Join 3,562 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


If before intercourse the boy can cover up his contempt, he can go ahead without feeling too guilty
May 22, 2012 12:24 AM   Subscribe

Why Boys "Lose Respect"

From the Mar. 1964 issue of Sexology, Hugo Gernsback's serious magazine about Sex, variously subtitled "Sex Science Magazine", "Sex Science Illustrated", "Modern Guide to Sex Education", and "Educational Facts for Everybody".
posted by twoleftfeet (76 comments total) 25 users marked this as a favorite

 
Boys are dumb.
posted by srboisvert at 1:58 AM on May 22, 2012 [5 favorites]


Groucho Marx explained this way of thinking thusly: "I don't want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member."
posted by three blind mice at 2:10 AM on May 22, 2012 [2 favorites]


Boys are dumb.

Well, you'll never find a husband with that attitude!
posted by Ritchie at 2:20 AM on May 22, 2012 [18 favorites]


This is a way better article than the description would make you think. If you're thinking of snarking, read it again sympathetically. An awful lot of it is quite true today, and the one apparently-sexist exception (girls press for engagement as a concomitant of sex) is much more believable when you remember the state of birth control in 1955. The summary is not "boys are dumb," it's "social attitudes about sex are corrosive, and the inexperienced are misled because they don't communicate."
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 2:21 AM on May 22, 2012 [22 favorites]


This system also hurt men; they also objectified themselves ("if she had intercourse with me, she would have it with someone else"), they were married to those they viewed as lesser beings, and enthusiastic sex partners were treated with suspicion.

See also:
* How to Make Men Like You, October 1965.
* Why Married Men Visit Prostitutes, January 1959. Warning: painful comments.
* the sexuality category on the blog.
posted by Pronoiac at 2:30 AM on May 22, 2012 [5 favorites]


Respek!
posted by elpapacito at 2:32 AM on May 22, 2012


I actually think this article is as true today as it was when it was written. (Now, we just pretend that that things are much more sociologically complicated... but the reality is, the attitude that 'girls you fuck' and 'girls you marry' are non-overlapping circles in a venn diagram has not entirely gone away.)
posted by Kololo at 2:40 AM on May 22, 2012 [2 favorites]


Fuck, Marry, Kill...same game as it ever was.

But no seriously, I thought this was a pretty insightful forward-thinking article for 1964. And sadly, much of it is still apt today.
posted by iamkimiam at 2:56 AM on May 22, 2012 [2 favorites]


Fuck, Marry, Kill...same game as it ever was. -- I didn't realize that I've been stuck at level two for almost 13 years now. Thanks for the pro-tip!
posted by crunchland at 4:18 AM on May 22, 2012 [7 favorites]


I think this article is true today only in certain very scary parts of the flyover states. Especially the incredibly date-rapey last bullet, about how the guy pushes, and the girl resists, and then well of course she might cry, but that's just part of the good old fun!

The idea that men don't marry the women they have sex with is one of the most corrosive I know.
posted by corb at 4:29 AM on May 22, 2012 [2 favorites]


Boys are dumb.

Spoken like a true 13-year-old girl.
posted by unSane at 4:44 AM on May 22, 2012 [5 favorites]


The Article is correct.
How could anyone respect a girl who uses slang !?
posted by Flood at 4:53 AM on May 22, 2012


An awful lot of it is quite true today, and the one apparently-sexist exception (girls press for engagement as a concomitant of sex) is much more believable when you remember the state of birth control in 1955.

Ah, 2012 Republicans, yearning for the good 'ol days.
posted by inigo2 at 5:25 AM on May 22, 2012 [3 favorites]


Especially the incredibly date-rapey last bullet, about how the guy pushes, and the girl resists, and then well of course she might cry, but that's just part of the good old fun!

I think that is a total misreading of that paragraph. It's kind of saying the opposite: that people are following a scripted cultural ritual of sex, and at the time that was a ritual of he pushes, she says no or cries, then the action happens. The guy "losing respect" is simply the final piece of that ritual. It's sad because it was clear even then that this was a pattern that didn't seem to be happy for either party.

And I don't know if anyone was thinking about this in 1964, but another terrible thing about this scripted pattern of behavior is that if the girl is expected, maybe almost required to say "no" before proceeding, there's no way to evaluate actual consent. She's saying no, maybe because she means no, and maybe because she means yes but doesn't want to be seen as "easy" or slutty. That's crappy for everyone, and it's a pattern that some people still seem to follow, sadly.
posted by Forktine at 5:34 AM on May 22, 2012 [10 favorites]


My new band name is a link at the bottom: Sex Worries of Teenage Boys. We're asking Morrissey to be our front man.
posted by Ironmouth at 5:53 AM on May 22, 2012 [6 favorites]


"SATIETY, n. The feeling that one has for the plate after he has eaten its contents, madam."

- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
posted by fleetmouse at 6:03 AM on May 22, 2012 [7 favorites]


It's not a bad article, but the prose seems like it was translated from Serbian by Eugene Ionesco.

“It does seem a bit peculiar,” I replied, “considering that your wife, if I am to believe her story, is very much in love with you and is quite aggressive in her desire for frequent marital relations.” – “Yes, I guess it does seem peculiar. And, let me tell you, she’s being honest with you. She does want sex relations very often, and she is, as you can see, a fine figure of a woman."

posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 6:07 AM on May 22, 2012 [6 favorites]


What jumped out at me was reason #10, that sex is a ritual in the absence of actually talking/communicating about sex, so that it's socially expected that the boy will advance, and the girl will resist, and the chilling result is that "The girl may then cry to prove her virtue."

Yeah, I'm sure that was the only reason why girls would cry. (sarcasm)
posted by honey badger at 6:14 AM on May 22, 2012 [5 favorites]


I think it mentioned that guys seem to "lose respect" because they never had any to begin with and after sex, there isn't any reason to pretend to like her anymore. Because he never respected her in the first place.
posted by discopolo at 6:14 AM on May 22, 2012 [3 favorites]


Slugs and snails: And puppy-dogs' tails.
posted by Fizz at 6:17 AM on May 22, 2012


I think this article is true today only in certain very scary parts of the flyover states.

Gender roles don't exist in the coastal areas!
posted by shakespeherian at 6:37 AM on May 22, 2012 [14 favorites]


Gender roles don't exist in the coastal areas!

What about separate bathrooms? They still have those, right? Right?
posted by discopolo at 6:53 AM on May 22, 2012


I think this article is true today only in certain very scary parts of the flyover states.

Where on the coasts do you live where you aren't a 1-2 hour drive maximum from pockets of ignorance and insanity?

I'm in DC, and hear 60s-vintage rhetoric like this about women (or about gay people, people of color, "liberals", etc.) from people in northern Virginia ALL THE TIME.
posted by ryanshepard at 6:56 AM on May 22, 2012 [5 favorites]


The first bullet point goes to the lesson I (40something) was taught as a girl going into my teen years: if he respects you, he'll wait for sex until you're ready. If he pressures you for sex without regard for your feelings, it's because he doesn't respect you.
posted by immlass at 7:06 AM on May 22, 2012 [2 favorites]


Where on the coasts do you live where you aren't a 1-2 hour drive maximum from pockets of ignorance and insanity?

Or, you know, thirty feet.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:13 AM on May 22, 2012 [10 favorites]


And I don't know if anyone was thinking about this in 1964, but another terrible thing about this scripted pattern of behavior is that if the girl is expected, maybe almost required to say "no" before proceeding, there's no way to evaluate actual consent. She's saying no, maybe because she means no, and maybe because she means yes but doesn't want to be seen as "easy" or slutty. That's crappy for everyone, and it's a pattern that some people still seem to follow, sadly.

Yes, this is what I meant, but expressed more poorly. Thank you!

Gender roles don't exist in the coastal areas!

Oh, they totally do! I just mean the ritual of "women fight and say no and cry when they mean yes" is something I've only currently heard from friends of mine who grew up in Nebraska and Kansas. There's totally problematic behavior all over.
posted by corb at 7:17 AM on May 22, 2012 [1 favorite]


This is why you should fuck men, not boys.
posted by Decani at 7:38 AM on May 22, 2012 [4 favorites]


Sexology magazine is fascinating. It's about 1/2 titillation, a chance to sell something porny to people while looking like legit popular science. About 1/4 is good solid science, and 1/4 is total garbage. Not sure where this article fits in except it's pretty crappy as titillation.

If this kind of writing interests you, The Best of Sexology is a good collection of some of the most interesting articles from the magazine. And at $6 for the hardback it's a bargain.
posted by Nelson at 8:11 AM on May 22, 2012 [1 favorite]


Many of the observations and speculations in that article are repeated on nearly a daily basis by a young relative of mine and her circle of friends on FB.

We haven't come a very long way, baby.
posted by lord_wolf at 8:22 AM on May 22, 2012 [1 favorite]


This article reminded me a lot of the story "if they knew Yvonne" by Andre Dubus.
posted by Diablevert at 8:27 AM on May 22, 2012


This is all bullshit. Boys don't "lose respect" for girls. They never had it in the first place. They were taught (culturally) that all females are less than human and therefore are to be exploited for "a good time" and then tossed aside for another, newer one.

Who the fuck are we kidding with the rest of this psychobabble?
posted by Edison Carter at 8:56 AM on May 22, 2012 [5 favorites]


On review, discopolo beat me to it.
posted by Edison Carter at 8:58 AM on May 22, 2012


Edison Carter: To be fair, they do include that as reason #1.
posted by rusty at 8:59 AM on May 22, 2012 [3 favorites]


True, but they offer that as an individual precursor, not a cultural one. It's offered as one possibility, but it's the only actual explanation. A man who actually respects women won't "lose respect" for a woman because she has a healthy active sex life.
posted by Edison Carter at 9:02 AM on May 22, 2012 [1 favorite]


Interesting. This thread began with a plainly sexist comment, and barely anyone has commented on that.

Reverse the gender scenario, and an all-out flame war on Metatalk would be heating up already, with multiple censorings.

Cue the apologist to chide me for daring to suggest that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and it's just a joke, and attacking men is OK because of the power dynamic blah blah blah.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:02 AM on May 22, 2012 [3 favorites]


Interesting. This thread began with a plainly sexist comment, and barely anyone has commented on that.

Boys are dumb (with little exception). Culturally speaking, because they are taught to be dumb.

Reverse the gender scenario, and an all-out flame war on Metatalk would be heating up already, with multiple censorings.

Cue the apologist to chide me for daring to suggest that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and it's just a joke, and attacking men is OK because of the power dynamic blah blah blah.


Because when someone picks on males, it's absurd to pretend somehow this sort of comment makes men/boys into victims of a cultural or institutional oppression which doesn't exist.
posted by Edison Carter at 9:05 AM on May 22, 2012 [1 favorite]


Cue the pre-emptive dismissal of what is the obvious reason that saying "Boys are dumb" is not even worth remarking on...

Cue the phrase "reverse racism" somehow.

Set phasers to "ignorant" Captain...
posted by rusty at 9:06 AM on May 22, 2012 [3 favorites]


"White men have it HARD in today's society!"
posted by Edison Carter at 9:07 AM on May 22, 2012 [2 favorites]


Personally, I didn't think the opening comment worth remarking on because I though it was supposed to be a sarcastic, dismissive distillation of the article's message, not the writer's heartfelt opinion. In other words, I read it as the usual mefi-thread-opening snark, where someone gets their firsties off by reading only the title of the post and glibly dismissing/applauding it.
posted by Diablevert at 9:10 AM on May 22, 2012 [7 favorites]


Yes, but that Y chromosome is soooo sensitive to oppression.
posted by Edison Carter at 9:16 AM on May 22, 2012 [1 favorite]


I actually think this article is as true today as it was when it was written. (Now, we just pretend that that things are much more sociologically complicated... but the reality is, the attitude that 'girls you fuck' and 'girls you marry' are non-overlapping circles in a venn diagram has not entirely gone away.)

Someone forgot to tell this to my husband (and I suspect, a great number of other husbands out there).
posted by Kitty Stardust at 9:25 AM on May 22, 2012 [9 favorites]


I hope that the Venn diagram for "girls you fuck" and "girls you marry" looks like a smaller circle completely contained inside a larger circle. I mean... is anyone marrying a girl he will not fuck?
posted by rusty at 9:30 AM on May 22, 2012 [4 favorites]


Boys are dumb (with little exception).

Bullshit.

Boys are at once confused, conflicted, vulnerable, lied to, manipulative, self-serving, altruistic, short sighted, clever, afraid, bold, aggressive, passive, sad, and hopeful.

Just like girls.

Misandry is not the correct tonic for misogyny.

"White men have it HARD in today's society!"

They do. They really do, considering the vast majority of them are not part of the elite upper crust of white males who do get to enjoy every single benefit from membership in that group and are simultaneously largely insulated from the resentment and anger of those us who have their (that elite upper class's) feet on our necks.

Things are tough all over....
posted by lord_wolf at 9:30 AM on May 22, 2012 [17 favorites]


I hope that the Venn diagram for "girls you fuck" and "girls you marry" looks like a smaller circle completely contained inside a larger circle. I mean... is anyone marrying a girl he will not fuck?

If years of watching family sitcoms and hack comedians have taught me one thing, it's that once you marry a girl, she stops being willing to fuck you. See, it's funny because of all the simmering resentment that underlies that fucked up mindset about sexuality.
posted by Copronymus at 9:49 AM on May 22, 2012 [3 favorites]


At this point I would like to encourage everyone to refer to women, rather than girls, when talking about fucking.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:51 AM on May 22, 2012 [2 favorites]


If years of watching family sitcoms and hack comedians have taught me one thing, it's that once you marry a girl, she stops being willing to fuck you.

So in some ways, Married... with Children was a progressive show for its time?
posted by Apocryphon at 10:07 AM on May 22, 2012


"Married... with Children" was neither progressive nor regressive. It simply was, the eternal sad truth of dreary, dreadful reality for all time.
posted by kjh at 10:11 AM on May 22, 2012


This is all bullshit. Boys don't "lose respect" for girls. They never had it in the first place. They were taught (culturally) that all females are less than human and therefore are to be exploited for "a good time" and then tossed aside for another, newer one.

Who the fuck are we kidding with the rest of this psychobabble? but they offer that as an individual precursor, not a cultural one. It's offered as one possibility, but it's the only actual explanation. A man who actually respects women won't "lose respect" for a woman because she has a healthy active sex life.


I don't think this is true at all. And we're talking about teenage boys here. As lord_wolf said, "boys are at once confused, conflicted, vulnerable, lied to, manipulative, self-serving, altruistic, short sighted, clever, afraid, bold, aggressive, passive, sad, and hopeful." Girls are this way too. They're both dumb.

Sex and intimacy are confusing and weighted with cultural and individual baggage that make navigating relationships difficult especially when you have no experience, lack maturity and have raging hormones.
posted by shoesietart at 10:21 AM on May 22, 2012 [4 favorites]


I feel the need to quote one of my favorite jokes here:

What do you call the excess skin around a man's penis?

The man.
posted by Kokopuff at 10:21 AM on May 22, 2012 [4 favorites]


I'm in DC, and hear 60s-vintage rhetoric like this about women (or about gay people, people of color, "liberals", etc.) from people in northern Virginia ALL THE TIME.

Yeah, I'll second that. As a gay man, I have a far better time getting along in the so-called "flyover state" where I live now (except for the damn legislators, who would all feel very at home in 1954 and would in fact prefer it) than I did in the area where I lived previously, which was 50 miles inland from a city that is the poster child for liberalism run amok as portrayed in an endless string of GOP attack ads going back decades.
posted by blucevalo at 10:26 AM on May 22, 2012


At this point I would like to encourage everyone to refer to women, rather than girls, when talking about fucking.

Again, shakespeherian, it's interesting that you aren't encouraging everyone to refer to men, rather than boys, when talking about fucking.

Once again, some who claim to be supporting women's rights still aren't promoting sexual equality.
posted by IAmBroom at 10:35 AM on May 22, 2012 [2 favorites]


"At this point I would like to encourage everyone to refer to women, rather than girls, when talking about fucking.

Again, shakespeherian, it's interesting that you aren't encouraging everyone to refer to men, rather than boys, when talking about fucking.
"

Decani already made that point a couple of dozen comments earlier. I figured shakespeherian was adding just the part Decani left out.
posted by tdismukes at 10:45 AM on May 22, 2012


Again, shakespeherian, it's interesting that you aren't encouraging everyone to refer to men, rather than boys, when talking about fucking.

I was responding to several comments that used the term 'girls you fuck.' These comments did not use the term 'boys you fuck.'
posted by shakespeherian at 10:49 AM on May 22, 2012


Once again, some who claim to be supporting women's rights still aren't promoting sexual equality.

Also, can you please stop this? I'm a man. I am in favor of sexual equality. I live in a culture which often equates infantalization with sexualization when it comes to women, but never ever does this when it comes to men. I am not saying that grown men should be referred to as boys while grown women should only ever be referred to as women, but it is ridiculous to pretend that our language and culture treat these terms and ideas as equal to the point that my reaction to one implies an opposite reaction to the other. I think we are all quite capable of hearing someone say 'I respect women!' without assuming that they do not respect men.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:53 AM on May 22, 2012 [8 favorites]


Boys are dumb (with little exception).

Bullshit.

Boys are at once confused, conflicted, vulnerable, lied to, manipulative, self-serving, altruistic, short sighted, clever, afraid, bold, aggressive, passive, sad, and hopeful.

Just like girls.


How does that negate my bigger point? Boys are *taught* to be "dumb". You combine all of those tings you listed with cultural and institutional sexism and, quite frankly, you end up with dumb males. Unfortunately, you also end up with dumb females because they are taught the same things.

People who rush to defend males in these conversations seem to miss the bigger point.
posted by Edison Carter at 11:00 AM on May 22, 2012


(and YES there are exceptions)
posted by Edison Carter at 11:05 AM on May 22, 2012


In other words, I read it as the usual mefi-thread-opening snark, where someone gets their firsties off by reading only the title of the post and glibly dismissing/applauding it.

Indeed. Lately I've been thinking of writing a script that just automatically hides the first few comments on any thread, because they are a complete waste of bandwidth.

Also, can you please stop this? I'm a man. I am in favor of sexual equality. I live in a culture which often equates infantalization with sexualization when it comes to women, but never ever does this when it comes to men.

'Boyfriend' is commonly used to refer to adult men, just like 'girlfriend.' Lots of American women use the word 'boy' when they're being flirty. It's not infantilization since there's no implication of pre-adolescence about it, but I think people might grow out of it faster if the US could harmonize its ridiculous age-of-consent laws to something like 15 or 16 instead of maintaining the absurd fiction that sexual activity by anyone under 18 is a a hideous crime.
posted by anigbrowl at 11:18 AM on May 22, 2012 [2 favorites]


Fuck it.
IAmBroom:
"Cue the apologist to chide me for daring to suggest that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and it's just a joke, and attacking men is OK because of the power dynamic blah blah blah."
You're just looking for a fight. If a childish remark like "Boys are dumb" is enough to set you off, then that's a axe that's been well and truly sharpened and waiting for use.
Edison Carter:
"Boys are dumb (with little exception). Culturally speaking, because they are taught to be dumb."
Later on you say:
Edison Carter:
"Unfortunately, you also end up with dumb females because they are taught the same things."
So what's the point of differentiating in the first place? Don't rise to defend some thoughtless piece of snark like it's some essential truth when it isn't intended as such. It doesn't help anything in any way.
posted by charred husk at 11:37 AM on May 22, 2012 [5 favorites]


tdismukes: Decani already made that point a couple of dozen comments earlier. I figured shakespeherian was adding just the part Decani left out.

Thanks, I didn't see that connection; but as shakesperian points out, that was not his motivation.


shakespeherian: I'm a man.

Irrelevant. Unless you are under the delusion that one can only be sexist against the opposite sex.


shakespeherian: ...but it is ridiculous to pretend that our language and culture treat these terms and ideas as equal to the point that my reaction to one implies an opposite reaction to the other. I think we are all quite capable of hearing someone say 'I respect women!' without assuming that they do not respect men.

You didn't say, "I respect women!". You made a mandate on how we should treat one gender, without regard to the other. I find it inherently offensive to suggest, "Gender A deserves protection; Gender B does not!" - AS offensive as the opposite fallacy, even if it doesn't occur as often.

And, I'm getting fed up with the number of people on this site who think it's OK. They're quick to favorite racist comments that chide white people for daring to believe their lives aren't perfect. They take to task men for daring to believe that they don't hold the ultimate power always and everywhere. They pretend that there's some quantized balance of justice out there, and if one group is underprivileged, the group on top loses all rights to empathy.

I'm interested in equality. Not in giving advantages to women, minorities, left-handed blind astronauts, etc.; but in removing obstacles to every individual human's choices in life.

Sadly, this is a forum where jokes about mutilating male genitalia is acceptable, but even pointing out that this might not constitute respectable and polite conversation draws criticism.


charred husk: You're just looking for a fight.

Nope, I've been in the fight for years. I'm tired of people who thinks equality is about hating whoever's ahead right now, and pretending that their position is admirable.
posted by IAmBroom at 11:51 AM on May 22, 2012 [10 favorites]


I find it inherently offensive to suggest, "Gender A deserves protection; Gender B does not!"

Good, me too. I didn't say anything like that at all. In fact, that was the point of my comment which you're quoting. Look, I even said this: I am not saying that grown men should be referred to as boys while grown women should only ever be referred to as women.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:55 AM on May 22, 2012 [2 favorites]


IAmBroom:
"Nope, I've been in the fight for years"
Thanks for bringing the fight here, then! I'm sure the forces of justice are smiling on you.
posted by charred husk at 11:56 AM on May 22, 2012


charred husk, either you're new here, or you've somehow missed about a billion discussions of race and gender equity.

Welcome to Metafilter!
posted by IAmBroom at 12:00 PM on May 22, 2012


So what's the point of differentiating in the first place? Don't rise to defend some thoughtless piece of snark like it's some essential truth when it isn't intended as such. It doesn't help anything in any way.

Hold on: need to unroll my eyes. They've gotten stuck.
posted by Edison Carter at 12:07 PM on May 22, 2012


Love the old idea that thankfully seems to have waned in my lifetime that women earn or lose respect but men automatically have it.

Also loving the old idea that men do and women are done to, which seems to be still very prevalent.
posted by Summer at 12:56 PM on May 22, 2012


I totally agree with everyone who is saying that there is truth to be found in this article. I feel like loss of respect in the cases presented in this article is often interchangeable with loss of interest, which I, at least, have experienced. We've all heard of the thrill of the chase and all that. I feel like I've experienced a number of these situations over the course of dating. They never liked me to begin with, but just wanted to get laid. Or something that seemed special in the bedroom suddenly becomes tawdry in the locker room. Or maybe once they got what they wanted, they were just on to the next conquest.

These aren't necessarily healthy or modern attitudes, but I'm pretty sure they're out here. Even in San Francisco.
posted by chatongriffes at 3:04 PM on May 22, 2012 [1 favorite]


How does that negate my bigger point?

Your bigger point in the first post I responded to made no mention of girls being under similar constraints. It also included the line

Because when someone picks on males, it's absurd to pretend somehow this sort of comment makes men/boys into victims of a cultural or institutional oppression which doesn't exist.

which itself seems to contradict your bigger point. If men/boys are dumb because they are being made that way, aren't they being oppressed and isn't this teaching pretty much by definition cultural and institutional?


Couple that with the subsequent post that appeared snide about issues white men face. I therefore concluded that I was seeing something that occurs far too often on MeFi and in real life as well: exchanging dismissive attitudes toward girls and women for dismissive attitudes towards men and boys.

I apologize if I misread you or replied with an excess of antipathy, but one of my berserk buttons is the free pass "guys suck, amirite?" kinds of comments tend to get here, and the way those comments are frequently paired with suggestions that any chafed response to them is automatically not worthy of consideration.

In posts about liberals and atheists, we're often told that angry and dismissive language towards our opposite numbers -- no matter the impetus -- kills the discourse and impedes progress. Though I'm often very deeply upset by conservatives and people who are zealously religious, I know that the people who warn us about avoiding hurtful language are entirely correct. I think it would only be for the better if we were all mindful of this when discussing gender issues as well.

This is is not to say that I think it's okay to turn threads about, say, the body image issues society forces on women into a "yeah, but what about the menfolk?!!!11!1!" forum, but we've got to do better than letting "boys are dumb" comments and their ilk go unremarked upon.
posted by lord_wolf at 3:06 PM on May 22, 2012 [11 favorites]


You're howling at the moon, lord_wolf. Metafilter won't change in this regard.
posted by hincandenza at 5:22 PM on May 22, 2012


The Hugo award science fiction writing is named after Hugo Gernsback.
posted by Grumpy old geek at 6:39 PM on May 22, 2012


Well, y'all went for the sex angle instead of the magazine art angle, so you missed these:
166 Men in Dresses
What is "Normal" in SEX?
for sale: Greek Babies
Dr. Kinsey on Sex Orgies
Is Virgin Birth Possible?
Pedophilia (Illustrated)
mothers, monkeys, and sex
must heart attacks end sex?
am I normal?
The MINI-SKIRT Revealing a New Erotic Zone

I tell ya. If you are a modern sexually aware human being and you're not reading Sexology, then you're just not living in the Fifties or Sixties.
posted by twoleftfeet at 6:41 PM on May 22, 2012


By the way, you might get the idea sometimes that Wikipedia pretty much has it covered, that any topic of sufficiently broad interest already has a Wikipedia article to go with it. But you would be wrong. Wikipedia currently has no article whatsoever on Sexology Magazine. So there you go, person-with-too-much-time-on-your-hands-who-likes-researching-sex.
posted by twoleftfeet at 6:49 PM on May 22, 2012 [1 favorite]


Yeah, never fucking mind. Men are the victims now. Right.
posted by Edison Carter at 6:05 AM on May 23, 2012


You aren't getting it, Edison Carter, because you don't want to get it.

No one group is "The Victims". The world simply isn't black and white. Individual people are victims, not groups of people chosen solely on single-valued attributes.

Bigotry is the act of thinking all [X] are alike. Like you're doing.
posted by IAmBroom at 7:55 AM on May 23, 2012 [2 favorites]


Aren't we sort of crossing the streams here? Men, considered as a social moiety, aren't the victims of the normative sexual ideology that Metafilter reflexively bashes, but can be (read: are) individually harmed by it through the damage it does to their own relationships. This can happen at the same time that privilege operates. This is not equivalent to the harm done women, as a moiety, nor the same experience of harm lived by individual women. It also isn't exactly an earth-shattering realization.

Similarly, the somewhat plain reality that our social identities have many aspects, are multivalent, such that we can be privileged in one regard (gender), exploited in another (class), and that these phenomena exist in a complex interrelation that is confusing for each and every one of us.

But those are just the ground rules....
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:58 AM on May 23, 2012 [3 favorites]


Bigotry is the act of thinking all [X] are alike. Like you're doing.

You seem to not know I'm actually a man. If I thought "all men are alike" then I'd think I was like this. But I am not. So, please: shut up about what you think I'm saying.
posted by Edison Carter at 11:10 AM on May 23, 2012


You seem to not know I'm actually a man.

That's irrelevant. You can still make obnoxious, un-empathic, bigoted statements about your own class.

If I thought "all men are alike" then I'd think I was like this. But I am not.

I agree that the source of your high opinion of yourself with regards to "men" is irrelevant. Still doesn't mean you can't have a bigoted opinion of males in general.

So, please: shut up about what you think I'm saying.

He didn't say anything about what your inner thoughts, just what is evident in your writing. We can only go by what you write.
posted by Snyder at 12:26 PM on May 23, 2012


Oh Edison---you were trolling, you got caught, get over it.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 12:40 PM on May 23, 2012


« Older New Google+ Study Reveals Minimal Social Activity,...  |  Have you ever bought one of th... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments