannot but comment upon that existence.

Indeed, I don't see why defense mechanisms are considered an inherently bad thing. Of course, some defense mechanisms taken to extreme levels can degenerate into full-fledged psychoses... but this is no different from more positive psychological mechanisms. And at a low levels, defense mechanisms precisely serve to preserve one's sanity. As I have explained, my insistence on promoting feminism is at least partly a defense mechanism against the patriarchal instincts I see in myself. I can only "forgive" myself if I prove to myself I can be an authentic feminist regardless of them.

Here's why I think defense mechanisms like this are a bad thing:

If you don't have success with the ladies, it's probably a mixture of lack of trying, being unsuccessful in other areas, social awkwardness, being too fat or too skinny or being short or ugly.  So, the solution is to become more successful in your life, get some muscles, get a good job and just have an active social life. 

But, becoming a more attractive, successful grown-up person is scary.  So, instead, as a defense mechanism, you're externalizing your own personal issues into some big, complicated philosophical argument.  But, you can never come to a satisfying conclusion to this big thought puzzle about gender, or feminism or whatever you're talking about.  However, you can take some concrete steps to having successful romantic relationships.  So, this exercise of over-thinking and analyzing is just a waste of your time and a distraction from your life.

[bedstuy]

Here's why I think defense mechanisms like this are a bad thing:

If you don't have success with the ladies, it's probably a mixture of lack of trying, being unsuccessful in other areas, social awkwardness, being too fat or too skinny or being short or ugly.  So, the solution is to become more successful in your life, get some muscles, get a good job and just have an active social life. 

But, becoming a more attractive, successful grown-up person is scary.  So, instead, as a defense mechanism, you're externalizing your own personal issues into some big, complicated philosophical argument.  But, you can never come to a satisfying conclusion to this big thought puzzle about gender, or feminism or whatever you're talking about.  However, you can take some concrete steps to having successful romantic relationships.  So, this exercise of over-thinking and analyzing is just a waste of your time and a distraction from your life.

What exactly warranted this overly smug and condescending tone and the good number of baseless assumption you are making about me (especially in a thread where I've shown so much willingness to actually reveal important details of my private life)?

You raised valid points which I would have answered, but even by the broad standards of politeness I admittedly wish to uphold in this thread, I don't think you deserve an articulate answer.

Fine.  I don't think you understand what I'm saying though.  

I don't know you.  But, you're the one that decided to connect this larger social issue with your personal life.  Thus, my advice is to question whether your own feelings and experiences, whatever they are, compromise your objectivity and reasonableness with regard to these issues.  But, I wouldn't presume to know exactly where you're coming from or to tell you how to live your life.  I apologize if I suggested otherwise.

Personally, I just tend to bristle at what seems like a sanctimonious theory about society coming from a college-aged kid.

[bedstuy]

Apology accepted. If you actually read my previous posts, you will find bits where I speculate about what may be the roots of some of my subconscious takes on gender issues. You could contribute to this thread by giving your thoughts on them. Or sharing your own personal take on gender issues.

I'm gay so I don't really deal with these issues as acutely.  And, gender is too broad a topic for me to address with clarity.

But, generally, from liberal/left leaning people I think there's way too much hand-wringing about how misogynistic our society is.  On college campuses in America, there is a lot of vague talk about "rape culture" from the left and academics that is essentially nonsense in my opinion.  At least, that sort of lefty rhetoric is a distraction from the actual issues facing women like domestic violence, childcare benefits, reproductive rights, etc.

[bedstuy]

But, generally, from liberal/left leaning people I think there's way too much hand-wringing about how misogynistic our society is.  On college campuses in America, there is a lot of vague talk about "rape culture" from the left and academics that is essentially nonsense in my opinion.  At least, that sort of lefty rhetoric is a distraction from the actual issues facing women like domestic violence, childcare benefits, reproductive rights, etc.

Please elaborate. Personally, I'm actually surprised every day to realize how rape culture is more ingrained in western societies than I ever could have imagined. Have you heard about the Steubenville case? Or about the assault threats in videogaming?

The whole "rape culture" issue illustrates a very interesting difference in liberal and conservative psyches*.

There is a major conflict between the liberal emphasis on autonomy and the conservative view of human nature. "Rape culture", biological or not, hasn't really subsided since the 1950's, but female autonomy has increased drastically. There is less chaperoning, girls drink/party more (I recall a study that college girls are more likely to binge drink than guys now) and generally engage in more risky behaviour than their grandmothers. Consequently things like date rape appear to be on the rise. The problem is that while patriarchy has built in safeguards like chaperones and meeting boys via social groups where the man can be easily found/ostracized/beat up, liberalism hasn't quite came up with equivalent social structures.

This is ultimately my problem with the liberal view of sexual issues. Liberals seem to have a much more positive view of human nature than conservatives and therefore do not believe that there is an inherent trade off between safety and autonomy. Witness 20RP12's recent comments about rape, sexual harassment etc. This trade off and it's underlying view of human nature is ultimately what the sexual/gender issues are all about.

*I don't mean liberal or conservative in the political sense. When I talk about autonomy/restrictions, I'm referring to family/culture, not politics.

Here's what bothers me about the whole '"rape culture" argument. 

If a woman drinks so much that she blacks out, she made a deliberate choice in the first instance.  If she decides to eat too much because she's drunk, she was not therefore forced to eat too much.  If she doesn't remember eating a Big Mac, she was not therefore forced to eat a Big Mac.  By the same token, if a woman has consensual sex and doesn't remember it, it is therefore not rape.  If she has consensual sex while drunk and regrets it, it is not therefore rape.

The other thing is that men cannot by their decisions and actions make sex and relationships a guilt-free, emotional-risk free area of life.  You can tell men to never hit a woman, never rape a woman, etc.  You can't tell men not to want to have sex with women, including women who don't want to have sex with them.  You can't tell men to create a feminist utopia by changing how they think.  That's not how the world works. 

[bedstuy]

Here's what bothers me about the whole '"rape culture" argument. 

If a woman drinks so much that she blacks out, she made a deliberate choice in the first instance.  If she decides to eat too much because she's drunk, she was not therefore forced to eat too much.  If she doesn't remember eating a Big Mac, she was not therefore forced to eat a Big Mac.  By the same token, if a woman has consensual sex and doesn't remember it, it is therefore not rape.  If she has consensual sex while drunk and regrets it, it is not therefore rape.

The other thing is that men cannot by their decisions and actions make sex and relationships a guilt-free, emotional-risk free area of life.  You can tell men to never hit a woman, never rape a woman, etc.  You can't tell men not to want to have sex with women, including women who don't want to have sex with them.  You can't tell men to create a feminist utopia by changing how they think.  That's not how the world works. 

You don't share the understanding that intoxication inhibits one's ability to think freely, or that most sexual decisions are a lot more fraught and consequential and worthy of considered care than most decisions about food?

A sober person can and in my view has the responsibility to deny an intoxicated person sex. A sober Big Mac cannot deny an intoxicated person eating it. As far as the people selling it go, if you don't have an intuitive sense of the difference between somebody selling one food and a sexual partner, I'm not sure how I can communicate it to you.

You're completely distorting what I said.  Consensual sex implies a level of intoxication where consent is possible.  However, sex between a sober person and a person who had one glass of wine, is that non-consensual by definition? Certainly not.

[bedstuy]

Here's what bothers me about the whole '"rape culture" argument. 

If a woman drinks so much that she blacks out, she made a deliberate choice in the first instance.  If she decides to eat too much because she's drunk, she was not therefore forced to eat too much.  If she doesn't remember eating a Big Mac, she was not therefore forced to eat a Big Mac.  By the same token, if a woman has consensual sex and doesn't remember it, it is therefore not rape.  If she has consensual sex while drunk and regrets it, it is not therefore rape.

The other thing is that men cannot by their decisions and actions make sex and relationships a guilt-free, emotional-risk free area of life.  You can tell men to never hit a woman, never rape a woman, etc.  You can't tell men not to want to have sex with women, including women who don't want to have sex with them.  You can't tell men to create a feminist utopia by changing how they think.  That's not how the world works. 

You don't share the understanding that intoxication inhibits one's ability to think freely, or that most sexual decisions are a lot more fraught and consequential and worthy of considered care than most decisions about food?

A sober person can and in my view has the responsibility to deny an intoxicated person sex. A sober Big Mac cannot deny an intoxicated person eating it. As far as the people selling it go, if you don't have an intuitive sense of the difference between somebody selling one food and a sexual partner, I'm not sure how I can communicate it to you.

You're completely distorting what I said.  Consensual sex implies a level of intoxication where consent is possible.  However, sex between a sober person and a person who had one glass of wine, is that non-consensual by definition? Certainly not.

I'm not distorting anything, and although I'll concede the possibility that I in some way am failing to understand what you initially said or what you meant by it, 'if a woman has consensual sex and doesn't remember it, it is therefore not rape' sounds pretty bad in this context.

I don't see anything wrong with that statement.  Is it rape if both people are sober and an hour later one of them gets a concussion?