« Joseph, Joseph, and biblical role models | Main | Last Thursday poem of the year: Milne's King's John's Christmas »

December 22, 2004



"The western structure of oppressing men's sexuality has existed for two thousand years."

I hate to agree with Typhon, but I do. I have a book about the history of the penis. The things done throughout history to supress male sexuality easily rivals that of women. Torture, mutilation, removal of genitals, making sexuality a sin, it has all been done to both sexes. I will find the book and post it later. I really don't think either sax has been oppressed over all throughout history. Things have been done to both sexes which are horrendous. This shouldn't be a pissing contest.


Amanda, I never said I was more dedicated than anyone. I never said I believed in my marriage more than or to the exclusion of everyone else. I never said my husband was better, unfailing, or perfect. Once again you are reading into my words, putting words in my mouth, and placing motives on me which I do not have.

You have the problem here, not me. I am proud of may husband and my marriage. That has NOTHING to do with you. That you feel the need to make this about you makes me wonder if this is all your own insecurity. Maybe you don't feel you were dedicated enough, or maybe you regret your choices. That is your problem. That also, however, is a guess, as I do not know you.

Unlike you, I will not put motives to you that I cannot know.


You know, I have to add one more thing. A while ago Typhon and I got into a discussion on another forum. I put my own stuff out there, and got bit in the ass for it. However, it taught me a lesson.

When I said during this discussion that I had been promiscuous as a teen, there were two things that she said. One was that I made bad choices. The other was that I was loose.

The first is an observation based on information I gave her. It did not offend me in the least. It was true. Like it or not I made bad choices.
The second was a judgement, a slam if you will. It offended me quite a bit at the time.

Everything I have said so far has fallen in the first catagory. Observations without judgement. If two people choose to get divorced, they gave up on the commitment. Perhaps this commitment wasn't worth the negatives, or perhaps it was life or death, perhaps one party was bored. Whatever the reason, the commitment was broken. That is a fact. No judgements, just the truth.

Everything you are assuming I meant falls into the latter. Like saying that a divorcee is all those things you said I meant. That would be putting my judgement on them, and that would be offensive to many. I did not say any such thing.
If you are going to read my posts, I suggest you take what I say at face value instead of putting alterior motives on it. I am pretty straight forward. If I wanted to insult you, I would have come out and done it.




Gay men remain the largest group of people with AIDS, accounting for about 40 percent of AIDS cases and new infections reported in recent years. Women make up 30 percent

It depends on where you are talking about. Africa has the largest Aids population, mainly straight young people, over 22million. However, in the US, with about a million and a half, gays are the largest group of Aids sufferers, black men in particular being a very high percentage of their whole.

Not that this is really relivant, but I thought I would add some info. Making assumptions on the makeup in the US based on world figures is misleading.




According to an article in Postgraduate Medicine, "Physicians in English-speaking countries adopted [routine] circumcision as a cure for masturbation during the latter part of the 19th century."[98] From the medical literature at the time: "The foreskin is a frequent factor in the causation of masturbation...."[99] "In all cases of masturbation, circumcision is undoubtedly the physician's closest friend and ally...."[100] "It is the moral duty of every physician to encourage circumcision in the young."[101]

From an article in Men's Health:

In 1888, John Harvey Kellogg, MD, of cereal fame, summed up the medical profession's opinion and gave justification for the next 60 years of foreskin removal: 'A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind.'[102]

I just ran across this from another board. Someone here was laughing at the idea that male sexuality has been repressed. Circumcision is the most commonly performed surgery in the US. It is done so on a past belief that it will cure masterbation-ie stifle male sexuality.

Isn't that why female circumcision is done, and isn't female c- illegal in western culture?

Things that make you go hmmmm.


La Luba of course I don’t mean AIDS, and thank you for not informing me of my interests.

Amanda, sticking with the metaphor, heterosexual folks who have no desire for offspring I guess would be committing suicide—one more notch for entropy. Homosexuals who do have children via insemination well wouldn’t this be an imitation of what is natural and hence unnatural? Now if a surrogate is used, this would be a mockery and a contradiction. If homosexuality is to be a natural human right, on a bases I have yet to hear, please explain.


How about bisexuals who have children and have same-sex relationships as well?

Not only would they be procreating, they would be strengthening other adult relationships, giving children even more resources to draw upon.


Sheelzebub said:
"No, but if a woman accuses Joe Blow, a 'nice guy' of rape, she's more likely to be harrassed and threatened than if a man accuses someone of holding up his store or breaking into his house."

You seem to be making a point here about there being a difference between a woman making an accusation and a man making one. Is this your intention? I will discuss that with you if you like, but it does not have a significant relation to the original point I was making.

Regarding the point that a woman accuser is somehow in more danger from the accused if the charge is rape rather than murder, let me try this:
Why would Joe be more likely to harass or threaten his accuser over a rape accusation than he would over a murder accusation?

Hugo Schwyzer

Jen, you're absolutely right that 19th century reformers did hope that circumcision would prevent male masturbation. However, as I'm sure a survey of circumcised men will tell you, male circumcision has been wildly ineffective in preventing this practice. Ask around among your circumcised male acquaintances!

Second of all, male circumcision has profound religious roots that have damn all to to with masturbation. Male circumcision is found in the Torah; female circumcision is not. I'll try and post more thoughtfully on this sometime soon.

And joe, I'll be teaching my intro to gay and lesbian history class next fall... can I count on your enrollment? ;-)


You are right, male circumcision has roots in one religion. Female circumcision has roots in another culture. Niether the religion or the culture make it right to mutilate children.

That it didn't work does not negate the fact that millions of babies are mutilated every year in the US, because of this theory. It did not gain widespread popularity until the masterbation link was made. Just as in Africa FGM may not stop women from being unfaithful, but it is still a form of oppression.

The majority of Americans are Christian. Why then is circumcision done on 60-80% of all baby boys when there is no religious reason for most of them. The fact is that, and I have had two boys and have been through this, doctors assume circumcision will be done. They do not explain the operation as cosmetic, they explain it in medical and health terms, contrary to all research which shows there is no medical benifit to circumcision.
When I had my first child at 19, I did not understand what circumcision was. The way it was explained to me was woefully inadequite. Once I found out all it entails and the lifelong problems it causes, I was furious, but could do nothing after the fact.

Circumcision is most insidious in that it is socially acceptable genital mutilation of infants.

It is not accepted with females, and it is a blatent example of how men are not given the same social status as women for many things in the US. It should not matter if some feel FGM is more invasive, they both are invasive. They both are wrong.



Joe, or his family, or his friends, or outraged community members who think of him as a nice guy.

Sure, replace the second example with a woman--you aren't going to get the type of community retaliation from an armed robbery that you will from rape.


Jen, comparisons of snipping off a piece of skin and mutiliating someone so that she is incapable of having sexual pleasure are just the sort of thing that will kill your credibility. That's like saying, "Well, some people pierce little girls' ears, so you can't be against razoring off their clit, too!"

I don't like circumsizing boys. But it doesn't destroy their future sexual pleasure, and it's debatable if it affects it.


Jen, I wouldn't psychoanalyze me. I too am puffed up like a pigeon that I have a good relationship and am capable of preaching to others about how I do it. But I don't make excuses for it.

Joe, the word "unnatural" for anything that happens in nature, well, it's a misnomer. Insemination is no more outside of nature than sex. Goodness, do babies count as natural if conceived in positions other than the missionary position?


Amanda, I believe you are being a tad ridicules, and in that you are avoiding the issue I propose—there is no natural right to homosexuality. And if “insemination is no more outside of nature than sex” why does artificial usually precede insemination.


Joe, a turkey baster is hardly high technology.


I suspect that Jewish men would be willing to debate the "does male circumcision prevent sexual pleasure" issue. Go ask them. And run.


The Jewish men I sleep with have no issues.

Trish Wilson

I'm just catching up on this thread, and I still have lots of it to read. Regarding this quote by La Lubu:

"This is not the only woman in the United States who has been raped, nor is she the only woman who was not believed. Her story is legion. Where I live, your chances of seeing your rapist go to trial are pretty much nil unless you were killed or beaten to within an inch of your life."

This happened to me. I was raped by my now-ex-husband. He pinned me to the bed, on my back, and I couldn't move. Every time I tried to scream, he wrapped his hands around my throat and choked me. He shoved his thumbs hard into my throat and it hurt like hell. He was drunk. I tried to fight him off but it did no good. After awhile, I just gave up and let him finish. After the rape, I managed to get away and call the police, despite him following me around the house for awhile fearful that I would pick up the phone.

The police helped me and believed me, but they warned me that a judge might not believe I had been raped because I was not beat up enough. I had no defensive wounds on my arms because I couldn't move them. He had pinned me to the bed. I couldn't kick because my legs were pinned. By the time the police had arrived, the bruises on my neck had faded. My voice was hoarse for the next day. I coughed up blood for the next 24 hours. The police took Polaroids but they weren't very helpful.

I initially filed charges but later dropped them because (1) I was afraid no one would believe me, especially the court, (2) I had little social support, and (3) he and his parents talked me out of it. Plus, at the time I was married to him. Married women who are victims of rape by their husbands have an especially hard time being believed. It was the biggest mistake of my life dropping those charges.

I wholeheartedly agree that too many women who are raped are afraid that the police and the courts won't believe them. They'll think they asked for it, that they'll think it was "consensual sex" or "rough sex" and she later changed her mind to cry rape (false allegations), or that they're exaggerating what had happened to them.


Sheelzebub said:
"Sure, replace the second example with a woman--you aren't going to get the type of community retaliation from an armed robbery that you will from rape."

My point precisely. Community reaction to a rape charge is far greater than it is to a robbery or murder charge. Possibly against all parties, but most assuredly against the alleged rapist.

This puts the lie to the "it's a crime like any other" argument used, it seems, only when speciously denying a male victim the same rights that are automatically granted to a female.

This is why the identity of the accused should be kept secret as well as the accusers. Everybody wins. The accuser is protected from vengeful aunties: the accused is protected from having his life utterly ruined by false charges.

We seem to be in disagreement only on who is worthy of protection: the alleged victim or the falsely accused. I say both.

Why are you are saying that only the accuser deserves protection - whther she is laying false charges or not?

La Lubu

rla, I'm having a hard time following you. The identity of the accuser is only protected during the time when the accusation is believed. If it comes to light that the accusation was false, there is no more identity protection. Or at least, that's the way it works where I live, perhaps other states have different laws. Also, the identity protection afforded a rape survivor is limited; there is no broadcasting in the mass media, but there is ample opportunity for the accused to face accuser in the court system: the accuser is not shrouded, nor is there secret testimony. Rape cases are tried in court just like other criminal cases. But keep in mind, I'm speaking strictly about the U.S. here; if you are writing from another country, you may have different laws.

Trish, thank you. I was sickened by that case, and it was a long road to trial. My friend was part of the support system for that woman, and helped bolster her courage. Like you, she had also been raped, and no one believed her. Not all the police here are pricks; some of them are really good people who take their oath seriously. But, there are extensive problems in the police department, especially at higher levels. Add to that, a States Attorney who won't take a rape case to trial unless it's a "slam dunk"....this case was not considered a "slam dunk" because the victim could not prove the rapist had a gun...he just did. The rapist said she was just a horny slut, and that he was sorta reluctant, but she really got him going...and the police and prosecutors believed him.

The States Attorney, in another case (date rape involving a woman and her employer....she was alone in the room with her employer, she thought it was job-related...surprise!), came out and said that it would be difficult to take a case like that to trial because this is a conservative area, and people would tend to believe that a woman who willingly went somewhere alone with a man was looking for sex. Funny, it hasn't turned out that way the few times such cases have made their way to court.

This attitude has serious ramifications for working women, especially. And here, the States Attorney prefers to plea down rape cases to the minimum...including child molestation and incest cases. Most of the time, those get probation only, no jail time.


"Natural" and "unnatural" are completely arbitrary words flung around to disguise the speaker's opinion by making it seem like he's referencing some kind of law that only he seems to understand. Homosexuality happens in nature. Ergo, it is natural. Beginning and end of story. If you want to fling judgement, don't try to disguise it.

La Lubu

Here's my take on "natural" and "unnatural"...just because one is much more common than the other, doesn't make the other, "unnatural". Take blue eyes, for example. Very uncommon in nature---the vast, overwhelming majority of the world has dark brown eyes. There are far more homosexuals than blue-eyed people worldwide, but for some strange reason, blue-eyed people are not stigmatized and thought of as "unnatural" or "abominations against God". Think about that, Joe.


Frankly, if the courts want to keep the names of the accused secret, it's no skin off my nose. If rape and sexual assault didn't inspire the type of retaliation against the accuser that it does, I wouldn't be for shielding their identitiies. But it does--and it happens to the accusers, not the accused.

In New Bedford, the local media published the Big Dan's gang rape accuser's name and picture. That was when she was harrassed, threatened, and forced to stay in a shelter. The men who gang-raped her, and the men who cheered them on, were treated like martyrs. I've zero sympathy for them or the hysterical mob that went after the accuser.

And that's hardly the only case where this has happened. People who hear rumors about the accuser, who learn who he/she is and where he/she lives have assaulted and threatened them.


"Jen, comparisons of snipping off a piece of skin and mutiliating someone so that she is incapable of having sexual pleasure are just the sort of thing that will kill your credibility. That's like saying, "Well, some people pierce little girls' ears, so you can't be against razoring off their clit, too!"

I don't like circumsizing boys. But it doesn't destroy their future sexual pleasure, and it's debatable if it affects it."

So when girls are cirumcised where only the outer labia is removed, thus not effecting sex or pleasure, this is acceptable?

A yes or no answer please. It is a simple question, needing only a simple answer.


Uh, Kobe Bryant. That Kennedy cousin. Any number of college sports stars. No male celebrity can be guilty in the eyes of the general public, and all women bringing charges against celebrities are deranged sluts or golddiggers in the eyes of the general public.

Women who bring charges of rape against sports stars are routinely the subject of death threats from fans. In college, most of these women end up dropping out for their own safety or because the stress causes them to flunk out. The men in question, if even convicted, get light sentences (sometimes, "house arrest" with permission for "away" sports venues, so they can still play sports for the college), and are not barred from playing subsequent to fulfilling the sentence.

The only "real" rapist in the public imagination is a black man raping a white woman.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Regular reads

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004