"The only good penis is a soft one": some long reflections on pro-feminism and male heterosexuality

Sorry, this will be long.  But nothing again until Monday! And please note -- some four-letter words are in this post.  Feel free to skip.

Thanks to this post from Amanda and the latest Carnival of the Feminists,  I came across this terrific piece on pro-feminist men and sexual desire at Saucebox.  Based on a graphic but articulate exchange with a male feminist friend via email, Kiki writes:

...for many men (like my friend) who believe in the humanity and autonomy of women; who believe in a woman’s right to be regarded as a whole person who is more than just the sum of her tits, ass and pussy; who believe that a woman’s cultural and societal worth encompasses more than her value as a sexual object; who do not believe that women innately “owe” men sex by virtue of our existence; but yet who also find much of their thoughts, desires and behaviour at least partially driven by their innate sexual attraction to women — attempting to uphold feminist ideals of not objectifying women may often seem like an impossible task.

Kiki's friend had written:

Genetically, Darwinistically, biologically, I am forced to be obsessed with women’s bodies. Yes, forced. I can control how I act on that obsession, and the obsession doesn’t include the urge to hurt women physically. But there is absolutely no changing the feelings... And in this place and time, the people whose respect I crave the most are always telling me that my very inner core is dirty, shameful, evil, wrong, disrespectful, backward, brute, and unevolved. But I can’t change it. So I’m stuck in perma-shame... I still feel like I’m acting through all of life. I have to pretend that the evidence of my respect for women lies in the supposed fact that I don’t want to fuck most of them.

Kiki gives a terrific response, and I urge those of you haven't done so yet to read it.

I'll admit, this comes on the heels of my rather breezy post on Tuesday, in which I discussed my conversation with an ambivalent potential pro-feminist male student.  Reading Kiki's post gives me a chance to think about this topic of male sexuality and pro-feminism more deeply.

Kiki's friend does sound like a great many young pro-feminist men I know.  I honor his eloquent candor, and his willingness to admit his suspicion of his own inner fraudulence.  It reminds me of something that I heard an admittedly very young feminist woman say in my very first women's studies class.  Her words have stuck with me for twenty years, and I remember how shattered I was when I heard her say:

Sometimes I get so angry at men, I think that the only good penis is a soft one.

I still think it's a (mildly) clever line.  The whole class laughed when my classmate said that -- and I chuckled along, albeit nervously.  She was saying something similar to what Kiki's friend is writing --  that sexual desire for women is somehow fundamentally incompatible with a real commitment to living as a male pro-feminist.  Kiki parses her friend's words, and makes a nice point:

...where it gets problematic for me is when we start to conflate socially constructed demonstrations of sexual desire with the innate sexual desire itself, which then causes us to assume that the method by which the desire is demonstrated is in itself a biological inevitability, and therefore exempt from criticism.

That's right on.  From both a Christian and a pro-feminist standpoint, it's absurd to suggest that straight men who are committed egalitarians shouldn't have strong libidos.  Actually, my classmate (and some folks who misunderstood Andrea Dworkin) notwithstanding, I hear very few serious feminists condemning male sexual desire per se.  Feminists, like Kiki, are critical of how that desire is shaped and by the culture; they are adamant that the presence of even intense arousal is not an excuse for objectifying behavior.  In other words, it's one thing to be aroused by the idea of naked breasts, another thing  altogether to stare down a classmate's blouse in the middle of history class!

From a pro-feminist standpoint, what we're fighting is not the reality of horniness (a condition hardly unique to men, as Amanda and others have pointed out); what we're combating is the myth that male sexual desire is uncontrollable.  Of course, all pro-feminist men, like Kiki's friend, admit that they can control how they act on what he calls his "obsession" with women's bodies.  And frankly, in a world where countless women are raped and harassed and molested on a daily basis, feminists are a good deal more concerned with changing men's behavior than with policing their thoughts.  Jeez Louise, what a blessing it would be to have so solved the problem of actions that we can begin to ask questions about what goes on in men's thoughts!  Kiki again:

Feminism has no objection to the existence of male sexual desire. Feminism does not wish to make men asexual. Feminism does not assert that men cannot respect women or treat them as equals unless they abandon their sexual desire. Feminism does not wish to make men ashamed of their natural and healthy sexual desire for the female body. Feminism does not wish to squelch your lust. Feminism does not think you are a bad person if you find yourself wanting to fuck a woman. Feminism does not condemn you for having a sexual appetite.

So that's clear, then.

Let me, as a man, put it in a slightly different way:   What makes a man a pro-feminist is not his thoughts, but his actions.  His virtue lies not in the content of his daydreams, but in the substance of his behavior.   Pro-feminism is not about the negation of desire -- it's the denial of the lie that a man can't control his actions.  Furthermore, the job of a pro-feminist man is to recognize that his desire doesn't carry with it any right of access to women's bodies.   His lust imposes no obligation on the women who are the objects of that lust.  No matter what a woman wears, no matter what she looks like, no woman is responsible for how men react to her.  A woman doesn't have the right to ask him not to want (in the privacy of his own thoughts), but she does have the right to demand that he not make her responsible for satisfying his desires.

When my classmate said the lines that form the title of this post, I suspect she was responding to the old canard that "a hard dick has no conscience."  Perhaps based on her own experience, she had decided that that was in some way true - and thus, ruefully, remarked that the only good penises were soft.  But as a pro-feminist, I reject the false dichotomy that suggests that to see women as radical equals with thoughts and feelings and agency of their own  means that one can't also experience intense arousal towards those same women.  Desire doesn't automatically vitiate respect.

Now, regular readers will know that when I "wear my Christian hat", I take a slightly different approach.  In my March post on fantasy and masturbation, I wrote:

But if there's one overwhelming thing that most of the world's great spiritual traditions agree on, it's this: our thoughts do matter.  In the Abrahamic religious tradition, the tenth commandment is "Thou Shalt Not Covet."  To "covet" is to long for, desire, lust after, envy, etc.   This commandment comes after earlier commandments about theft and adultery.  To borrow language from our Buddhist friends, It's clear that God is calling His people not only to right action, but also to right thought.  Jesus continues the theme in Matthew 5:28:  "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."  It's difficult to look at Scripture and continue to insist that masturbatory fantasy is harmless!

Fleeting thoughts are impossible to control.  But it's one thing to have a fleeting thought, and another to "entertain" the thought for any length of time.  To paraphrase the famous line from Martin Luther, "I can't stop the birds from flying over my head, but I can stop them from building nests in my hair."  Fantasy and lust -- for anyone other than my wife -- is letting the birds build a nest on my head.  And I am convinced that that fantasy life is at odds with my spiritual and physical commitments.

From a Christian pro-feminist standpoint, I have to do more than merely control my actions.  In this case, I admit that I see Christian pro-feminists (small group that we are) as called to a higher, more demanding standard than our non-Christian brothers.  From a secular pro-feminist position, the main goal is to get men to understand that their desires are not women's problems to soothe!  Just getting that point across to some lads is plenty work enough, thanks.  But as a Christian, I believe God calls me to holiness and restraint in the substance of my thoughts as well as in my behavior.  Yes, I have (even at my advanced age) a healthy and boisterous libido -- and I direct that energy towards one person.  It's easy now because I'm in love with my wife, but I have known what it is to not be in love and still exercise control over my thoughts.

The same spiritual mentor who encouraged celibacy in my life taught me the "three-second rule."*  When I saw an attractive woman, or experienced a sudden sexual thought, he told me that I was free to have that thought for three seconds.  After three seconds, it was time to take conscious effort to change my thinking.  He taught me a prayer I used constantly back in those days.  Whenever I found myself idly lusting, my director told me to pray: 

Lord, show me this woman as you see her, not as I see her.  Help me to treat her as you would have me treat her, not as I desire.  Guide my thoughts, Lord.

And you know -- it worked.   My own spiritual journey today has led me to the point where I believe that I am accountable to God, to my wife, and to my community for every aspect of my sexuality.  That includes my thoughts as well as my actions.  But I can separate my spiritual desire for holiness from my pro-feminist convictions.   Thus, while wearing merely my pro-feminist hat, I can urge men to exercise control over their behavior while not asking them to take responsibility for their fantasies.  As a Christian, I go further and insist that we ought to submit even our most private reveries to God's sovereignty.

Is this an untenable position?  Perhaps.  But I work in both secular and Christian settings, and I am comfortable with a foot in each camp.  Whether that makes me a hypocrite or not is for others to decide.

* I've often shared the "three-second rule" with young men I work with in high school, as well as with the fellas in my women's studies classes.  This semester, during a class discussion, one of my guys referred to it as the "thirty-second rule", which he considered difficult enough.  English was not his first language, and he had misheard me -- when he realized I meant a tenth of that time, he was rather shattered!

Comments

[Auguste]

Lord, show me this woman as you see her, not as I see her. Help me to treat her as you would have me treat her, not as I desire. Guide my thoughts, Lord.

This is an important prayer for Christians without even being tied to lust. That said, and I'm a liberal Christian so I'm aware that my thinking of this is a little off the reservation, we're still guilty of using the word "lust" to mean "a desire for dominance." The prayer makes it clear that what must be controlled is not the desire to experience mutual sexual satisfaction, but rather the desire to use another person for one's own purposes at the expense of that person's.

It's the great failing of the Church, historically speaking, that it has continued to sanction the conflation of these two desires and therefore perpetuated the myth of woman as non-sexual creature.

[Hugo]

Auguste, I like the distinction you make about lust versus mutual sexual satisfaction. That makes good sense.

[Anthony]

The problem that gives feminism a bad name is that while a feminist may say "Feminism does not think you are a bad person if you find yourself wanting to fuck a woman. Feminism does not condemn you for having a sexual appetite.", feminism spends an awful lot of energy decrying men who are sexually attracted to a subset of the range of female body types; that a feminist may say "Feminism does not assert that men cannot respect women or treat them as equals unless they abandon their sexual desire.", but feminists get enacted laws and argue for court decisions which say exactly the opposite; a feminist may say "A woman doesn't have the right to ask him not to want (in the privacy of his own thoughts)", but plenty of feminists (and non-feminst women) get rather offended if the wrong men verbally express those wants towards them, even in a non-threatening context.

So while you, as a Christian and a feminist, may say that men must change not only their actions but their thoughts, it's possibly for other men to take your argument seriously whether or not they accept it, it's rather more difficult for a non-feminist man to take seriously a movement led by people who have no experience of male sexual appetites whose words in theory are not congruent with their actions in reality.

[sophonisba]

but plenty of feminists (and non-feminst women)

So why would you think that this specifically gives feminists a bad name, if you recognize that women of all political opinions can be offended by the same behavior? Why doesn't it equally give non-feminist women a bad name?

a feminist may say "A woman doesn't have the right to ask him not to want (in the privacy of his own thoughts)", but plenty of feminists (and non-feminst women)get rather offended if the wrong men verbally express those wants towards them, even in a non-threatening context.

Yes, exactly. What you think is none of our business. What you feel is none of our business. What you want is none of our business. "Male sexual appetites" of strangers are none of our business. Not only is it none of our business, it's impossible for us to judge you for it, because we don't know about it. What turns you on is all in your own head, and you have all the freedom in the world in there.

But what you say to us is our business. Because you make it our business. If it bothers you that we take offense, because we have the same rights of speech as you do, don't tell us! We're as free to express offense as you are to express attraction. There's not a drop of hypocrisy or inconsistency in there, so it doesn't make any sense that you call this a "problem." What's the problem?

"Don't tell me you like my breasts" does not equal "Don't like my breasts." What does it matter how well women understand male sexual appetites, when we're not interested in regulating them? It's not the appetites we're objecting to.

[Hugo]

I'm with sophonisba, Anthony. No one says you can't think whatever you like in the privacy of your mind -- but there's a colossal distinction between having a desire and giving voice to that desire. The former is something to which we are entitled by virtue of our humanity -- the latter isn't.

[Mermade]

"Lord, show me this woman as you see her, not as I see her. Help me to treat her as you would have me treat her, not as I desire. Guide my thoughts, Lord."

My boyfriend has prayed that exact prayer at least a thousand times, and you know Hugo, I know from personal experience that it really works...

[Hugo]

Amen, Mermade.  This verse also offers much comfort.  The combination of a willingness to surrender and the promise that a "way out" will be provided always seems to work, even though I'd be the first to admit it isn't always easy.

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

feminism spends an awful lot of energy decrying men who are sexually attracted to a subset of the range of female body types

Since when? Nearly everyone is attracted to a subset of the range of male or female (or both) body types. What's problematic is insulting or demeaning those women with body types that you aren't attracted to. That or believing that you're entitled to a guarantee that a woman will stay within the same narrow weight range for life (men who can't bear the possibility that their wives bodies, like theirs, will change as they age, shouldn't marry). As long as you don't demean people or make unreasonable demands on people, be sexually attracted to whatever body types you like.

but feminists get enacted laws and argue for court decisions which say exactly the opposite

Again, since when? Name me one law or court decision that says men are obliged to abandon their sexual desire. It's quite possible to have and express abundant sexual desire, and not run afoul of sexual harassment laws.

And what sophonisba said about the difference between a woman not having the right to police a man's thoughts and a woman not having the right to object to something a man actually says to her. You say something, someone else has the right to say if she doesn't like it. Whether she's feminist or not, and whether or not you thought the context was non-threatening.

[Douglas, Friend of Osho]

Sorry, Hugo, but if God feels my private reveries are any of his business, he's welcome to bring the subject up with me, but he needs to make an appointment, preferably one that involves a couple glasses of ale. I don't imagine the conversation would go well; anyone willing to enact a blanket condemnation of wanting what other people have strikes me as someone who's never heard of making other people offers. I sure wanted the ball Barry Bonds hit for #714 four weeks ago, tying him with Babe Ruth. I came damn close to getting it, too. But I didn't get it and I'm no worse off for that, just as the world is no worse off for me coveting an item that could have fetched me five figures. I certainly wasn't about to steal it; save the scolding for the small number of assholes who'd lower themselves to do that. Granted, women are not baseballs, but I find it hard to believe that masturbating to a phantsia of the neighbor's wife is anything more than pathetic. By the way, what's wrong with giving voice to desire in the form of a civil, respectful dinner invitation? You're way off about Buddhism, too, but space doesn't permit a detailed riposte.
Anthony: Your caricature of feminism would give Hirschfeld a run for the money. I like my lust just as much as the next libertine, but the entitlement mentality of a minority of dickwads--sorry, I meant manly men--is the source of our supposed problems, not overwrought rhetoric sold in women's bookstores. Stop the ocular, manual and verbal ogling and by next Friday, we'll all be friends again. And not a minute too soon. You also need to consult a style manual.

Mermade: Meditation may help your boyfriend more than that prayer. One day, God's gonna let him down. You mark my words.

[westcoast2]

Hugo said...
No one says you can't think whatever you like in the privacy of your mind

yet earlier said..

But if there's one overwhelming thing that most of the world's great spiritual traditions agree on, it's this: our thoughts do matter
And then went on to give a talk on self-control of thoughts.

So now I'm confused.

be well

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

I think he's saying that no secular feminists care what you think in the privacy of your mind, but that Christianity includes a tradition of caring what people think.

As a woman, I really don't care whether you're picturing me undressed, wondering whether I'm wearing a bra, or going home and masturbating to fantasies about me. None of that is a direct injury to me personally; it's between you and God. You may choose to redirect any sexual thoughts you have about me, either because you fear they'll lead you into inappropriate behavior, or because you think refraining from lusting after me is more pleasing to God. But I'm not making it my responsibility to worry about whether you lust after me for three seconds, or thirty seconds, or three hours, or never in a million years. I'd be better off worrying about actions, or, if I concern myself with desires, concerning myself with my own desires rather than yours. Until you feel obliged to share with me your opinion of how fuckable I am in an inappropriate manner or context, I really don't care whether you find me fuckable.

But that's talking with my feminist hat on; I'm aware, with my Christian hat on, that there's plenty of Christian tradition encouraging people to govern their thoughts more radically than that. I have to confess that I have a much easier time with the "never have premarital sex" part of the Christian tradition than with the "never fantasize about anyone you haven't married" part of it, but I'll acknowledge that the part about stopping your thoughts and fantasies is there and qualifies as Christian.

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

And, with my Christian hat on, I love the Bible verse, Hugo, especially the first line of it.

[Douglas, Friend of Osho]

Good retort, Lynn. Let me add: you, westcoast2, also have the option of not redirecting your fantasia. Hugo does sell the Man from Nazareth here, but he's not saying you have to buy it. You don't have the option of not minding your own business, because that isn't an option, it's an obligation. Ergo, a gamut ranging from certain sorts (not all, not always) of locker-room talk to tit-testing, are out because at that point, you're not minding your own business. I say this as someone who cried out in joy at the news of Andrea Dworkin's passing.

[Amanda Marcotte]

So, Anthony, you haven't figured out that if you want to seduce someone you should treat them in a way they find pleasing and you think feminists are to blame instead of your own utter lack of charm?

[Hugo]

Douglas, be careful -- expressions of joy over the passing of anyone (from Dworkin to Reagan to Zarqawi) will get your comments deleted fast.

Westy, Lynn answers your question. I'm approaching the same issue from two perspectives.

[Douglas, Friend of Osho]

Check, Hugo and apologies.

[westcoast2]

So as I understand it

Hugo's feminist hat says 'It's not an issue'
Hugo's christian hat says 'It is an issue'

and
(Douglas, Friend of Osho wrote)
Let me add: you, westcoast2, also have the option of not redirecting your fantasia.

I have many options. The more options the more choice of potential action or indeed inaction.

Although does this...

You don't have the option of not minding your own business, because that isn't an option, it's an obligation.

..translate to the obligation of minding one's own business? (Diffcult to work through the double negatives here). Should an evengelical christian keep schtum unless discussing this with maybe another christian in a religious context, since from a secular position only actions are of importance here?

[Hugo]

No problem, Doug -- sometimes an old Padre has to keep an old Breaker in line.  (Even if you guys do have the danged "Shoe" at the moment).

[Hugo]

Westcoast,

I do think evangelical Christians can do what I'm doing in this post, which is being as honest as I can be that I have two different minds on this issue. For me, as a Christian, I do believe my thoughts matter (as much as my actions, in a spiritual sense). But I don't use my pro-feminism solely as an opportunity to evangelize; though my faith infuses everything I do, I'm capable (as we all should be) of talking to folks who don't accept the foundations of my faith.

If I only talk the language of evangelical Christianity, my ability to discuss pro-feminism in a secular context disappears altogether.

[westcoast2]

Hugo wrote...
Westy, Lynn answers your question. I'm approaching the same issue from two perspectives

Yes, and Lynn's answer was very interesting.
and Hugo also wrote..
I do think evangelical Christians can do what I'm doing in this post
So do I....

The bit I missed was that you seemed to be saying both things at the same time. Now I think it is more like you're saying this is what Christians would think and therefore so do I and this goes beyond feminist thinking. That wasn't too clear to me at first. A little slow today.

be well
(esp as England won)

west

[Hugo]

Not an impressive win. Beckham and Lampard looked decent and Crouch ran about madly, but Owen and Gerrard looked exhausted. I just hope it was only the heat.

[Douglas, Friend of Osho]

Thanks, Hugo, I really enjoy this blog. It won't happen again. Did PG High win the Shoe? I can only surmise we cheated. We were good at that.

West Coast, you do deserve more than a node of double-negatives. I think you get the gist of what I was saying. At the risk of ventriloquizing for Hugo and Lynn, they're saying that they're good Americans as well as sincere Christians. No normative judgement they make strikes me as being at odds with any commitment to ordinary liberty. I suspect Hugo would certainly not gainsay my posting offensive thoughts of the deceased to the NY Times, even as he doesn't want such on his blog. The reasons are obvious and understandable; blogs and newspapers are apples and oranges.
Again, feminists for the most part, aren't looking to knock us men upside the noggin, the better to loosen up our triple-x moments. I'm sure there's a tandem that do out there in all-Ramen diet land, but judging all feminists on the basis of that is like rescinding the Giants 2002 NL title because Barry Bonds used steroids. How much sense does that make? I hope that makes my thoughts clear and I promise to be much more elegant--and civil--in th future. Unless you're a Dodger fan.

[the-methotaku]

It's interesting that you CAN approach this issue from two perspectives! I can't seperate my Christianity from my pro-feminism like you can. My anti-porn activism grows both from my own experiance of porn's effects on my mind, and specific Biblical proof texts. I can't argue the case on purely secular grounds.

[SingOut]

Again, feminists for the most part, aren't looking to knock us men upside the noggin

Neither was Dworkin. Go back and actually read her before dancing on her grave.

[perplexed]

Neither was Dworkin. Go back and actually read her before dancing on her grave.

LOL. I can quote many of her blatantly misandrist quotes; I guess she was a genius though, so anything she says is simply "misunderstood".

Back on topic, this is like talking about homosexuality and the biologically determined sex drive homosexuals have for their own gender. It's not dirty. It's not "wrong". It just is.