"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

[perplexed]

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.

I agree - for example, some men and women have a (pathological) desire to physically hurt children. You wouldn't want them to fulfill such a desire. Having a desire itself doesn't legitimise the consumation of the desire.

However, I draw the line where two (informed) consenting adults are concerned. If two people agree to do something that doesn't involve, nor hurt another 3rd party, then that's fair game. They may be breaking the law - in which case, the law is there to punish them. What I'm reading here though on these boards are some people trying to interfere with consenting adults and tell them they cannot make those free choices. If a woman wants to take part in a porn shoot, then she should be able to. If a company is selling porn to a man (or woman) who purchases a video, then that is a private agreement with no party not consenting. Where porn, or any other industry goes wrong, is when consent is bypassed and people are forced to do things against their will. Sure it happens in porn as it does any industry - but saying all porn is bad is a controlling point of view - trying to interfere with people's free choices (in my humble opinion).

[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.

Pretty much every company encourages employees to socialize. Very few encourage co-workers to ask one another for sex. You seem to be confusing the two.

[bmmg39]

Excuse my question, but what is the "Hamburger Rule"?

boy genteel

[Orion]

"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" -- Anthony

Anthony, I hate to break this to you, but all non-feminist men ARE jerks. Not everyone accepts the feminist label for themselves, but feminism is the belief that women are human beigns with human rights.

If you don't think women are real people, you're a tleast 99% guarenteed to be a jerk, I'd have ot say.

[perplexed]

Anthony, I hate to break this to you, but all non-feminist men ARE jerks. Not everyone accepts the feminist label for themselves, but feminism is the belief that women are human beigns with human rights.

If you don't think women are real people, you're a tleast 99% guarenteed to be a jerk, I'd have ot say.

Orion, I treat women as 100% human beings. I treat them with respect. I treat them as equals - I am not chivalrous to them, I don't treat them with any greater sensitivity than I would a man. I also don't treat them as sex objects. I treat them as humans. I am most certainly not a feminist, or pro-feminist - in fact, I am at odds with a lot of the sexism coming from feminist circles. So where do I fit in your worldview? I guess I'm a jerk? Thing is, none of the women I know in the real world share that view - they are my friends, my equals. We don't even feel much need to discuss gender issues ad nauseum - we're too busy being friends, I guess.

[amba]

In my parents' generation (the "greatest," Depression/WWII), a significant proportion of men (I have no idea of the percentage) remained virgins till marriage (my father did, and he wasn't Christian or even particularly observant Jewish). Whatever thoughts and fantasies and feelings they may have had about the passing attractive woman, pictures of women, movie stars, etc., these guys were romantic about love, sex, and marriage. They were looking for a girl they were not only attracted to, but were in love with (granted that when you're young it's sometimes hard to tell which is which, but the older generation and norms of social appropriateness looked over people's shoulders and affected their choices more then than now, too -- we'd consider it all a restriction of our freedom).

Perhaps I shouldn't idealize "the old days." I'm sure there were plenty of scoundrels, adulterers, porn addicts, and whatnot always, in all times, in all places. But some people, at least, used to take a kind of innocence seriously. That proves that it's possible. That means that, in principle, we could get some of it back.

[amba]

And by the way:

"The only good penis is a soft one"

Um, aesthetically speaking, au contraire.

[amba]

And by the way:

"The only good penis is a soft one"

Um, aesthetically speaking, au contraire.

[amba]

Now why did that happen??

[amba]

Answer: "You can say that again!"