"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

[x]

Okay, I get it's okay to have thoughts so long as you don't do anything that objectifies women. But where do you draw the line? I'm sure we all agree that rape/gropeing/wolf-whistling is out, but what's in? What is/isn't objectifying behaviour?

If you find something - say stilettos - sexy for 'cultural' reasons is it okay to act on that and ask someone out because of it? Because I reckon some feminists would say you're buying into Patriarchal norms and being oppresive. Say you want to ask your girlfriend to wear stilettos because you find them attractive - I imagine that would be totally objectifing and a big no-no.

I just get the feeling that if you have any desires which are in anyway linked to Patriarchy (and most guys don't choose these desires, they have them inflicted upon them by growing up in a particular culture) then you're totally not allowed to act on them. I can totally see the criticism that pro-feminist men are condemning themselves to intense sexual fustration and self-loathing. Maybe you can take this if you've had a religious conversion and are living on a higher plain, but the rest of us are shafted.

[Arwen]

Oh, x. I have a pro-feminist husband, and we have no problem sharing erotic fantasies and entertaining each other. As long as you treat your girlfriend as a human being with whom you're interacting with mutual enjoyment and consent, the two of you can do whatever you'd like.

There is a difference between looking at the world and seeing patterns and what they might mean and being a person living in those patterns. Bitch PhD loves high heels, and she's a feminist. Amanda Marcotte likes country music, and she's a feminist. Hugo has a penis, and he's a feminist. To say that country and heels and penises have both been explored negatively in the patriarchy is not the same as to say an individual person must eschew their tastes. To be a feminist is to engage in social critique, not to stop being an individual: to say "Oh, hey. I just noticed that only women are allowed to wear high heels without comment, but it wasn't always so. I wonder why *that* is?"

I love to cook: I'm a feminist. I like the colour pink: I'm a feminist. I like sexual acts with men: I'm a feminist. I'm married: I'm a feminist. I've had babies: I'm a feminist. All of those aspects of my life have been subject to feminist critique at one time or another.

Analysis is not the same as prescription; feminism just asks to you really *think* about your preferences and your actions in light of the society we're from. Different people come to different places; different feminists have different things that tweak them and things they're okay with in the dominant culture.

[Anthony]

Hugo: " 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."

I disagree. I have every right to verbally express my desires, provided I'm willing to take the consequences of doing so. If I'm rude or inappropriate in expressing those desires, the consequences are likely to be not to my liking, as Sophonisba points out, which will temper my willingness to express those desires. But you are either conflating "giving voice to" and "acting on", or you are telling me that my desires are inherently illegitimate and may not be voiced.

Lynn Gasix-Sax: saying "I'm not attracted to tall women" is not "insulting or demeaning" tall women. Pretty much everyone understands that. Change "tall" to "overweight", and suddenly that understanding evaporates.

Every company I've worked at that's bothered to talk to a lawyer about it has had a pretty strict "sexual harassment" policy, most of which would seem to indicate that if a male employee asks a female co-worker for sex, and she's upset by that, for any reason whatsoever, he's violated the policy. This advice comes from the same lawyer who advise vigoruosly defending against any claim of professional malpractice, and even in cases where the company was obviously wrong, to try to get a settlement which acknowleges no wrongdoing. The letter of the law may not say that men may not express sexual desire, but the law is what courts rule, and the best minds in corporate law believe that the courts will rule otherwise.

Douglas: recent feminism, as a movement, appears that it would rather punish all men for the mentality of the few assholes rather than attempt to work on the men who are the problem. Hugo at least recognizes that there is a difference.

Amanda: I'm surprised that Hugo has allowed your vile ad hominem spew to remain posted.

[Kiki]

Hugo, thanks for the thoughtful analysis and extrapolation on my piece. I really enjoyed reading it. I've already been a lurker on your blog for awhile and I always look forward to your incisive and thoughtful commentary.

[jfpbookworm]

If you find something - say stilettos - sexy for 'cultural' reasons is it okay to act on that and ask someone out because of it? Because I reckon some feminists would say you're buying into Patriarchal norms and being oppresive.

"Some feminists would" is a bit of a rhetorical cheat, because no number of people saying "I'm a feminist and this wouldn't be a problem"

Incidentally, I'm a feminist and this wouldn't be a problem. What would be a problem is if

Say you want to ask your girlfriend to wear stilettos because you find them attractive - I imagine that would be totally objectifing and a big no-no.

Not at all. What's a no-no is *expecting* that she should wear stilettos because you find them attractive, even if she says they hurt her feet.

I just get the feeling that if you have any desires which are in anyway linked to Patriarchy (and most guys don't choose these desires, they have them inflicted upon them by growing up in a particular culture) then you're totally not allowed to act on them.

I think this idea is actually a combination of a feminist idea - treat women with respect - and a patriarchal one - the idea that sex is dirty, shameful, etc. Together, you get the conclusion that sexual desire is inherently disrespectful to women.

I just don't see why it's always the feminist side that has to be scrapped when this happens.

[jfpbookworm]

Anthony: saying "I'm not attracted to fat women" isn't demeaning. It gets demeaning when: (a) it's universalized; (b) it's phrased as entitlement; (c) it leads to discrimination in impersonal settings.

As far as propositioning your co-workers being harassment, that does not mean that all approaches between men and women in all settings are off-limits. It just means that a workplace has different standards than other places.

[Anthony]

"I just don't see why it's always the feminist side that has to be scrapped when this happens."

Because if my choice is between two different forms of oppression, I'll choose the one which has had a few millenia of providing some sort of social stability and ways of working around its restrictions to the one which arose in my lifetime and which still inspires zeaoltry.

Feminism has moved from being a liberating force to being an oppressive force. This movement was more or less inevitable, since 1960s feminism partook of the spirit of the times, demanding the sweeping away of all sorts of constraints on sexual behavior. Unfortunately, some of those constraints were there for reasons that even feminists could appreciate, once faced with the consequences. So now we have a society in which the more jerky and predatory of men feel free to openly be predatory (or just jerks). Rather than saying "hm - maybe some of those old patriarchal rules weren't so bad", feminism instead wants to regulate all sexual interactions in an attempt to stamp out those with which it doesn't agree. Four legs bad, two legs good.

[jfpbookworm]

Dude, try responding to what I actually wrote:

I think this idea is actually a combination of a feminist idea - treat women with respect - and a patriarchal one - the idea that sex is dirty, shameful, etc. Together, you get the conclusion that sexual desire is inherently disrespectful to women.

If the idea that women should be treated with respect - not whatever straw man you're claiming feminism *really* is, despite what actual feminists in this discussion are saying - is oppressive, and the only way to deal with it is to go back to being disrespectful, I suggest you get to work on building a time machine.

[The Countess]

x wrote: "If you find something - say stilettos - sexy for 'cultural' reasons is it okay to act on that and ask someone out because of it? Because I reckon some feminists would say you're buying into Patriarchal norms and being oppresive. Say you want to ask your girlfriend to wear stilettos because you find them attractive - I imagine that would be totally objectifing and a big no-no."

I think the second scenario sounds like fun. I don't consider it objectifying at all. I think the difference here is that in the first scenario, you're asking the woman out because she wears stilettos, not because of anything in her personality that attracts you. I think the second scenario sounds like fun. You obviously would already know your girlfriend and likely love her. The stilettos would just be a fun addition to your already established relationship.

[The Countess]

Anthony: "Feminism has moved from being a liberating force to being an oppressive force. This movement was more or less inevitable, since 1960s feminism partook of the spirit of the times, demanding the sweeping away of all sorts of constraints on sexual behavior. Unfortunately, some of those constraints were there for reasons that even feminists could appreciate, once faced with the consequences. So now we have a society in which the more jerky and predatory of men feel free to openly be predatory (or just jerks). Rather than saying "hm - maybe some of those old patriarchal rules weren't so bad", feminism instead wants to regulate all sexual interactions in an attempt to stamp out those with which it doesn't agree. Four legs bad, two legs good."

You obviously don't know any sex-positive feminists. There are plenty of them out there. Feminism certainly doesn't want to regulate all sexual interactions. There has long been a rift between anti-porn feminists and feminists who didn't agree with that stance. Feminists want to see a healthy expression of sexuality. They certainly don't want to regulate all sexual interactions in the way you describe.

By the way, during the sexual revolution in the 1970s, feminists were aware that some of the sweeping away of constraints on sexual behavior included the notion that because of The Pill, lots of patriarchal men thought that contraception made women more available to them. Jerky and predatory men have always been jerky and predatory men. They just changed their language. Women were told that there was no reason for them not to have sex now, because they were less likely to become pregnant. That was the same old commodity view of women, just dressed in a different manner. Feminism encouraged women to explore their sexuality for their own sake and enjoyment, especially when pregnancy became less of a fear. At the same time, feminists were also aware of the new dressing up of old sexual pressure and stereotypes when The Pill was introduced.

[SingOut]

Anti-porn activists are not anti-sex. "Pro-sex" feminists are named as such in the same manner as "Pro-life" activists -- to color their opponents as "Anti".

[The Countess]

I know that anti-porn activists aren't anti-sex. Anti-porn activists and other feminists differ in their opinions about porn. Neither are anti-sex, and neither want to regulate all sexual activity. That's what I was trying to point out, albeit probably not very clearly.

I never cared much for the term "sex-positive feminists" because of that idea that there are "sex-negative" feminists. I know that's not true. I've never seen a better term for feminists who address sexuality. If anyone ever runs across one, I'd like to know about it.

[sophonisba]

Agreed, SingOut. I'm pro-porn, but I don't call myself pro-sex, because it's a transparent attempt at caricaturing anti-porn activists as anti-sex, as you say. In any case, responsible pro-porn feminists want to combat the abuse, coersion, and misogyny in the sex industry, just as anti-porn feminists do. The "rift" between the groups is unfortunate and in many cases unnecessary.

Porn doesn't define sex. Sex isn't limited to porn. Sex happens in real life, not just in film or magazines. I think talking about porn when the subject is sex is pretty anti-sex itself.

[mythago]

Because if my choice is between two different forms of oppression

It isn't. But it's easier to excuse one's privilege by pretending that the alternative is more of the same, eh?

if a male employee asks a female co-worker for sex

You don't need to talk to a lawyer to know that it's a really bad idea to go around trying to sleep with your co-workers. The "hamburger rule" predates HR policies about sexual harassment.

[SingOut]

Sophonisba,
So, what do we do? The porn issue is ripping the feminist movement in two, weakening each side against a common, powerful foe. Ulimately, pro-porn and anti-porn feminists have the same goal, right? But all the infighting is weakening our position. Any ideas?

[Anthony]

jfpbookworm: If feminism was only "the idea that women should be treated with respect", then I'd be a feminist, and there'd be very little hesitation among young people (especially young women) to labeling themselves as feminist. But that hesitation does exist, and it's because the leadership of the feminist movement has redefined feminism to be something narrower than just "the idea that women should be treated with respect".

Countess: Feminism may have been aware that it empowered jerky and predatory men by removing some of the traditional constraints on those men, but it didn't try very hard in the 60s and 70s to do much about it. Lately, the feminist response, as evidenced by lots of the comments I read here (and elsewhere) has been to characterize all men, or maybe all non-feminist men, as jerks or predators, in order to justify restrictions on their behavior.

Mythago: While the "hamburger rule" may predate sexual harrassment law, I've worked in one large corporation which encouraged employees to socialize with each other, and was very friendly to the idea of its employees marrying each other.

[perplexed]

If the idea that women should be treated with respect - not whatever straw man you're claiming feminism *really* is, despite what actual feminists in this discussion are saying - is oppressive, and the only way to deal with it is to go back to being disrespectful, I suggest you get to work on building a time machine.

jfpbookworm: I agree with that notion. I go one step further: I would like to see all humans treated with respect. Yes, all humans. I find it disrespectful when I'm called (implicitly or explicitly) an oppressor and privileged. That's disrespectful and presumptious to call me that. It's like me calling a woman privileged and she should acknowledge that and correct her behaviour accordingly given that fact - just because she has white skin - that's trying to control another person's behaviour and I find that disrespectful.

Porn doesn't define sex. Sex isn't limited to porn. Sex happens in real life, not just in film or magazines. I think talking about porn when the subject is sex is pretty anti-sex itself.

Well said sophonisba. Porn can co-exist with people's sex lives. It can even supplement it in a positive way. There are many women who actively and positively make a career from the porn industry. To those who say that porn objectifies women, what do you have to say about the fashion industry? Women's magazines? Even women's attitudes themselves and the way many of them dress when they go to nightclubs? Aren't they objectifying themselves if you say porn objectifies women? I say let women do as they please and express themselves as they please.

[The Happy Feminist]

Anthony,

The fact that young women often hesitate to call themselves "feminists" proves nothing one way or the other about feminism. It simply proves something about how people in general think about feminism. How people in general think about feminism is not necessarily based on accuratae information.

I am not sure what you mean by all of these "restrictions" on male behavior, unless you are talking about sexual harassment laws that apply only to the workplace. There is no law, by the way, against having a relationship with your co-worker. Your company is wise to have a policy against it because such relationships can be abusive if, for example, you have power over your co-worker at work, or if it affects the work environment after you break up. The law only prohibits coerced sex or a hostile sexual environment in the workplace. I don't think that's too much to ask. By the way, these laws also protect men from sexual harassment.

Not all men are jerks and predators. To the extent anyone has expressed such a view (and I do not hear such views expressed at all among femiists), it is not inherent in feminism.

[evil_fizz]

I find it disrespectful when I'm called (implicitly or explicitly) an oppressor and privileged.

Except, assuming that you are a white man, you *are* privileged. It's completely unavoidable. I consider myself to be enormously privileged (I'm white, my family has plenty of money, etc.), but that's not an insult. It means I'm lucky and that I can frequently afford to be oblivious to things that affect people who are not as financially well off or not white. (No one ever thinks I look suspicious in nice neighborhoods, nobody thinks it's weird that I drive a nice car, I can afford to be picky about where I live, what I eat, and thousands of other little things plus some huge ones too.)

The thing for me is not to be oblivious to the fact that I've got a lot going for me, to work on issues of racial injustice (yeah, it's nice that I'm less likely to get pulled over for speeding as a white woman, but it's hardly just), and not pretend that stuff isn't a problem because it's not a problem for me personally.

I know this is kinda disjointed and definitely thread drift, but I wanted to throw it out there anyway.

[sophonisba]

To those who say that porn objectifies women, what do you have to say about the fashion industry? Women's magazines?

This is a bit like saying, "To those who say that the American Revolution was a big deal, what about WWII? The Civil War?"

Embrace the power of "and", as the kids say.

Porn does objectify women, and it does so in different and more harmful ways than it objectifies men, not because of any inherent quality of pornography, but because contempt for women permeates our culture, of which pornography is a part. All serious pro-porn feminists recognize this and consider it a problem. The existence of offensive material in women's magazines doesn't magically make porn problem-free. There's lots of feminist scholarship comparing and contrasting the abuses and pressures put on mainstream models and on pornstars, as well as the effects that they both have on other women's lives.

We live in a sexist culture. There's more than one bad thing going on at a time. Nothing is stopping us from looking at more than one thing at a time. Nobody says you can't critique fashion mags just because you critique porn as well.

It's like me calling a woman privileged and she should acknowledge that and correct her behaviour accordingly given that fact - just because she has white skin

As a white woman, I have absolutely no problem having my privilege pointed out to me, if I seem to be unaware of it. I'd prefer that it be politely done, but it's not disrespectful at all. It would be doing me a favor.

Even women's attitudes themselves and the way many of them dress when they go to nightclubs? Aren't they objectifying themselves?

No.

[perplexed]

The existence of offensive material in women's magazines doesn't magically make porn problem-free.

Well, to use your own words here sophonisba :

Embrace the power of "and", as the kids say.

I never said it's a zero sum game, where the existance of women's magazines and women's fashion negates any positive OR negative aspects of porn. All these things co-exist together at the same time. I was highlighting the commonalities inherent with focussing on beauty and looking "sexy". Either all of them are objectifying women, or none do. You will try to pick and choose and subjectively tell me which ones do and which ones don't but it's obvious to me that women's magazines not only use women's bodies as sexual objects, they actually use these images against their female readership : they're telling their readership : "this is what you should look like. You're successful if you're beautiful. You're successful if you're sexy." - it encourages low self-esteem in women, which many women have admitted to.

As a white woman, I have absolutely no problem having my privilege pointed out to me, if I seem to be unaware of it. I'd prefer that it be politely done, but it's not disrespectful at all. It would be doing me a favor.

Actually, this is more my attitude too. I just don't see any privilege I have over women, truly. I am from the UK, and women are treated with great sensitivity here, whereas guys are fair game. This translates in a typical work place to be : don't dare say anything out of turn to a woman, but guys don't count at all. If there was sexism against women, the pendulum has swung back the other way. I would prefer to see the pendulum stopped somewhere in the middle. I honestly don't know ONE feminist in the UK - and I've had discussions with many women on issues of divorce, child custody etc. Most say how messed up the current system is and is in favour of women. So, why are they also not seeing this male privilege?

Even women's attitudes themselves and the way many of them dress when they go to nightclubs? Aren't they objectifying themselves?

No.

Interesting - I've known female friends to deliberately (in their own words) 'tart themselves up for the night' when going out - they were obviously enjoying themselves and fair play to them, but they also knew they were (in their own way) making objects of themselves. They knew they weren't what they were projecting on that particular night (it was just fun), but clearly they wanted to project a particular type of sexual object to people on such nights (again, what they often told me was tantamount to saying this was the case). I see nothing wrong with that by the way, but when you said "no" to my question, I remember such women actually admitting to making sex objects of themselves knowingly.

And in terms of porn, what's the difference if a woman stands in front of a camera and knows she's working ultimately as a sex object, and sees no problem with that? Her body, her choice etc? Aren't you simply hung up on the word 'object'? Men are portrayed as objects too. Success objects, money objects, sports icon objects. Loser objects. All kinds of 'objects'. All these men are more than just their headline description.

[therealUK]

Just in case anyone takes perplexed's vision of Britain seriously:

he says: "I am from the UK, and women are treated with great sensitivity here, whereas guys are fair game. This translates in a typical work place to be : don't dare say anything out of turn to a woman, but guys don't count at all. If there was sexism against women, the pendulum has swung back the other way. I would prefer to see the pendulum stopped somewhere in the middle. I honestly don't know ONE feminist in the UK - and I've had discussions with many women on issues of divorce, child custody etc. Most say how messed up the current system is and is in favour of women. So, why are they also not seeing this male privilege?"

I say: bwhahahahahaha. What utter utter tripe. More later if I have the time. Meanwhile, off to watch the footy.

[Utopian]

I don't understand. It's ok to have a desire, but it's not ok to try to achieve the satisfaction of that desire?

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

It's ok to have a desire, but it's not ok to try to achieve the satisfaction of that desire?

Well, that would depend, wouldn't it? For some desires, it's not OK to try to achieve satisfaction of the desire (because the desire is for something inherently hurtful). For lots of others, it's just find to try to achieve satisfaction of that desire, in the proper time, place, and manner. But not OK in the sense that any means whatsoever is fair game. And that distinction works whether we're talking about sexual desires, or any other sort of desire.

[perplexed]

I say: bwhahahahahaha. What utter utter tripe. More later if I have the time. Meanwhile, off to watch the footy.

I say what I see, and thankfully the majority of people in the UK are apparently doing the same. Hmm, and you don't really do much justice to the counterpoint view by simply saying 'it's tripe' - I am armed with facts. I am happy to debate with you in a civilised way, but I would expect you to give reasons why you may disagree with my point of view.