Toxic Feminism

[Doctor Cringelord]

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1991.tb00792.x

 

[ceecee]

Interesting episode in the orbit of this topic.

https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house%2F678-for-whom-the-balls-tan-feat-julian-feeld-annie-kelly-11822

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Interesting episode in the orbit of this topic.

https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house%2F678-for-whom-the-balls-tan-feat-julian-feeld-annie-kelly-11822

Must listen to this. I find they usually have a pretty-clear eyed take on these issues that makes sense to me.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It’s also infiltrated and tainted communities devoted to relationship advice and support.

Compare responses/comments to vent posts from high libido women in dead bedroom situations with responses/comments to high libido men in dead bedrooms. Night and day. In either type of situation, the default majority opinion seems to be assuming the root cause stems from a fault on his part. Commenters who even suggest it might be hers are downvoted into oblivion or accused of misogyny. Of course every situation is unique and in most cases fault tends to fall n both partners, yet I see these attitudes pervade even in heavily moderated communities

Sex positive feminism now is just a weird grab bag of evopsych junk science, alpha-beta/cuck fetishism, and any tradcon traditions or mores the feminists deemed worthy of preservation.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Women know their own bodies better than men know women’s bodies. This is rightfully and increasingly accepted.

Somehow though, they also seem to be treated as the authorities on men’s bodies. (This post isn’t about circumcision)

 

[Coriolis]

Women know their own bodies better than men know women’s bodies. This is rightfully and increasingly accepted.

Somehow though, they also seem to be treated as the authorities on men’s bodies. (This post isn’t about circumcision)

Where and in what ways does this happen?

 

[Earl Grey]

It’s also infiltrated and tainted communities devoted to relationship advice and support.

Compare responses/comments to vent posts from high libido women in dead bedroom situations with responses/comments to high libido men in dead bedrooms. Night and day. In either type of situation, the default majority opinion seems to be assuming the root cause stems from a fault on his part. Commenters who even suggest it might be hers are downvoted into oblivion or accused of misogyny. Of course every situation is unique and in most cases fault tends to fall n both partners, yet I see these attitudes pervade even in heavily moderated communities

Sex positive feminism now is just a weird grab bag of evopsych junk science, alpha-beta/cuck fetishism, and any tradcon traditions or mores the feminists deemed worthy of preservation.

I would've sooner thought this was a trickle down effect from Toxic Masculinity, if anything. If this was about housekeeping instead, the woman who is failing to keep up the house to "selfishly" pursue a career instead would be burned, and the man would be lauded for knowing how to operate a toaster. Or perhaps he'd be burned for "not wearing the pants in the relationship", whatever. Point is he's not "being a man".

The point being that this treatment stems first from the societal assumption that men are the caregivers and women's wants in the bedroom are nil as long as she could satisfy her husband. The husband is supposed to be the one all raring up for sex, so if he doesn't, something is wrong with him. Same reason a husband would be railed for earning lesser or lord forbid be temporarily jobless or worse, a "stay at home loser". The husband is failing at his manly duties, as a man.

The attitude that I've seen screams poor, poor wife, yes. The woman was never expected to be sexual- if she is, it's a boon to her husband- so she's been 'cheated' out of a "proper, functional husband". Men would kill to have a nymphomaniac in bed like her! Of course it's not your fault, you sexual goddess! That man is broken or something, what man wouldn't be all over such a hot eager wife? How could this absolute idiot not take advantage of that and step up and be the man he's supposed to be in the bedroom?

Women would be angry at the man for not giving their fellow lady-sister a good bedroom life. Men are envious and resentful that this dysfunctional idiot is rolling over all dumbly in a situation they'd kill to be in. Wtf is he doing? - so they think.

The core and start of the treatment stems first and foremost from this standard that men are held to, which condemns those who fall short, with their wives and girlfriends coming up as collateral damage.

We need to dismantle those expectations and assumptions of men on a societal level.

Sex education, and abolishing the traditional gender roles would help, I suspect. Let a more diverse spectrum of women and men both be accepted, even including those who would prefer and fall into more 'traditional' gender roles, without harming those who fall out of that binary.

 

[Earl Grey]

As I was typing the above I said to myself in a soft whisper, "Yeah, everyone knows that penis is 90% of what a man is," and laughed. It's funny. I just had to post that. Sorry for the derail

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

^
The long post sounds like the kind of thing I might have written in my 20s before I became cynical, if not as much as I am now. I liked reading that kind of thing again.

I'm finding more and more there are things I miss about those days.

I think you very well may be right, I just doubt people will change without everyone having their basic needs satisfied. Which doesn't look likely.

 

[Earl Grey]

^
The long post sounds like the kind of thing I might have written in my 20s before I became cynical, if not as much as I am now. I liked reading that kind of thing again.

I'm finding more and more there are things I miss about those days.

I think you very well may be right, I just doubt people will change without everyone having their basic needs satisfied. Which doesn't look likely.

Unfortunately, I agree with the bolded (including the part where I am very well right).

As the generations age, we pass on better messages to the next who continues the relay race of carrying the beacon to the finish line.

I am carrying it, I pass it on when I can. I've seen folks younger than me being more and more cognisant of these things- these concepts are being taught at younger and younger ages. It will eventually be normalised, I believe it. I didn't even know what say, what homosexuality was until I was in my early teens, and even then I didn't know they were "real" until years later. People are increasingly able to find spaces online if they feel ostracised, which is the source for a lot of this exposure. It's been easier and easier to find representation and personal stories for these. Lord knows I'd have a much harder time understanding feminism, much less toxic masculinity (it's only been made widespread more recently than feminism cmiiw) with what little was accessible when I was younger.

I like hanging out with a broader variety of people and broadening my horizons. Hanging out with people with the same thoughts gets stale after a while. I think if you look, you'll find many like me, who think similarly, who still have a lot of energy for it. We just don't talk where we won't be listened to or smacked down, or in the case of someone like me, I just have chronic rambling professor syndrome.

 

[Coriolis]

I think you very well may be right, I just doubt people will change without everyone having their basic needs satisfied. Which doesn't look likely.

What basic needs do you mean here? Just the fact that everyone has needs, which are likely more similar than different, should provide some common ground to start from.

The tide of history is certainly on the side of the better messages @Arcturus describes, and the more tolerant and progressive perspectives they encourage. Sometimes it can seem like two steps forward and one step back, or the message can be mixed, as in the greater sexual freedom of the late 20th century. In the US at least, many people seem to have lost sight of the fact that greater freedom brings with it greater responsibility. They eagerly embrace the former while giving short shrift to the latter. Simple physiology means men and women will tend to experience both a bit differently, but it still takes two to tango. This gets back to what Julius was saying about unmet needs, and @Doctor Cringelord's observations about the gender bias in reactions to unfulfilled partners. Part of that responsibility is to take your partner's needs seriously, or those of the partner of your friend who is looking to you for support and advice.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

What basic needs do you mean here? Just the fact that everyone has needs, which are likely more similar than different, should provide some common ground to start from.

I mean things like food, shelter, healthcare. I don't think any kind of progress is actually possibly unless everyone has things like that.

I don't consider sexuality a basic need and see it as overrated if anything, although that is probably a matter of not having had the right partner. I haven't been with anyone since 2018 when I realized that I'd rather be alone than with the wrong person.

 

[Coriolis]

I mean things like food, shelter, healthcare. I don't think any kind of progress is actually possibly unless everyone has things like that.

I see. So you think it will be impossible to correct gender biases before these basic needs are met? I prefer to think that it will be easier to meet them for everyone if we can get beyond the biases that divide us, whether based on gender, ethnicity, race, or otherwise. These sorts of artificial limitations keep us from making use of all available resources. Disparities in how sexual interactions are viewed and experienced are just one manifestation, though perhaps more a symptom than a cause.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I see. So you think it will be impossible to correct gender biases before these basic needs are met? I prefer to think that it will be easier to meet them for everyone if we can get beyond the biases that divide us, whether based on gender, ethnicity, race, or otherwise. These sorts of artificial limitations keep us from making use of all available resources. Disparities in how sexual interactions are viewed and experienced are just one manifestation, though perhaps more a symptom than a cause.

It might be possible, but perhaps unlikely.

I think people need to do a better job at combatting it then they have been and the methods they have been using to do so really aren't working. People ought to know how to talk to people about these things outside of an academic bubble to actually be successful here.

What is the point of trying to tell people who have never been to college about the patriarchy without explaining what that means? But it looks like you aren't supposed to explain what that means because the "right" people should be on board already. Or something. It's not a strategy set up for success, and lo and behold, it has not been. The past 8 years since this kind of stuff went mainstream have made rights more precarious them ever.

I agree with the fundamental endpoonts but I think people aren't really thinking tactically about how to have these conversations.

I'm sure nobody wanted to read this from me.

 

[Luminous]

Compare responses/comments to vent posts from high libido women in dead bedroom situations with responses/comments to high libido men in dead bedrooms. Night and day. In either type of situation, the default majority opinion seems to be assuming the root cause stems from a fault on his part. Commenters who even suggest it might be hers are downvoted into oblivion or accused of misogyny. Of course every situation is unique and in most cases fault tends to fall n both partners, yet I see these attitudes pervade even in heavily moderated communities

Sex positive feminism now is just a weird grab bag of evopsych junk science, alpha-beta/cuck fetishism, and any tradcon traditions or mores the feminists deemed worthy of preservation.

An sx would never lack of empathy for anyone with high libido in such a situation. And I think that there's likely many situations where it isn't necessarily anyone's fault, it's just reality. People not knowing who they are or what they want getting involved with other people - it's messy and sometimes people get hurt without anyone really being at fault.

I would've sooner thought this was a trickle down effect from Toxic Masculinity, if anything. If this was about housekeeping instead, the woman who is failing to keep up the house to "selfishly" pursue a career instead would be burned, and the man would be lauded for knowing how to operate a toaster. Or perhaps he'd be burned for "not wearing the pants in the relationship", whatever. Point is he's not "being a man".

The point being that this treatment stems first from the societal assumption that men are the caregivers and women's wants in the bedroom are nil as long as she could satisfy her husband. The husband is supposed to be the one all raring up for sex, so if he doesn't, something is wrong with him.

As an sx dom woman who's been in such situations previously, the message I internalized was that there was something wrong with me, and the pain from that message was extremely painful for a very long time.

Same reason a husband would be railed for earning lesser or lord forbid be temporarily jobless or worse, a "stay at home loser". The husband is failing at his manly duties, as a man.

The attitude that I've seen screams poor, poor wife, yes. The woman was never expected to be sexual- if she is, it's a boon to her husband- so she's been 'cheated' out of a "proper, functional husband". Men would kill to have a nymphomaniac in bed like her! Of course it's not your fault, you sexual goddess! That man is broken or something, what man wouldn't be all over such a hot eager wife? How could this absolute idiot not take advantage of that and step up and be the man he's supposed to be in the bedroom?

Perhaps she's been cheated out of the fulfillment of a highly important need for sexual connection, not just some stupid societal role that her husband is supposed to play. Implying it is her fault may be extremely cruel, if she's essentially been lied to about what to expect from her relationships.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I mean things like food, shelter, healthcare. I don't think any kind of progress is actually possibly unless everyone has things like that.

I don't consider sexuality a basic need and see it as overrated if anything, although that is probably a matter of not having had the right partner. I haven't been with anyone since 2018 when I realized that I'd rather be alone than with the wrong person.

I see. So you think it will be impossible to correct gender biases before these basic needs are met? I prefer to think that it will be easier to meet them for everyone if we can get beyond the biases that divide us, whether based on gender, ethnicity, race, or otherwise. These sorts of artificial limitations keep us from making use of all available resources. Disparities in how sexual interactions are viewed and experienced are just one manifestation, though perhaps more a symptom than a cause.

This is a really interesting discussion. I'm not certain of the answer, but it put me in mind of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Physiological needs are two rungs below love/belonging with safety being the second rung from the bottom. There could be something to the idea that when people's basic food, shelter, and safety needs are not met, that they don't process social issues and as effectively.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

An sx would never lack of empathy for anyone with high libido in such a situation. And I think that there's likely many situations where it isn't necessarily anyone's fault, it's just reality. People not knowing who they are or what they want getting involved with other people - it's messy and sometimes people get hurt without anyone really being at fault.

As an sx dom woman who's been in such situations previously, the message I internalized was that there was something wrong with me, and the pain from that message was extremely painful for a very long time.

Perhaps she's been cheated out of the fulfillment of a highly important need for sexual connection, not just some stupid societal role that her husband is supposed to play. Implying it is her fault may be extremely cruel, if she's essentially been lied to about what to expect from her relationships.

This is a good discussion and meaningful post. It is a complex topic and there is a strong inclination to view it through a defensive, gender bias lens when experiencing it. I agree there is some truth to society judging based on assumed gender roles. There has been a difference in expectation about gender libido, but I think it comes from the historical dynamic of women always being pregnant. Throughout most of human history women's bodies have been pregnant or recovering from pregnancy which complicates libido.

The overlay of assumed gender differences makes the process of sexual rejection from a monogamous partner more painful for both regardless of which gender is withholding. There was a time in my life when I was in a marriage with a low-libido man when i was younger, and I found the gender assumption particularly painful because people constantly talked about how sexual men are and always wanting sex, so I felt like a much bigger freak. There are ways I internally blamed him, but I wondered if I smelled weird or was ugly because I had body dysmorphia and borderline anorexia problems throughout my youth. I typically used humor for seduction, so when rejected there was still a joke left. I ended up in a number of conversations with other women whose men were disinterested in sex. I ended up with a picture that felt like the whole framework was a huge lie. The men in my life and in my friends lives were not stressed about shooting down their partners in the slightest. It wasn't impotence, but a hedonistic preference for playing video games. The generally compartmentalized quality of intellectual, abstract men created large sexless compartments that were theory based, and getting them to shift into the concrete sexual realm was impossible. Similar to Mr. Spock being sexual once every seven years, but otherwise impenetrable. The quiet absolute entitlement from otherwise really cool, nice men was demoralizing in a way that damaged me extremely - they couldn’t or wouldn’t hear me. I am permanently the equivalent of emasculated, although women don't have a word for it, but most have felt it in their lives (efeminated?). At this point in life I think the model of "men wanting sex more than women" is based on ages 18-25 at best and is residual from a time when women's bodies were constantly processing pregnancy, births, and recovery.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

This is a really interesting discussion. I'm not certain of the answer,
Physiological needs are two rungs below love/belonging with safety being the second rung from the bottom. There could be something to the idea that when people's basic food, shelter, and safety needs are not met, that they don't process social issues and as effectively.

That's what I was thinking of. The hierarchy of needs.



I have a hard time viewing sex as a need though; I don't understand the difference between that and entitlement.

I suppose I might as well go here, although I know it will piss people off:

I've had people issue ultimatums to me in relationships if I wouldn't have sex at the frequency they wanted. Somehow I don't think it would have been ok if I had been the one issuing these sorts of ultimatums. This is the kind of thing that ultimately contributes to my cynicism.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

That's what I was thinking of. The hierarchy of needs.

I have a hard time viewing sex as a need though; I don't understand the difference between that and entitlement.

I think there is an enormous range of sexuality in humans and so the question of 'need' is not consistent among different individuals. Varying degrees of asexuality are completely real and legitimate. The need to not have sex is real.

For people with libido who do not have a means of expressing it, consider the feeling of being hungry when you weigh enough you could skip a meal. Imagine feeling that way all the time, but not losing any weight. It is a feeling of lack of resolution very much like being hungry without food and with the capacity to live in that state until death occurs from others causes.

You could also imagine having a chronic headache that never goes away, but is not life threatening. Is it an entitlement to take an aspirin? What if you lived with someone who was in control of the aspirin but didn't think it was important, so they withheld it continually. You never died of the headache, but they never experienced it, and felt that it's simply not necessary. Rejected persistent arousal is not a pleasant feeling - I would choose headaches over that feeling. And of course it has a social element that adds an emotional component of rejection and loss of self-worth.

Edit: If you study or observe mammals in general when the females go into heat and males respond, it isn't pleasure like having a light-hearted pizza party. It is stressful. Sexual arousal is a complex feeling and when destabilized due to environment and lack of fulfillment, it is an extreme form of anxiety. Sexual needs are not about wanting to have fun and getting mad when you can't. It goes to the core of psychology and is deeply rooted in a sense of hunger and want and deep anxieties when the process feels destabilized with rejections. This is why it triggers aggression in a lot of people.

People are absolutely entitled to reject sexuality, to not have sex. People are not entitled to be in monogamous relationships with people who have sexual needs and withhold continually. One should not force asexuality on others. If a person doesn't get headaches, they aren't in a position to say what a person who gets headaches actually needs.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I think there is an enormous range of sexuality in humans and so the question of 'need' is not consistent among different individuals. Varying degrees of asexuality are completely real and legitimate. The need to not have sex is real.

For people with libido who do not have a means of expressing it, consider the feeling of being hungry when you weigh enough you could skip a meal. Imagine feeling that way all the time, but not losing any weight. It is a feeling of lack of resolution very much like being hungry without food and with the capacity to live in that state until death occurs from others causes.

You could also imagine having a chronic headache that never goes away, but is not life threatening. Is it an entitlement to take an aspirin? What if you lived with someone who was in control of the aspirin but didn't think it was important, so they withheld it continually. You never died of the headache, but they never experienced it, and felt that it's simply not necessary. Rejected persistent arousal is not a pleasant feeling - I would choose headaches over that feeling. And of course it has a social element that adds an emotional component of rejection and loss of self-worth.

Edit: If you study or observe mammals in general when the females go into heat and males respond, it isn't pleasure like having a light-hearted pizza party. It is stressful. Sexual arousal is a complex feeling and when destabilized due to environment and lack of fulfillment, it is an extreme form of anxiety. Sexual needs are not about wanting to have fun and getting mad when you can't. It goes to the core of psychology and is deeply rooted in a sense of hunger and want and deep anxieties when the process feels destabilized with rejections. This is why it triggers aggression in a lot of people.

People are absolutely entitled to reject sexuality, to not have sex. People are not entitled to be in monogamous relationships with people who have sexual needs and withhold continually. One should not force asexuality on others. If a person doesn't get headaches, they aren't in a position to say what a person who gets headaches actually needs.

So, let's suppose a man has a high libido and also happens to be extremely ugly so nobody will date him. He really wants sex but he can't have it. Is it ok for someone to be upset that? Why not?

Usually if anyone would express being upset about that, the word "entitled" would be thrown around. This word makes sense if sex can't be a need, and makes no sense otherwise.

Sex can't both be a need and something nobody has a right to.

(People have thought I was "entitled" even though that didn't make sense.)

I haven't been with anyone since 2018. I don't feel like I'm bothered by waiting that long.