Blast Magazine» sexuality

The future of hypergamy

Neely Steinberg — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 14:05:01 +0000

Liza Mundy, a writer for The Washington Post, has a new book out: The Richer Sex: How the New Majority of Female Breadwinners is Transforming Sex, Love, and Family. In it she discusses the rise of women in the workplace and the inevitability of female dominance. She predicts that by 2025, more than half the primary breadwinners in America will be female. What does this mean for the country, in terms of romantic relationships? Will women be happy with this role? How will men respond? Will marriage decline if men begin to feel emasculated or unnecessary?

And, on the minds of many: Will female hypergamy – the practice of marrying into an equal or more prestigious social group or caste – come to an end? Traditionally, women have been the ones to “marry up,” for reasons such as necessity, desire, social pressure, and self-validation. But with the rise of women in society, namely the working world and education, less women are turning to marriage as a means of survival or for purposes of self-esteem. I happen to think this is a good thing, but surely, for every action there is a reaction. One unintended consequence of rising females is the decline of males, which may mean an end to hypergamy, or perhaps even a reversal – male hypergamy. Unfortunately, that possibility doesn’t sit well with many women, at least not for the time being. The fairer sex still wants to partner up with men of similar or greater financial and educational prospects. Trouble is: that pool of men is shrinking. Can women’s hypergamous instincts thus be tamed? Will women eventually embrace the concept of “dating down?” Or will they choose a life of bachelorettehood rather than feel like they’re settling for men of lower status.

As a dating and relationship pundit, I’ve started to see the very real effects of this modern-day dilemma on men and women. Take Boston, for example. A recent survey conducted by Glamour magazine and Match.com found that Boston women are the unhappiest in the country. Sure, it may have to do with the fact that 1 out of 8 Boston men expect sex on the first date – another finding of that survey – but another guess is that it might have something to do with the growing number of accomplished, well-educated women in the city and the decreasing pool of similarly accomplished, well-educated men.

When I posted a link to Susan Walsh’s blog entry on the subject of hypergamy to my facebook page, a man by the name of Tom responded with some very thoughtful feedback. I appreciated having a male perspective, and Tom’s comments were so insightful that I asked him if I could publish our back-and-forth on Blast. Here was our conversation about hypergamy, male-female relations, Game, the future of marriage, and other such topics.

What do you have to add to the discussion?

Tom: Two quick observations:

Hypergamous instincts are not based exclusively on career success but more broadly on social dominance and “demonstration of higher value” (DHV). Beneath the cheesy scripts and peacock routines, this is the essential proposition that undergirds the whole “Game”/PUA mentality and how it’s supposed to work (if it does work). That sounds nebulous, but when discussing sexual attraction, nebulous factors often come into play.
Discussions of how mating/relationship/marriage norms are changing need to accept the possibility that, for many, “failure” is most definitely an option, meaning that there is no cosmic rule that says that everyone is eventually going to partner up happy, succeed in the mating game, whatever. The majority of adults are already unmarried and while that might change on an individual level for many, no law says it has to. We may end up moving to a new norm of what inter-gender personal relationships end up looking like. I think this was the point that Kate Bolick was trying to make several months ago, in her critique of “singlism,” and it remains valid. If the social norm doesn’t match human realities and desires, I’d expect the former to change more readily than the latter.

Neely Steinberg: You make some great points. 1) My feeling re: Game/PUA is that the techniques/mentality have become so mainstream that they are less effective. Many women can smell them from a mile away, but I do think they can come in handy, to an extent, for Beta types who have a hard time making connections with women. Also, I think younger women are more prone to falling for Game; older women don’t have the time, desire or energy to deal with feigned displays of DHV. Of course, self-confidence is sexy and we love it, but when we realize it comes from a playbook, we aren’t so interested. At this juncture, hypergamy is still instinctual for most females, but perhaps 50 years from now societal shifts will drown out that instinct. Will be interesting to watch and see. 2) I think you’re right: Moving forward, “failure” to get married or couple up is a valid option, although we probably won’t look at it as failure anymore. I do think there are dangerous implications, though, to having less married people, specifically for children. But perhaps I will be convinced otherwise if it becomes the accepted societal norm for all groups (white, black, rich, poor, etc.).

Tom: Re (1): I agree that the corpus of techniques and scripts promulgated by Game proponents has likely become somewhat stale but I always viewed that as the less-important part of that philosophy (as well as being kind of lame anyway), as compared to the overall mindset and objective of the effort, namely, to teach men with difficulty in that area to develop a better sense of self-confidence and ability to “sell” themselves, as well as to “de-pedestalize” and demystify women and the nature of female attraction in the eyes of such men. I think that the techniques were mostly there as sort of a set of “training wheels” anyway for the less secure, less naturally self-confident, and more “beta” or introverted of men to get a start on things. The ultimate goal probably is and should be for men to actually LEARN to be more self-confident and to promote themselves better, rather than to merely find a way to act as though they are, but “fake it until you make it” can perhaps be a viable means to that end. Game in any case at least always predicated itself on relying on an objective analysis of what works and how attraction is generation, so one could expect that the body of actual techniques, if one is concerned about such things, would evolve and develop to meet current social realities.

I guess whether hypergamy becomes less relevant or not depends on one’s view of its etiology. If it’s some sort of deeply-rooted evolutionary instinct (as a lot of the Game people claim), then it may prove highly-resistant to any sort of fundamental change, at least within anything less than an evolutionary timeframe (probably significantly longer than 50 years), though the means by which that instinct is expressed and manifested certainly probably will change as the social outlets by which it can express itself do (I have no idea what one might expect such social norms may look like in 50 years, given both the rapid state of flux they seem to be in, and the fact that an observer from 50 years ago probably wouldn’t have been able to predict the current situation very well).

Re (2): control over biology and child-bearing and -rearing is an important issue there. Human beings gaining control over that process over the last half-century will probably prove to be one of the most revolutionary biological and social changes in human history. The current debates and controversy over contraception are taking place with that as a backdrop. Hopefully, both the technology and the access to it will advance to the point that child-bearing will be able to take place in stable and supportive environments (which might mean in families oriented around two-person marriage, or around some other arrangements that provide similar material and social support to children, again I won’t try to predict what options people may come up with 50 years hence). We face the risk that raising well cared-for and parented children may become a preserve of the rich or others with the personal or social resources to invest in the project, something that’s maybe already becoming an issue with marriage right now becoming a preserve of the upper class, but that won’t make it any different than a lot of other class divisions we already have to deal with (and which would call for a broader battery of solutions beyond either family norms or reproductive technology).

Also re hypergamy: I think both sexes are, to an extent, hypergamous. I don’t know of many heterosexual men who would not prefer to find women who are hot, kind, smart, and accomplished, probably roughly in that order, even if they’re “marrying (or partnering) up.” Where perhaps things get complicated is in the dynamics of a relationship where one’s self-image, and probably one’s image as imputed to the eyes of their partner by comparison, are affected or potentially placed in question.

Neely Steinberg: Completely agree that Game is helpful to men in that way, 100 percent. And yes, fake it until you make it, can be a viable option until you actually start to believe it, which I suppose would be the end goal – not just getting the girl, otherwise old habits and insecurities are more likely to seep back in. I’m not sure if Game alone is enough to accomplish a total transformation, but it can help, and it’s a good start because it forces men to come out of their shells, demystifies women, and forces men to “do” and experiment; it’s not enough to just think – one has to act and through repeated action one builds self-esteem. And yes, depends on how you view hypergamy – if it’s instinctual, societal changes will probably do little, and a push for change (i.e. social engineering) may do more harm than good. If hypergamy is a societal imperative, it can be more easily manipulated. Conservatives would do well, IMO, to embrace same-sex marriage – if their goal is a return, if that’s even possible, to more stable family environments. For the benefit of our children and the betterment of civil society, they should be encouraging two-parent homes, no matter the gender of the parents. That two human beings are willing to create a stable, loving home for children is what is important. At this point, the sexual liberation movement seems to have benefitted the well-heeled more than other socioeconomic classes, simply because the rich have the resources to, as you say, invest in the project. Currently, only a small percentage of highly educated men and women choose to stay unmarried and have kids on their own. I don’t see that changing for a while but who knows what will happen. It’s sort of a separate-but-equal scenario that actually has dire consequences for the less fortunate.

Tom: Agree with all of the above. I think that the current social conservative reaction (represented by, e.g.: Rick Santorum, et al) is a case of doing the wrong thing for the right reason, or at least I’m willing to be at least that charitable with regards to some of that camp’s motivations, or at least those of its supporters. I think they’ve correctly assessed that current family and sexual norms are in a state of flux (I’d not quite use the word “crisis). Where they go wrong is in thinking that it’s either desirable, or even feasible, to somehow turn the clock back on such norms to 1958 or some other bygone era, rather than working to find more realistic and equitable modern solutions to the problem.

MP4 Love #7: When to have sex for the first time?

Neely Steinberg — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:03:34 +0000

Hi Neely,
I’m always unsure about when I should have sex with a man for the first time. What are your thoughts on this?

First time sex, Boston

Takeaway points:

56 seconds: Helen Fisher, famous anthropologist, says that no sex is causal. I agree.
1:09: In my honest opinion, I don’t think many women are all that interested in or good at having casual, no-strings attached sex. Usually there are ulterior motives – it’s not just for purely physical reasons. And usually alcohol is involved.
1:39: The questions to ask yourself to answer this question are: What are you looking for and how well do you know yourself? Tune in for more thoughts on why to ask yourself these questions.
2:27: Women often sleep with someone to solidify a relationship. Doesn’t work this way. Women are often disappointed and hurt when man disappears.
2:50: The one thing I say OVER and OVER to women. Tune in to find out what that is.
3:10: If you’re the type of person that can have casual sex without getting hurt or disappointed and you’re not looking for anything serious, sleep with someone whenever you want…BUT BE SAFE!
3:30: If you’re the type of person that doesn’t really enjoy casual sex and you’re looking for a long-term relationship, wait a few months with someone you’re dating. Tune in to find out why.
4:22: Ask yourself the two aforementioned questions, be honest with yourself, and you’ll be in a better position to answer your own question.

Submit your dating/relationship questions to neely@blastmagazine.com.

Why is this feminist angry?

Neely Steinberg — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 17:52:00 +0000

(Originally published on The Good Men Project)

On my day off from work the other week, I engaged in my first Twitter debate. I was perusing the Timeline when I came across a Tweet from Amanda Marcotte, a writer for Pandagon and one of the leaders of today’s feminist movement. I had been in touch with Marcotte recently, asking her to contribute to my piece on Skirtgate, the Park Slope, Brooklyn sexual assaults contretemps (which, incidentally, inspired my next piece titled Feminism: The Winter of Men’s Discontent, a commentary on the rise of misandry and men’s growing resentment toward feminism). Marcotte tweeted that she was disgusted with the New York Times for giving air-time to Katie Roiphe, who argued in a recent op-ed that sexual harassment in the workplace is an irrelevant, antiquated institution. Or in her words: “When I was at Princeton in the ’90s, the guidelines distributed to students about sexual harassment stated, “sexual harassment may result from a conscious or unconscious action, and can be subtle or blatant.”… If this language was curiously retrograde in the early ’90s, if it harkened back to the protection of delicate feminine sensibilities in an era when that protection was patently absurd, it is even more outdated now when women are yet more powerful and ascendant in the workplace.”

Roiphe is one of the most talked about cultural critics of her generation (her book Uncommon Arrangements: Seven Portraits of Married Life in London Literary Circles 1910-1939 was a delight to read, by the way). But Marcotte isn’t a fan. Fueled by her rage at Roiphe’s commentary, Marcotte launched insults at her throughout her response piece, writing things like, “She cashes that NY Times paycheck while doing no real research that could actually upend her baseless assertions” and “I’m looking forward to Roiphe’s denunciation of Dan Savage’s It Gets Better project, where she scoffs at the idea that pantsing a kid and calling him ‘fag’ on a daily basis should be a matter of concern, and not just a delightful expression of youthful boisterousness that shouldn’t be troubled by the high suicide rate amongst gay teens.” Marcotte considers Roiphe a giggling “hair-curler” who “panders to sexist men for condescending head pats.”

When I engaged Marcotte on Twitter I knew I was in for a wild ride. She is adept at Tweet debating (Twebating?) and dominated our discussion, firing out replies and replies to my replies three or four at a time, leaving me heady and confused as to which reply I should reply to. I’m new to Twitter and am still working on Tweet etiquette and strategies. Perhaps I tried too hard to fit all of my thoughts into one tweet – often substituting numbers for letters and symbols for words, which I now see is not the most couth approach – as opposed to doing it piecemeal like Marcotte.

The question that started it all was based off Marcotte’s response piece, in which she used the word slut several times (she wasn’t calling Roiphe a slut but used the word in other ways). I was curious to know, simply: “Do you have a definition for the word slut?” In recent times, feminists have appropriated the word, wearing it like a badge of honor at various protests, such as the Slut Walks, but I wanted to know how Marcotte actually defined it. Here’s how the debate began (I’ve done my best to reconstruct it):

AmandaMarcotte

http://bit.ly/tGiyq3 Fucking disgusting that the NY Times continues to run people questioning whether or not to allow harassers full rein.

NeelySteinberg

@AmandaMarcotte - Hi, Amanda. Curious: Do you have a definition for the word slut?

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg Yep. A “slut” is someone who has had sex with two more people than the person calling the target a slut.

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg “Slut”, however, has no relationship to reality. It can’t be measured and basically is meaningless without misogyny.

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg In other words, to believe in the concept of a “slut”, you must believe women are inferior to men on some level.

NeelySteinberg

@AmandaMarcotte - Can we agree it’s not just a term used toward females? What about misandry – women calling men “sluts”? That happens too.

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg If you believe that, I have a bridge I can sell you.

NeelySteinberg

@AmandaMarcotte - may not happen as often, but my friends and i have called men “sluts” and “man whores” plenty of times. it goes both ways.

NeelySteinberg

@AmandaMarcotte – Don’t understand how u go from critiquing Roiphe to saying she would scoff at calling little boys “fags.” A stretch, no?

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg It’s a really nice bridge. Maybe you’ve heard of it? Can you get to the San Francisco area soon with your checkbook?

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg It’s also made of PURE GOLD. And you can have it for a mere $5,000. It’s an incredible bargain.

NeelySteinberg

@AmandaMarcotte -i had a feeling u would start to belittle my thoughts…a shame…I’m a fellow female who is just trying 2 have a dialogue.

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg If you believe ironically calling someone a manslut is the same as calling a woman a slut, you have growing up to do.

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg I don’t really see the point in arguing with people who are being disingenuous, sorry.

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg And I can’t force you to grow up on Twitter, so what’s the point of engaging you?

NeelySteinberg

@AmandaMarcotte - that’s ur biggest mistake, amanda. thinking that people who disagree w/you r being disingenuous. for the record, i’m not.

NeelySteinberg

@AmandaMarcotte – why is calling someone a man slut ironic? you don’t think women feel grossed out by men who fuck everything that moves??

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg If calling a man a “slut” with humor is the same thing as calling a woman one sincerely, then I AM selling you a bridge.

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg If you sincerely don’t believe in irony or nuance or context, then you believe I’m actually trying to sell you a bridge.

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg You can’t have it both ways. So what’s your offer on that bridge? I’m not mocking you; there is no such thing as irony.

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg For the record, I do think you’re being disingenuous. The only other option is “really daft”, and I don’t want to think that

NeelySteinberg

@AmandaMarcotte – that’s right. begin the ad hominem attacks.

Are Americans too prudish for our own good?

Tiberio Simone — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 18:00:35 +0000

Being an American citizen, I enjoy the freedom of expression enjoyed by artists in this country. However, I wonder sometimes if we grasp some of the ironies of how we express that freedom.

I am from Italy, which is known as one of the most romantic countries in Europe, a destination for lovers who come to visit from all over the world. So, perhaps I have a slightly different perspective on how Americans express themselves, particularly with regard to romance and sensuality. In Italy, we embrace these concepts in everything we do – the way we dress, the way we cook, the way we dine, and the way we live.

In America however, I sometimes sense a split personality with regard to these concepts. More specifically, I think we sometimes confuse our sensuality with sexuality, and as a result, try to keep both of them hidden for fear of corrupting our children. My point is, there is a difference.

For instance, if any part of the human body that would traditionally be covered by a bathing suit on a typical American beach is shown in a film, that film is rated for adult content, usually getting an “R.” If it is shown in a TV show, the scene is either deleted, or the “naughty bits,” as the British call them, are digitally pixilated out. And of course those areas are not necessarily even covered by bathing suits in Europe, as many of the beaches there are clothing optional.

In this type of censorship, there is no accounting for context. It’s not about the type of scene, but rather the anatomy. If it is a romantic scene, with a context of love and respect, soft lighting, and appropriate mood, it is considered just as “dirty” as a scene in which naked women are running around and shown as sexual objects and nothing more.

The same goes for modern art. Gallery shows in which the human form is depicted tastefully and sensually are regarded as pornography by many “morals” groups, leading some Congressmen to suggest that public funding from the National Endowment for the Arts should not be awarded to any artist who deals with the nude form. The chilling effect, when we approach the sensual and the sexual in the same way, is that we teach our children that nudity itself is a dirty thing, and that they should all be ashamed of their bodies.

That is why young adults in America go directly from puberty straight to pornography – because they do not have anything in between, such as public art or other forms of healthy nudity – things that would help them develop an understanding of sensuality.

Here is the ultimate irony. While we demonize certain parts of the human form, we don’t demonize treating women as sex objects at all, because we use sex to sell just about everything in the consumer marketplace. In TV commercials, young, attractive, and barely dressed women sell everything from cars to beer, weight loss plans to gym gear, breakfast cereals to vacation destinations – even snack foods practically guaranteed to make the men who eat them incredibly unattractive to the women used to sell them.

The difference here is context. We enter the world naked. It is our most natural state as humans, yet the naked body is considered dirty and inappropriate for all time zones. Meanwhile, treating women not as people, but simply as objects of sexual desire, which demeans all women in the process, is perfectly acceptable.

We need to create an environment in America in which sensuality is not confused with sexuality, so that we can all enjoy a freedom of expression that is based in context and meaning instead of an unhealthy and negative obsession with sex.

The science of studying sex

Maria Pawlowska — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:00:05 +0000

Imagine a married couple’s bedroom. They’ve just had a wonderful dinner (perhaps candles and wine were involved) and the kids (if they happen to have them) are tucked into their beds. They start kissing and one of them brakes away saying: “Not tonight honey, I’m sorry but I have a headache.” Stop right there. Let me guess — you imagined the wife making excuses right? Her husband (or any other guy for that matter) is bound to be the one who wants sex, right? Women on the other hand are the ones who like it less and don’t need it as often – so they are thought of as the sex that always ends up making the ‘not this time’ excuses. Or so we’re told from about the time we learn what makes boys and girls different. We’re constantly being convinced that there are strong biological bases for men wanting (and pursuing) sex more than women. They mostly boil down to the same old “it’s about the testosterone” or “men evolved to pursue multiple sex partners”. Because these pseudo-scientific claims include words with more than three syllables as well as references to Charles Darwin’s tried and true theory, these explanations tend to sound like facts. For starters, though, do these “facts” explain real human behaviors or just perceptions about what human behavior is (supposed to be) like?

Ever since Dr. Alfred Kinsey gave up gall wasps and decided studying human sex is more interesting we have been learning more and more about the realities of our species’ sex life. However, we still have quite a way to go and there’s a number of reasons for which it’s pretty hard to learn what’s actually going one. Firstly and most importantly, the subjects themselves – i.e.’ regular’ men and women – are a bit of an issue. As anyone who has ever seen a single episode of House MD will know: “People lie”. Dr. Greg House is a bit on the cynical side (to say the least), but he is right about one thing: people tend to stray from being truthful when asked personal questions by people in white coats or with any authority. And that’s basically what sex research is. A bunch of professors with strings of letters behind their names signifying how important and smart they are, asking delicate questions about how often and how much… You might be thinking that anonymous questionnaires are a way out, right? They are – but only to a certain degree because it’s been shown that people will still give the answers they think they’re supposed to. This happens even when they’re guaranteed complete anonymity. Consequently, at the end of the day the result really might not be all that enlightening.

Secondly, it’s very hard to discern nature from nurture. As in any study on fellow Homo sapiens – whether it’s studying the causes of diabetes, breast cancer or musical talent – it’s really hard to tell what is innate and what’s not. In the case of sex studies, the real question is discerning socialization and conditioning from innate tendencies (some people aren’t even sure it’s doable). People still don’t really know how much of our sexual behavior is the result of what our families and cultures teach us and what is determined by our libido and innate characteristics. So, for example, when I was 12-years old, my Mom made me watch “Bridges of Madison County” with her. If you haven’t seen it, I assure you you’re not missing much. Basically it’s a movie about a wife who cheats on a husband and hates herself for it (or something to that effect). So when the movie was finally over and I was a little surprised by my dear Mother’s question “Maria, what do you think is the moral of this story”. I had absolutely no idea. As far as I was concerned, the moral was that making movie with the words “bridges” and “Madison” in the title is not a very good idea. Because my Mom could see the blank expression in my face, she proceeded to lecture my on how this movie really is about the merits of per-marital sex. I didn’t quite understand so she elaborated that it shows how one should make sure to experience sex before committing to a lifelong relationship, because otherwise we might wind up with someone with an incompatible sexual temperament. I was 12. I still thought boys gave you cooties and at the time I was slightly traumatized. Now, I think this incident (and the general attitude in my house) went a long way to making sure I have a pretty healthy relationship with both myself and my husband (the story also makes for pretty amusing dinner party conversations). I’m pretty sure that if I had spent my childhood and adolescence being lectured on the long list of things ‘good girls’ don’t do, I probably wouldn’t be writing this piece right now. Would I still learn to enjoy sex and have a healthy relationship with my sexuality? Perhaps, who’s to say, but I’m pretty darn sure it would be very difficult. My story is just one example of how hard it is to disentangle the complicated factors which impact this very complex thing that is sex drive and sexual behavior in general.

Having said all that, scientists do keep having a go at studying the underlying causes of human sexual behavior and the determinants of our sex drive – and good on them! A recent study in Current Directions in Psychological Science by a Michigan psychologist Terri Conley and co-authors actually looked at some of most common myths about sexual differences between genders:

1. Men have more sex partners than women

Yes, men talk about their sex partners more than women do, but there’s no real data to show that it’s because they actually have more to talk about. It might be that they feel they can talk about it, because they won’t be called ‘sluts’ for doing so or…potentially they sometimes just make stuff up. Previously, sexologists largely based their studies of human sexuality solely on what subjects were telling the scientists (and remember there are some issues with that). Now, this really isn’t the way science should be conducted. If fictional doctors from fictional hospitals know that people don’t always tell the truth, surely super smart scientists should come around to that conclusion as well, right? Well good news – they did. Conley and colleagues came up with an interesting (if somewhat sneaky) way of getting their subjects to tell the truth about their sex partners – they hooked them up to a fake polygraph. Obviously, their interviews had no idea the thing didn’t actually work. The results were illuminating: Conley et al write, “When participants believed that their true sexual history could be revealed by the polygraph, gender differences in reported sexual partners disappeared.” Basically, it’s back to what I mentioned earlier – people tend to say what they think they should say, so women claim to have fewer partners and men tend to exaggerate the number of women they slept with. If you get them to speak truthfully it turns out that the differences in the number of sexual partners aren’t real.

2. Women aren’t into casual sex, men like nothing more

This assertion (scientifically) goes back to a now-famous study in which men and women approached subjects and offered to have casual sex with them. No women agreed to the proposition, but 70% of men did. According to a lot of folks, this was the ultimate proof that men were biologically hardwired for random sex and women avoided it. But, surprise surprise, things aren’t that simple. As it turns out, men and women were both more likely to accept a proposition if they thought the proposer would be good in bed — and women were much less likely to think that a random guy would have the skills to make it all worth the hassle. Plus there is the issue of safety – a random hookup is much less likely to turn violent for the guy involved. And not to be forgotten- the ghost of moralities past ‘slut-shaming’ – which is still doing pretty well for itself.

Finally:

3. Women are “picky,” but men will have sex with just about anyone

Conley et al point out that “assumptions about women’s choosiness have been based on our culture’s traditional gender dynamics” — particularly, the expectation that men should approach women while women should wait and silently bat their eyelashes at potential sex/romantic interests. One research team decided to turn the tables by asking women to approach men and a speed dating scenario. Here’s what happened:

“The mere act of physically approaching someone (i.e., simply rotating through potential partners and introducing oneself during speed-dating) caused individuals to evaluate potential partners more favorably (e.g., reporting greater romantic chemistry and increased likelihood of a romantic relationship developing). Moreover, when women approached men, women behaved more like men (becoming less choosy), and men behaved more like women (becoming more choosy). Thus, this research suggests that “choosiness” may be an artifact of gendered social norms concerning who approaches whom.” The review goes on to conclude that “gender differences are in fact rooted in much more mundane causes: stigma against women for expressing sexual desires; women’s socialization to attend to other’s needs rather than their own; and, more broadly, a double standard that dictates (different sets of) appropriate sexual behaviors for men and women.”

So, studies conducted so far suggest that there probably are some biological differences between men and women which may (or may not…) go beyond the anatomy of the sexual reproductive organs. The thing is, it’s currently an incredibly difficult exercise to actually dig through societal influences and get to the ‘biological core’ and the ‘true explanation’ of our behaviors. I wonder though how useful that would really be?

As just about anything, humans have complicated the relatively simple biology of sex with a lot of cultural influence. Simple things like eating and sleeping are no longer obvious to considerable numbers of human beings (notably insomniacs and people suffering from eating disorders). Why would we think that sexual intercourse is a simple act and we’ll all just follow our ‘biologic blueprint’ when we get around to it? And that’s assuming there really is one. Obviously, sex takes up a whole lot of people’s lives (doing it, thinking about it, watching card ads with nude ladies…) so we want to know as much as possible about it. In essence, this is a good thing – as applicable a science as any which may tell us something useful/enlightening about our nature. However, as I hope I have shown, the study of human sexual behavior is fraught with difficulty. Also, we need to keep in mind that it’s just that – the study of general human behavior and not research into what an individual human being should like/do. Really, the important take home message of most of this research is simply this: differences in sexual temperament are individual and not gender differences and it’s about time we got over this whole biological determinism thing and let people enjoy their sex lives without making thing difficult with gendered expectations.

Wanted: Condom Coordinator

Neely Steinberg — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:43:47 +0000

On my old radio show, I had a segment called “The Apocalypse is Coming,” during which I talked about ludicrous stories in the news (while playing this song in the background, because nothing says human suffering like a Richard Strauss tone poem named Also sprach Zarathustra) that, in my mind, indicated the impending arrival of The Four Horsemen. Examples included: Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi’s book “A Shore Thing”becoming a New York Times bestseller (let me tantalize you with an amuse bouche from her ghostwriter’s Ms. Polizzi’s masterful novel, a book so blindingly brilliant it will undoubtedly be compared by posterity to “A Tale of Two Cities”and other such classics: “Gia danced around a little, shaking her peaches for show. She shook it hard. Too hard. In the middle of a shimmy, her stomach cramped. A fart slipped out. A loud one. And stinky.”); Ashley Dupre, disgraced former Governor Eliot Spitzer’s favorite call girl, getting her own dating/sex advice column in the New York Post, showing young women all across our fine nation that the road to success and a paid column in a national outlet can be achieved through good fellatio skills, spreading your legs for money, an ability to tolerate your customers wearing socks during sex, and having a “magic vagina;” And the invention of this.

I’d like to bring that segment back and introduce it to you, glorious readers of Blast Magazine, because with every passing day, I encounter more and more stories that can only mean one thing: The end is near. And because I love you (well, more like lust for you, but good enough) I want to share our final days together.

Currently, there are two reasons the end is near (besides, oh, the obvious reasons, such as Iran trying to get its hands on nuclear weapons and other trifling headlines of that sort):

New York City’s Board of Education is looking to hire a Condom Coordinator to distribute condoms at public schools throughout the city and for that arduous task will pay them $88,000 to start (including medical benefits and a pension, and a free lifetime supply of rubbers – OK, that last part’s not true). This is when people like you and me need to pack it up and call it a day. For the love of God (and I’m not even religious), whatever happened to the old basket-outside-the-nurse’s-office strategy? Just UPS a vat of Trojans to the schools’ Health Services centers with a note saying: “Please distribute.” Because that makes much more sense than wasting a ridiculously large amount of taxpayer dollars on such a moronic job. Would that be so “hard” to do? Ba-dump-bump. On a side note: What would the Coordinator’s title be when he or she gets promoted? Magnum Condom Coordinator? Double ba-dump-bump. I’ll be here all week, folks!
Let’s leave New York City and go straight back to New York City for our next news item. Any minute a fiery ball of…fire is going to crash down upon us, just you wait and see. It’s been reported that sexual education classes at NYC public high schools and middle schools might delve into some X-rated lessons next year.And I’m not talking about lessons on all sorts of cool words that start with the letter X, like xanthareel, xanthospermous , or xylotomous. No. These lessons are of a more salacious nature. According to the New York Post story, here’s what the kids will be learning in addition to geometry and Greek mythology legends, like that one about the “Trojan” Horse. Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.

High-school students go to stores and jot down condom brands, prices and features such as lubrication.
Teens research a route from school to a clinic that provides birth control and STD tests, and write down its confidentiality policy.
Kids ages 11 and 12 sort “risk cards” to rate the safety of various activities, including “intercourse using a condom and an oil-based lubricant,’’ mutual masturbation, French kissing, oral sex and anal sex.
Teens are referred to resources such as Columbia University’s Web site Go Ask Alice, which explores topics like “doggie-style” and other positions, “sadomasochistic sex play,” phone sex, oral sex with braces, fetishes, porn stars, vibrators and bestiality.

I’m all for sexual education classes in schools today, because let’s face the facts: A lot of parents aren’t educating their children about sex, and it’s everywhere. In New York City alone, a large percentage of children live in single-parent homes, which means the burden of parenting falls to the mother (in most cases) and when she’s out working multiple jobs that leaves little time for those birds and the bees discussions. That leaves the school systems, in loco parentis (I’ve come around to this argument). Kids are going to have sex so we need to educate them about sex (including abstinence). But have we really gotten to the point where we need to talk to our 12-year-olds about vibrators, porn stars, and bestiality? In the words of the Peanuts Gang’s inimitable Lucy: “Good grief!”

Until next time, Blast readers, that is, if we haven’t plunged into the darkness of universal destruction by then.

Do you have any stories you want me to cover in the next installment of “The Apocalypse is Coming”? Leave your ideas below in the comments section.

Feminism: The winter of men’s discontent

Neely Steinberg — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:16:29 +0000

“You only touch a nerve by telling a truth.”

Last week, I wrote an op-ed piece on the recent sexual assaults in Park Slope, Brooklyn and the ensuing contretemps surrounding a police officer’s controversial remarks to a woman about her attire. The remarks, seen as sexist, had feminists crying foul. In the article, I asked Susan Walsh of Hooking Up Smart (HUS), and Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon.net for their thoughts. Walsh and Marcotte are ideological opposites — Marcotte is one of the leaders of today’s feminist movement; Walsh believes that Marcotte and her ilk’s contemporary feminist doctrine is dangerous and counter-productive. After linking to my article on HUS, a war raged in the comments section, in which anti-feminist rants from men abounded. Naturally, Marcotte supporters were in the minority. One battle in particular pitted some poor gal named “Stephanie” against everyone else, and although I disagree with her position, I give her credit for taking the time to understand contrasting viewpoints. As of press time, there were 370 comments and that number will likely grow until Walsh’s next blog entry.

Like many of Walsh’s posts that deal with feminism and modern-day sexual mores, my piece clearly hit a nerve among men. As Rebecca Traister once wrote in a Salon.com review of Maureen Dowd’s contentious book Are Men Necessary?: “You only touch a nerve by telling a truth.”

The truth in this case, I believe, is a very real burgeoning discontent among men today with the feminist movement. While it’s difficult to know if the comments within Walsh’s post are representational of the larger male population, it would be disingenuous not to acknowledge a growing resentment, restlessness, and frustration that, contrary to what some may argue, does not seem to be operating at the fringes. In fact, it’s a sentiment that seems to be growing daily and in large numbers. Men are angry. And I suppose they should be.

In a recent article entitled Why Men Are in Trouble, which I also mentioned in a recent piece I wrote about the supposed sexist remark of Senator Scott Brown, author William Bennett offers insight into why this may be the case.

“The data does not bode well for men. In 1970, men earned 60 percent of all college degrees. In 1980, the figure fell to 50 percent, by 2006 it was 43 percent. Women now surpass men in college degrees by almost three to two. Women’s earnings grew 44 percent in real dollars from 1970 to 2007, compared with 6 percent growth for men. In 1950, 5 percent of men at the prime working age were unemployed. As of last year, 20 percent were not working, the highest ever recorded. Men still maintain a majority of the highest paid and most powerful occupations, but women are catching them and will soon be passing them if this trend continues.”

Additionally, in 2008, men represented 93 percent of all workplace deaths, even though women were responsible for 43 percent of all hours worked, and about 95 percent of workplace suicides in that same year were committed by men. Single men constitute about 60 percent of the homeless population.

Men are the ones now crying foul about countless topics: the divorce court system; Title IX; gender quotas; loosened employment physical standards (e.g. firefighters, police officers, military personnel, etc.) for women but not men; confusing dating mores (is it no wonder they’re running in droves to the Seduction Community?); male gender bias in school systems; disingenuous domestic violence numbers; misleading wage gap statistics; derailment of stimulus money for “testosterone-laden, shovel-ready” jobs. (On the topic of domestic violence: I’m beginning to see more and more examples of female on male violence. Just look at reality television, for instance. Shows like Teen Mom and Jersey Shore show frequent examples of this sort of abuse. In the case of Teen Mom, one of the female leads was arrested for her actions, but when Jenni “JWOWW” Farley attacked Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino – see video here – nobody seemed to bat an eyelash. Compare that collective indifference with the headlines sweeping the nation when Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi was hit by a man – see video here. How many examples of female on male violence are actually reported, anyway? And finally, God help me for knowing those fist-pumping delinquents’ names by heart.)

A blogger named “Byron,” a frequent commenter on Walsh’s site and an eloquent one at that, sums up the growing disillusionment in a different way. In his personal blog, he writes: “We cannot apply identical expectations to both men and women, as men and women are, by definition, different. If you have a law or a morality that is very easy for 50 percent of the people to live under and very hard for the other 50 percent, it isn’t a fair law, and it isn’t a healthy morality.”

If the pendulum of gender equality once swung all the way to one side it’s now perhaps well on its way to the other. I’m truly thankful to the Suffragettes of yesteryear, who, frustrated with their social and economic lot in life, helped women make tremendous gains. I’m truly thankful to the feminists who helped pave the way for equal pay and equal rights and equal opportunity. Just the other day, I was having a conversation with a woman who has been a college professor for 35 years. She told me that when she first started teaching, a couple of the male faculty members at the college where she worked asked if she wanted to join the faculty wives club. “I sent my husband,” she said with a Cheshire Cat grin. While not the most abhorrent of statements and probably not intended maliciously, I certainly wouldn’t want to go back to those days (although watching this guy live would have been fun).

I can’t help but wonder, though: When it comes to the present day, as men’s bitterness grows and women’s progress continues at the expense of men’s, has the fairer sex gone too far? Are we now committing the sins that we spent years admonishing men for?

Men sure think so. They argue misandry is on the rise.

The anti-misandry movement, however, is also on the rise, bubbling just below the surface of mainstream reporting. Type in the word “misandry” into a Google search, though, and all sorts of articles and book titles appear. On YouTube, there are hundreds of videos dealing with the subject. Websites and blogs dedicated to exposing feminist indoctrination flourish. (This video in particular I found poignant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9A.)

Men are starting to feel like they’re the enemy. That sentiment makes sense when you come across blogs like Eve’s Daughter, in which she dedicates an entire post to listing all the ways men are rape-supporters. The first bullet point says a man is a rape-supporter if “he’s ever sexually engaged with a woman while she was drunk or high.” There go the celebrated days of Woodstock…

When I inserted myself into the hullabaloo over at Walsh’s site, I asked the male commenters the following question: “There seems to be a growing animosity and resentment from men towards the feminist movement, and it’s certainly reflected in these threads. I am curious to know: From a male POV, what could the feminist movement do to bring men on board?”

I don’t align myself with the modern-day feminist movement (although I am grateful for gains previous waves achieved), but I am curious to know from the male perspective if there’s a way to bridge what I see as an ever-growing divide – one that more and more seems to be pitting the sexes against each other rather than uniting them. Men want to be heard when it comes to these topics; they want to talk freely and openly as men but, ironically, feel that their honesty only brings tsking, shame and derision (the way women once felt or still feel, perhaps). But how can we get anywhere unless we have honest discussion? Or, in the words of blogger Byron: “How do you talk between the sexes about the differing experiences of sex?”I, for one, wanted to listen to what they had to say. Here is a small sampling of some of their responses:

Wayfinder: For me, the good in the post-first-wave feminist movement was co-opted on the academic side around the time of deconstructionism. The academy has moved past that, but feminism is still mired in the 20th century ideologies that produced it. In attempting to root out underlying ideologies behind prejudices, they became the thought crime enforcers they were trying to fight.

So, I’m not sure that the feminist movement needs men or women at this point. I think its ideology is due for being replaced with something a bit more gender-realist, something that acknowledges that there are differences between the sexes and that the women actually like it that way aren’t brainwashed.

To put it another way, feminists have defined masculinity as the enemy while simultaneously trying to ape the male-success standards. Cultures have existed that celebrated women’s achievements, but feminists discount them because they aren’t defined as male achievements.

To address the point I think you’re looking for, feminism can’t bring men on board until they stop defining male masculinity and female femininity as the enemy.

Jesus Mahoney: Way back in 2002, Shelby Steele wrote a great essay for Harpers entitled :The Age of White Guilt: and the disappearance of the black individual” about the Civil Rights Movement in America, and I think that much of what he says there can be applied to the Feminist Movement equally well.

I’m sure you can find a link to it somewhere, but the gist of the article is that a political movement that demands recompense for grievances (i.e. a movement of people playing the victim card) robs the individuals that comprise that group of their personal power, and therefore cannot achieve anything of lasting value.

In short, insofar as battle against racism has been won at all, it’s been done by black individuals who have shown their worth in society, not by black groups shouting for freedom and equality.

In short, people should stop jockeying for political power and start reclaiming their individual power.

If women want power, they need to start living lives of power instead of complaining about being victims. In other words, they have to display their value to society instead of just screaming about it.

In short, Feminists must have been snoozing through high school English while their teachers were exhorting them to “show, don’t tell.”

Thou shalt not judge others orgasms — the lesson Freud never learned

Maria Pawlowska — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:38:30 +0000

Sigmund Freud barely needs an introduction. He is none other than the father of psychoanalysis; the man who gave the world the ‘ego’ and ‘Id’; the famous Austrian doctor who discovered the subconsciousness and who persuaded millions to blame (all) their problems on their mothers. But Freud also made other ‘discoveries’ which are not as often spoken about (for good reasons…) today, but the effects of which resonated through bedrooms and medical textbooks worldwide for almost a century. And those are related to Freud’s theories about female sexuality.

Freud never held females in too high a regard and didn’t make much of a secret of it. The idea of ‘penis envy’ clearly could be spawned only in the mind of a man who didn’t think women could aspire to much at all. His personal relationships with women were complex to say the least – having an affair with your own sister-in-law isn’t the best way to secure a happy marriage and blissful family life. It is perhaps no surprise then that his writings about women are full of sweeping statements on their (sexual) inferiority with little or no factual support. The surprise is that people still took his word for it at least half a century later.

Freud’s initial idea was that as women matured — emotionally and sexually — their erotic zones were ‘transferred’ from the clitoris to the vagina. This ‘reallocation’ of the center of sexual pleasure was, according to Freud, crucial for reproduction and the proper development of a heterosexual identity. Freud’s disciples went somewhat further and began interpreting the failure to achieve vaginal orgasm as a sign of frigidity and not solely sexual immaturity. In the quaintly titled “The sexually adequate female,” Frank S. Caprio, a contemporary follower of Freud’s ideas elaborated that “…whenever a woman is incapable of achieving an orgasm via coitus, provided the husband is an adequate partner, and prefers clitoral stimulation to any other form of sexual activity, she can be regarded as suffering from frigidity and requires psychiatric assistance.” (The Sexually Adequate Female, p.64.). This gem of a book was first published in 1953 — the world was a decade away from the equal pay act and Betty Friedan’s seminal ‘Feminine mystique’ — and yet here was Dr. Caprio diagnosing mental disease in women who liked making use of the only known organ whose sole biological function is to give pleasure!

Women who desired having their clitoris stimulated were thought to behave like men, because they preferred their ‘external’ organ pleasured rather than indulging in the ‘feminine passivity’ of accepting a phallus into their vagina. Consequently, it was thought that as a result of their obvious lack of feminine behaviors they were likely to be awful mothers and would probably fall victim to mental disease and general ‘social disintegration’ (talk about jumping to conclusions). A treatise on sexual issues from 1937 strongly recommends (in the spirit of disaster prevention) that if a woman is unable to reach coital orgasm, sitting astride the man ‘is certainly better than titillation of the clitoris’.

Today we know that there is absolutely no evidence for Freud’s idea of a transfer in female erotic zones — it seems he made the whole thing up sitting in his comfy Vienna office. What’s more, in light of current anatomical and sexological knowledge the whole idea seems pretty absurd (although, I’m sorry to report, the myth of a ‘better’ vaginal orgasm is still alive and well in a lot of corners around the Internet and many peoples’ minds).

The notion of a clitoral orgasm being different from a vaginal one was only really possible in a world where there was very little knowledge about female anatomy (Freud never really cared to learn any himself). What we have come to think of as the ‘clitoris’ is quite literally only the tip of the organ, which in fact can be up to 5 inches long. The internal portions of the clitoris surround the vaginal opening and canal and have more sensory endings than the relatively poorly innervated vaginal walls. Plainly speaking, ‘vaginal orgasms’ are commonly the result of either external indirect stimulation of the clitoris (perhaps the source from the partiality of many 19th century women towards ‘riding astride’ their husbands was that this position results in stimulating the clitoris without the use of hands); or internally – friction against the vaginal walls excites the nerve endings in the interior parts of the clitoris and…kazaaam! Vaginal orgasm.

However, there is much more to the (female) orgasm than just the vagina or the clitoris. Medically speaking, the orgasm is an autonomic physiologic response to various kinds of stimulation which is often (but not always) experienced or perceived as sexual. Importantly, stimulation doesn’t even have to be tactile and there is definitely no rule which says that female genitals have to be touched at all for an orgasm to take place. “Women on Top: How Real Life Has Changed Women’s Sexual Fantasies” – Nancy Friday’s follow-up book to her ground-breaking book on female sexual fantasies “The Secret Garden” – gives numerous descriptions of women who achieved orgasm by simply fantasizing in the shower or having their nipples caressed. No penetration of any kind was involved. Now, that would be pretty much guaranteed to blow Freud’s mind if he ever heard about it. He’d probably swiftly proceed to come up with elaborate schemes about how, for example, too much education resulted in the transfer of sexuality to the brain instead of the vagina or how a perverted breast-feeding relationship with a mother could have been the cause of nipple stimulation leading women to orgasm. In fact, in his essay “The Psychology of Women” Freud actually did formulate his cure to nearly all manner of female sexual ‘neuroses’ – the “abandonment of the life of the mind”. In Freud’s opinion, women simply couldn’t handle having their brains and vaginas functioning properly at the same time. It was an “either, or” as far as Sigmund was concerned (now, maybe it’s just me, but I really think this guy seriously underestimated half the human species…).

Freud never cared much about what women themselves had to say about their sexuality. He pretty much had his mind made up before he even got started on ‘studying’ the issue. Mind you, there wasn’t any particularly useful studying to do, unless you were willing to do some actual high quality primary research with real women, which Freud wasn’t. He just listened to a few ‘experts’ and added some of his own wisdom. Importantly, back in those days, experts were all men who, similarly to Freud, did not think women could contribute to the scientific knowledge base, even if they were the object of study. These male experts reasoned that. being the superior sex, they could surely draw their own conclusions which would by definition be more insightful than anything a woman could tell them about her ‘private parts’ (also, it would spare them the embarrassment and possible accusation of indecent behavior which would have surely cropped up once word of investigations with real women would have spread).

It perhaps doesn’t take much feminist deconstructing to come to the conclusion that male doctors’ doctrines about sex had a lot to do with male expectations and experiences of sex. Men generally thought that penetrating a vagina provided for a jolly good time, so surely women must really like it too. And if they don’t, then, by golly, there must have been something wrong with them. I’ll admit – this is a bit of an oversimplification of doctors’ discourse on female sexuality prior to the 70s. But just a bit… All manner of medical professionals (psychiatrists, family doctors and gynecologists to name the most prominently involved) firmly believed that favoring clitoral stimulation makes a women “sexually inferior” because she doesn’t need a penis to have a good time. The logic was that a penis made a women complete – that’s what the cavity of the vagina is for, right? So if a woman doesn’t want to be ‘complete’, she’s surely demented in one way or another.

Thankfully, we moved past these assumptions since then, but there is still a lot of negative over-thinking going into female sexuality. As the amazing sex-educator Heather Corinna points out, “ever hear someone talk about a penis orgasm?” No? That’s because male sexuality is accepted as more natural, almost simpler in a way – men want sex. What more is there to analyze/think/talk about? Women, on the other hand…ah…now that’s more complex…they want sex but they don’t, they’re maternal and not sexual, they have different orgasms in different places and it’s all oh so complicated. I’m not saying we shouldn’t study female sexuality – far from it! But we should definitely step back and let individual people enjoy their sex lives without worrying that they have inferior orgasms or there’s something wrong with them because they guy who invented psychoanalysis said so…

Analyzing Park Slope and Skirtgate

Neely Steinberg — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:50:57 +0000

Park Slope, Brooklyn: One of New York City’s most desirable neighborhoods and home to a whole bunch of famous people, like Steve Buscemi and that actor everyone confuses with Samuel L. Jackson. Recently, though, Park Slope hasn’t been so idyllic. A slew of gropings, rapes, and molestations have occurred since March, making the locale more infamous than anything else. The suspect has been targeting women between the ages of 20 and 35, all of whom at the time of assault were wearing short-hemmed clothing. (Police do have a “person of interest” in custody as of October 11.)

A recent Wall Street Journal article covering the attacks had me thinking about what I believe to be a tragically misguided focus. According to the Journal, police officers patrolling the area have been telling young, female residents to be mindful of what they’re wearing because the assaulter has been going after women dressed in short skirts. Granted, some of the quotes from the officer, as mentioned by “Lauren,” sound a bit obnoxious, especially if, in your head, you add a certain tone or emphasis on particular words. But there’s no way to know exactly how those warnings were delivered by the officer, unless you have access to a flux capacitor and a Delorean. I digress. The point I want to make is that instead of focusing on the assaults and keeping women safe, some members of the fairer sex have seized on the cops’ sartorial advice and deemed it inappropriate, insensitive, and sexist.

NYPD spokesman Paul Browne responded to the uproar by saying: “Officers are not telling women what not to wear — there’s a TV series that does that.” (Do I smell a career in stand-up?) He continues: “They are simply pointing out that as part of the pattern involving one or more men that the assailant(s) have targeted women wearing skirts.”

Alas, Skirtgate was born.

The incident soon became the latest cause celebre for feminist groups, inspiring protests and yet another Slut Walk, a demonstration against explaining or excusing rape by referring to any aspect of a woman’s appearance. Not too long ago I attended the Boston version of Slut Walk, organized by feminist figure Jaclyn Friedman.

While I agree that the way a woman dresses is NEVER an invitation to be raped or sexually assaulted (I’m having visuals of the horrific Jodie Foster rape scene from The Accused), I do have to wonder: What’s so wrong with suggesting that women exercise a little common sense in these scenarios? If I know that a man is assaulting women wearing short skirts in a certain area around a certain time, you can damn well be sure that I’ll take all precautions necessary. Nor would I ever tell my daughter (if I ever have one) the following: “Sure, honey, wear those hooker heels and that dress that barely covers your vagina proudly when you walk through Boston Common at 3 a.m. on a Saturday.”

The notion that humanity is perfectible — that we can reason with or socially engineer sick-minded individuals — is puerile. We do not live in an ideal world. We never will. Unfortunately, we live in a world where police won’t always be able to save everyone or catch the criminal right away. Unfortunately, we also live in a world where this happens and people like this exist. We do not live in an ideal world. So what’s wrong with merely suggesting that women take precautions?

I admire their passion and dedication, but I do think that certain feminists are so ideologically attached to their ideas that they often become blinded to reality. What if a woman came forward on the night of a Park Slope attack and said she felt she had been saved by an officer’s counsel earlier that day, in which he mentioned to be sure to cover up late at night? Of course, there’s no way to know for sure in this hypothetical if that’s the reason the attacker avoided her and went after someone else, but would the feminists turn a blind eye to this kind of testimony? I wonder.

I would be remiss, however, if I didn’t mention the fact that I remember many nights walking home late from the bars in outfits that, to be sure, revealed some skin. Part of me feels a bit uncomfortable, hypocritical even, espousing calls for good judgment when the mistakes of my youth burn brightly in my memory. But the truth is I was lucky. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with dispensing advice based on the filtered wisdom one gains with age.

After writing this piece and tiring of my own opinions on the matter, I was curious to see what others had to say about the Park Slope contretemps, so I reached out to a few people who I knew would view the incident through different lenses. The first of which was Susan Walsh, author of the popular blog Hooking Up Smart (HUS), a strategic take on dating, sex, and relationships. Walsh was a guest on my radio show back in the day. She was recently profiled in this tremendous piece about the lives and realities of today’s single woman. HUS has a large following and is worth a weekly check-in.

Next, I contacted the aforementioned Jaclyn Friedman, Feministing.com’s Jessica Valenti, and author and speaker Amanda Marcotte, all avowed feminists and leaders of the movement. Marcotte responded; I never heard from Friedman or Valenti. Marcotte, by the way, is no stranger to controversy – this woman has balls! (In one of her entries for John Edwards’ campaign blog, of which she was blogmaster, she wrote: “Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.” Yowsa!)

In many of Walsh’s blog entries, she goes toe-to-toe with all three ladies, so I figured their juxtaposed opinions would be interesting. Below are Walsh’s and Marcotte’s thoughts on Skirtgate and a few other topics I wanted them to answer about dating, sex, relationships, and feminism.

Their responses couldn’t be more different. Check them out below – they are worth a read. Who do you agree with?

BLAST: What was your reaction to the Park Slope incident in which cops warned women about wearing short skirts?

MARCOTTE: First, I want to draw your attention to the fact that the NYPD responded to feminist complaints.

It was unacceptable of the NYPD officers to exploit the existence of a rapist as a cover story for an obvious power trip on women. Authoritarians all over the world love how rape gives them an excuse to indulge the misogynistic desire to tell women what to wear and how to act, but the police work for us, and because of this, they should treat women with respect. We women, after all, pay their salaries with our taxes.

WALSH: I understand why the women who were stopped by the policeman were offended. He may have been insensitive in his approach. I think it’s very important to consider his intention, though. As far as I can tell he was attempting to advise women about real risks to their safety. Though the journalist suggests that the police department disapproves of all shorts, skirts and dresses, he appears to have specifically taken issue with “short shorts” and dresses that “show a lot of skin.” Is it in fact prudent for women in that neighborhood to be careful about their appearance and behavior at night? Of course!

The WSJ article describes how many women in the neighborhood are taking concrete steps to stay safe. 80 have attended self-defense workshops. Women have stopped wearing high heels because they make it difficult to run away from an assailant. Women have been observed taking taxis to travel two blocks at night. All of these strategies are sensible and effective. Do they guarantee that a woman will not be attacked? Of course not, but they lessen her risk considerably.

Does it lessen a woman’s risk to refrain from “showing a lot of skin” at night in the very neighborhood where these attacks are occurring? Probably! It sure can’t hurt! Evidence that all of the attacks have been against women in skirts just adds to the good sense of such a strategy.

What’s going on among feminists here is that the political is getting in the way of the personal. When we stifle prudent advice to women about keeping themselves safe from assault because it doesn’t fit the agenda of sex-positive feminism, we risk the health and safety of women in a very real and measurable way.

The history of nymphomania

Maria Pawlowska — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:04:28 +0000

What do cows’ uteruses, decreased diary production and attitudes towards women’s openly expressed sexuality have in common? Unless you’re an expert in bovine anatomy the answer may come as a surprise to you: it’s nymphomania.

Nymphomania is a term for short inter-oestrus periods in cattle, but it’s also (mainly?) used to describe women with ‘abnormal’ sexual urges. The way that this abnormality was defined has changed dramatically over time, but is best characterized with a quote from the famous Dr. Kinsey himself — “A nymphomaniac is someone who has more sex than you do.”

The story of nymphomania is a sad tale of a time when women weren’t acknowledged as sexual beings and judged/jailed/held in mental hospitals against their will if they were not willing to conform to the ideal (or rather sick contortion) of women as sexless creatures. It’s a story of women who were all forcefully classified within the virgin/whore dichotomy. The only reputable way to lose one’s virginal status was to become a wife and bear children conceived in a dark bedroom with as little pleasure as possible. Of course, at the same time it was a very different deal for men. They were mostly allowed as much premarital sex as their money could afford – as long as they weren’t defiling reputable women that is.

Well into the 20th century women weren’t supposed to like sex. Sex was thought to be something that men pursued and women unwillingly gave up so that they could fulfil their lives’ goal by bearing the heirs their husbands wanted and the little darlings they needed to lavish with their innate motherly feelings on.

The thing is, although society has largely managed to ignore this fact and a tonne of medical books has been written to the contrary, women do in fact have a sex drive. When girls hit puberty and start producing sex hormones (oestrogens as well as testosterone) they start having (consciously or not) sexual feelings. There is a small percentage (less than 1%) of the population, both female and male, that is asexual and genuinely does not want or need to have sex. The rest of us are destined to a life in which carnal urges will play a role at some point. However, the whole concept of nymphomania is built-up on the completely false assumption of sexual urges being unique and healthy to men and a sign of disease and lack of mental stability in women.

In order to understand the history and societal significance of nymphomania, we have to take a closer look at its supposed opposite: female frigidity. The latter was basically assumed to be the status quo for female sexuality in the US and much of Europe (if you weren’t a ‘working girl’ that is). There was never much evidence to back this up (ahem…I don’t know, maybe because it’s an entirely false claim?). However, this perception was likely to be fueled by anecdotal evidence from men who spent their wedding nights with terrified young wives who had no idea about sex and all of a sudden had their clothes ripped off and a penis inserted into their vagina with no prior warning (other than perhaps fumbling with breasts for a few seconds) and nothing to arouse them beforehand. Usually, the deed was done within a few minutes, the marriage consummated and legal, and the wife left thinking (quite correctly) that she’s survived something awful and dreading it happening again. As much as we may like to, we shouldn’t put all the blame on the husbands. The ‘poor’ chaps were brought up and socialized to think women take absolutely no pleasure in sex and they perceive it a mechanical act which needs to happen in order to make them mothers. Who needs foreplay if all you really want is to change diapers.

However, there were women the world round, who could not be convinced they don’t like sex. Even if everyone around them tried to convince them otherwise they still seemed to enjoy making use of their genitals for things other than procreation. And so nymphomania was born. It was defined as a multitude of behaviors ranging from “lascivious glances” and flirting through masturbation and attempts to convince husbands to have more sex, all the way to actual physical attacks on men to enforce intercourse.

It’s not a recent invention. Nymphomania, or a Dissertation Concerning the Furor Uterinus was written by an obscure French doctor, M. D. T. Bienville, and translated into English in 1775. The good doctor helpfully explained that “Eating rich food, consuming too much chocolate, dwelling on impure thoughts, reading novels, or performing “secret pollutions” (masturbating), overstimulates women’s delicate nerve fibers and leads to nymphomania.” Thank goodness there were people like Dr. Bienville to look after the “delicate nerve fibers” of women who eat too much chocolate or indulged in the obscenity of reading novels…

In the Victorian period the common perception – among the medical profession as well as patients – was that strong female sexual desire was a symptom of disease. Sexual madness was an actual concern among (mostly) “refined and virtuous” women and their physicians. And the women weren’t just worried about possible inconveniences. Openly having a libido could get a woman into serious trouble in Victorian England. And by trouble I mean an awful mental hospital that one could get locked away in for years. Shockingly, women didn’t have to want sex to be diagnosed as a nymphomaniac. The outright opposite was sometimes true and victims of sexual assault were deemed to be diagnosed with this ‘disease’ just as women who bore illegitimate children, “abused themselves” (i.e. masturbated), or were judged as promiscuous. Once at the asylum, women underwent a pelvic exam to determine a number of things including the size of their clitoris and the moistness of their vagina. If any of these were deemed unsatisfactory by the physicians the patients were forced to undergo ‘treatments’. These were nothing like the rather benign ‘vibrator therapy’ of the early 20th century and instead involved induced vomiting, bloodletting (also in the reproductive organs), restricted diet, douches to the head or breasts, and, at times, clitoridectomies (i.e. removal of clitoris).

Attitudes towards women and sexuality relaxed – in parallel with women’s growing role in society and their increased independence – and over the 19th and 20th century women were rarely locked away for wanting sex. A bit of a breakthrough for nymphomania came with Freud. The father of psychoanalysis certainly has quite a few accomplishments to his name, but he was no expert on female sexuality. Freud was a self-proclaimed misogynist and his views on women are perhaps best known thanks to his misguided (to say the least) theories on penis envy. Freud’s views on nymphomania rather missed the spot as well, but they did redirect the discourse around it. Building on his now discredited idea of the superiority of vaginal vs. clitoral orgasms, Freud and his disciples claimed that, far from being a sign of excessive sexuality, nymphomania actually sprang from frigidity. The sexually immature woman, they argued, was unable to orgasm during intercourse and took lovers in order to achieve sexual satisfaction. And so for a time nymphomania became the disease of unsatisfied women. With this we were getting closer to the crux of the matter – nymphomania is in fact a term that describes women who like sex and are willing to actively pursue. Sounds familiar? Ah, right. Isn’t that what we expect of healthy males?

As the sexual revolution rolled around, the medical establishment, as well as regular people, became more accustomed with the fact that women can in fact enjoy sex without being mentally ill and the psychiatric definitions changed in step with societal perception. Distressingly, the term held out in court rooms for an inexcusably long-time – nymphomania was commonly used in rape cases to defend male rapists – “the victim didn’t just ‘ask for it’, your Honour she basically threw herself at my client, this sick nymphomaniac women.”

A brief overview of the history of nymphomania as seen through the American Psychiatric Association’s official guide to madness – the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) – is fairly illuminating about more than just development of psychiatry. In DSM-1 nymphomania was listed as a “sexual deviation”. When DSM-III was published in 1980 nymphomania was ‘degraded’ to a “psychosexual disorder”. By 1987 nymphomania and its male counterpart, Don Juanism, had been replaced them with “distress about a pattern of repeated sexual conquests or other forms of nonparaphilic (nondeviant) sexual addiction.” In 1994 (DSM-IV) even sexual addiction was abandoned and straightdope.com has a great explanation for why this happened: “perhaps because the non-gender-specific nature of the term laid bare the speciousness of the whole project: If men as well as women can be sex addicts, and if many male victims (Bill Clinton, Joe Namath) are successful, admired, and largely unrepentant, it seems stupid to characterize as an illness what a lot of people would consider an accomplishment.”

Curiously, according to the WHO women can still suffer from nymphomania. The WHO’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) includes “Excessive Sexual Drive” which is divided into satyriasis for males and nymphomania for females, and “Excessive Masturbation”. What makes this even more curious is that there is no definition of “excessive sexual drive” (Dr. Kinsey had a pretty good suggestion…) and doctors “considering such a diagnosis are advised to formulate their own criteria of excessive sexual drive”. For some reason when it comes to tuberculosis, AIDS or schizophrenia doctors aren’t left the leeway to come up on the spot with what constitutes a disease symptom but when it’s an issue concerning our sex lives we’re (or at least the WHO is) happy to hand it over to them. This is potentially dangerous as we’ve seen how much of what defines healthy sexuality has nothing to do with health but everything to do with societal conventions.

In the 21st century we’re slowly moving past policing women’s sexuality (and men’s – but let’s be honest, we never really cared so much about their ‘sleeping around’ anyway). However, pop-culture and our daily lives – I’m sure – abound with examples of how we judge women’s sexual conduct differently (read: more harshly) then men’s. For example, in a recent episode of “How I Met Your Mother” (a hugely popular sit-com hailed as the new “Friends,” one of the main characters says that if he were to meet a women and have sex with her the same day she would be a “huge slut.” It doesn’t seem to occur to him (or his best friend with whom he’s having the conversation and who nods approvingly all the way through) to judge himself on the decision to have sex within hours of meeting someone. He’d just be doing what all dudes want to do – aim to have a ton of sex, right? She’d, on the other hand, be a “slut.”

It’s important to see slut-shaming for what it is – a new incarnation of “nymphomaniac-shaming.” Women used to be judged as crazy for liking sex, now they’re just ‘immoral’ if they have ‘too much of it’ (according to a recent survey the number of sex partners a women has to have to merit being called a slut is … five).

Nymphomania isn’t quite dead. It pops up every now and again – usually in the close company of the phrase ‘sex-crazed’. It’s not as damning as it used to be. The term doesn’t sentence women to years in mental institutions anymore; it’s more of a joke. “Slut” is the new, dangerous bad word. Again, no mental institutions are involved, but societal ostracism can be as bad as ever. We, as a society, should remember about nymphomania’s fate every time women are slut-shamed. And most of all, we should remember the moral of that story: female sexuality has a (continuous) history of being unreasonably judged and policed and unless we put a definite stop to it, gender equality will continue to be a goal and not reality.

Skins: An American translation

Brian Stickel — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 16:13:13 +0000

American television has been attempting to imitate popular British programming for decades, from a failed remake of Fawlty Towers in 1978 (renamed Chateau Snavely and starring Harvey Korman and Betty White) to the more recent success of The Office in 2005. Though the list of transatlantic programs is rife with failures that didn’t resonate with the American public, there has been a recent string of successes, mostly in the form of game shows (such as the classic Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? and Weakest Link) and a motley of reality series, including Supernanny, Top Gear, Undercover Boss, and American Idol. However, the translation from British to American culture was relatively smooth for most of these shows, considering the lack of artistic license in contest and reality television. Drama, and specifically teen drama, is another story entirely.

Skins, a wildly popular British drama on E4, has made the Mayflower journey like so many before it, yet many are skeptical of its appeal to American audiences. Its attraction to British viewers came from not simply the story, but the reality, and consequently the relatability, of the characters and their lifestyles. Because of the watershed on British television, “adult” content can be shown at any time between 9:00 P.M. and 5:30 A.M. This includes nudity, “foul” language, drug use, etc. Such a policy allows for a more realistic portrayal of teenage life, as expletives and drug use are frequent occurrences among the young.

However, the F.C.C. still bans “obscene” material during the American Watershed that occurs after 10:00 p.m. This includes all nudity and any swear words like “f**k” or “c*nt,” etc. that might find its way through the character’s lips. As a result, there is a systemic problem with American television that would discourage the American viewership from enjoying Skins.

In the pilot episode, a seasoned Skins fan will notice from the outset that the show will be a shot-for-shot remake of the original series. This is not necessarily a bad thing; the original show is popular for a reason. It opens with the series’ main character and group ringleader, Tony, going through his morning routine, among which is a timed observation from his window into a neighbor’s bedroom. In the original series, he witnesses an older, perhaps forty-five or fifty year old woman in the nude. The scene is voyeuristic in nature; the woman is going through her own morning routine. However, the American pilot features Tony looking from his window to find an early thirties “bombshell” blond waiting expectantly at her window with her *ahem* “sensitive areas” strategically covered by the window panes. The difference in the series reveals the systemic habit in American television of injecting sex into culture to counteract censorship. Instead of suggesting that the character is a voyeur, it suggests sexuality. Nudity is not necessarily sexual, but producers continue to equate the two in this series.

Furthermore, the scene is unrealistic, and thus, unrelatable. Many teens could confess to perpetrating voyeurism at some time in their youth (but probably wouldn’t), but few could claim having the relationship that the American series insinuates.

The second difficulty that the American series faces is language censorship. Although the American watershed allows most expletives, they still bleep particular language. Nothing provides a more realistic teen conversation than a well-placed f**k, but instead of listening to a well-performed dialogue, the viewer’s ear is assaulted with censor bleeps. There is no evenness or reality to the dialogue, but we do know that they said something naughty.

The final problem with the series itself is that, like The Office, it is a near word-for-word remake. Save the second episode, where Maxxie’s American counterpart is presented as a snarky lesbian, nearly 90 percent of the script remains unchanged. Although natural and even clever in the mouths of British youth, the writing sounds awkward and improbable coming from their American counterparts. The general storyline may resonate with American audiences, but the script deserves to be re-written to better fit its characters.

With only three episodes yet aired, it will be interesting to see if any further Americanization of the series changes the dynamic between the characters, or if there are any story or script changes that are distinctly original to this reincarnation. However, it might be too late. Despite all the advertisement and anticipation over its jump to the American television, few believe that Skins will maintain the viewership to finish out the season.

Yale study: Gay teens more likely to be punished than their straight peers

Shannon O'Neill — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 22:08:55 +0000

The findings of a Yale University study show a correlation between adolescent sexuality and the frequency of punishment. The study found that lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) adolescents are 40 percent more likely than heterosexual adolescents to be punished by school authorities, police and the courts, according to a recent article in “ScienceDaily.”

The study, which will be published in the journal “Pediatrics” in January 2011, includes the experiences of 15,000 middle and high school students over a seven-year period. Subjects were surveyed about their sexuality and about how often they engaged in different degrees of “misbehavior.” From there, the frequency of punishment was measured, specifically how often behavior resulted in school expulsion, police stops, juvenile arrest, juvenile conviction, adult arrest and adult conviction, according to the study’s abstract.

The abstract concludes that “Nonheterosexual youth suffer disproportionate educational andcriminal-justice punishments that are not explained by greaterengagement in illegal or transgressive behaviors,” and adds that “Understandingand addressing these disparities might reduce school expulsions,arrests, and incarceration and their dire social and healthconsequences.”

According to “Science Daily,” the study’s lead author, Kathryn Himmelstein, said that LGB adolescents were 50 percent more likely to be stopped by the police. Further, adolescents who reported being attracted to members of the same sex – even if they did not label themselves as LGB – “were more likely than other teens to be expelled from school or convicted of crimes as adults.”

What’s more, lesbian or bisexual female teens seem to get the brunt of it, reporting “twice as many police stops, arrests and convictions as other girls who engaged in similar behavior,” Himmelstein said. And it turns out that the LGB adolescents studied engaged in fewer violent activities than the heterosexual adolescents studied.

Himmelstein added that “The painful, even lethal bullying that LGB youth suffer at the hands of their peers has been highlighted by recent tragic events. Our numbers suggest that school officials, police and judges, who should be protecting LGB youth, are instead singling them out for punishment based on their sexual orientation.”

Lesbian legal rights historically passed by Australian Senate

Leysha Penfold — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:41:10 +0000

SYDNEY, Australia — Lesbian relationships in Australia received welcome recognition this November after two bills enforcing equality were passed through the Senate.‚ The amendments expanded the terms “de facto relationship”, “parent”, “step-parent” and “relative” to include same-sex couples giving them equal rights on a number of issues.

Australian Social Security entitlements, Medicare health care, tax, and employment benefits were some of the areas where gay and lesbian couples would receive equal rights.

Openly gay Labor Senator Penny Wong said her government had followed through on last year’s election promises to remove discrimination from Australian Commonwealth laws.

“They deliver, on an important day for us, on a very important election commitment”, she said.‚ ”More importantly, they will deliver the sort of equality before the law that same-sex couples have never previously experienced.”

Liberal opposition Senator George Brandis acknowledged the significance of the bills saying they would complete law reform in the area of same-sex relationships which began 40 years ago when homosexual relationships were decriminalized.‚ Senator Bob Brown, leader of the Australian Greens party and also openly gay, was not so commending.‚ While he commended the ‚ recognition of rights, he was scathing for the ‚ lack of leadership to include equality in same-sex marriage.

“Both the older parties have a task to undertake: to communicate better with the Australian community and to understand that the pressure coming from sectional groups, minority groups, to sanction marriage for all couples regardless has great public support”,‚ Brown‚ said.

A poll taken by Australasia’s largest online lesbian dating and community site Pink Sofa supported Senator Brown’s sentiments with 88 per cent of the more than 4000 respondents wanting same sex marriages legalized. Website‚ member Jenny Ball was thrilled with the outcome but also wanted more.

“This really is a milestone for the Australian Gay and Lesbian Community and is something that has been long-awaited and now brings us in line with a number of other forward-thinking countries,”‚ Ball‚ said. ‚ ”The next key step is for the government to ratify the laws that currently prevent same-sex marriage, thereby removing the final piece of discrimination and marginalization against the community”.

Marriage for same-sex couples remains on the horizon however with the Labour Government as well as the opposition parties refusing to be swayed by public opinion.