The inimitable Times reports on yet another survey that will tell us The Truth About Male Sexuality. After all, it’s not like we’ve ever heard anything about it before.
Well, in a way, we haven’t. The problem with science is that it often considers itself to be objective and without influence by cultural norms, and the data it produces about a subject such as ‘male sexuality’ are taken to prove what male sexuality naturally is, rather than how it is expressed culturally. It ignores the social and political milieu in which men express sexuality and refuses to accept that what is cultural is not the same as what is natural.
The first assumption made when studying male sexuality is that Y chromosome (sp?) holders have a sexuality which is intrinsically different, even opposed, to that which XXers have. That this sexuality is untainted by cultural variables and is programmed into male genes. That somehow having different genitals means that men and women must have different brains too, and that any difference in their thinking is a result of nature demanding that it be that way.
In this article, however, the researcher uses the terms ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ rather than ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’. A ‘norm’ can refer to a biological standard, but it can also suggest a cultural one, and presumably is used here to avoid the implicit judgement of ‘natural’/'unnatural’. However, there is no discussion in the article as to what precisely is implied by ‘normal/’abnormal’, and at least one of the rationales for using the term is to get men to admit to sexual fantasies that are violent, under the reassurance that they are ‘normal’:
An estimated 35 per cent of men admit to fantasising about rape. Waterman says: “If someone fantasises about rape, or forced sex, and does nothing about it, then to argue that that fantasy is abnormal has to be seen as controversial because the literature suggests that rape is a common fantasy. But if a person acts on their fantasy and rapes someone, that’s considered deviant.”
Is ‘common’ the same thing as ‘normal’? Or more to the point, does something being ‘common’ make it acceptable/ natural? If 35% of men really are fantasising about serious acts of violence then it is essential to look at the culture that surrounds this. That culture is one in which sexualised and submissive images of women abound, where women are deemed ’sexy’ when they are wearing restrictive and painful clothing, where sex is considered an act of domination by man of woman.
Sexual thoughts about children are another controversial area. Between 4 and 9 per cent of men report sexual fantasies involving children, with the age of the imagined children usually unspecified. Men are known to prefer younger women, because, as evolutionary theory would have it, youth represents fertility.
This theory makes no sense to me. Children aren’t fertile. Young girls aren’t fertile. Women are fertile, however, for a long period of their life; fertility does not begin and end in the space of a few years.Women with shaved legs are no more fertile than women with hairy legs. Not all sexual fantasies include the possibility of impregnation. Note the wording ‘men are known to prefer younger women’. Men (generic) in patriarchal cultures are known to prefer younger women; this cannot be proven of men outside such a culture. Patriarchal culture consists of hierarchical structures in which the stronger rule the weaker, and in which men-as-a-class control women-as-a-class. This control finds it easiest when women are vulnerable, submissive and physically weaker- that is, more like children.
In our patriarchal culture, force is eroticised to the point where rape is confused with sex, and is then interpreted as being ‘natural’. This ‘natural’ image of men as dominating aggressive beasts and women as submissive masochistic dolls is an insult to the humanity and soul of every man and woman. It dehumanises the sexes. It must be fought.
Any distinctions based on normality and abnormality are flawed from the off. To categorise someone or someone’s behaviour as normal/abnormal opens up a hypothetical can-of-worms.
What is normal/abnormal?
How is that decided?
Who decides it?
Are these definitions felxible?
Are they cross culturally robust – or a behaviour considered normal in one subculture or culture?
Although at first it would seem more useful to categorise behaviour as normal/abnmormal as opposed to natural/unatural really these terms are used here interchangeably and and intended to mean virtually the same things.
As you say – it is very dangerous ground, and sets a percendent, to define rape fantasy as ‘normal’. Are fantasies about violent behaviour ‘normal’ generally, if not, why would male-on-female violence be considered more in keeping with normal behaviour.
Comment by TP — February 1, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
The best explanation I’ve heard to defuse the “sexual act x is a biological drive!” is this:
“The drive to eat is biological. WHAT we eat and HOW we are are cultural. The drive to have sex is biological. HOW we have sex is cultural.
Liking young girls and ‘doggy style’ is no more hard-wired than liking lutefisk and live monkey brains.”
I forget who first said it.
Comment by Dim Undercellar — February 1, 2006 @ 10:01 pm
given a mere moment of thought, the whole ‘youth=fertility=sexy’ argument is obviously bollocks. Surely women who had children already, especially if there’s a few, should be biologically sexier, her fertility is assured, her ability to carry to term is aparent, and she has survived several labours, including the more difficult first labour.
Fetishization of youth is about power, and the lack of it young women are thought to possess.
Comment by Andrea — February 2, 2006 @ 12:01 am
I think this is a great blog site, each subject given much thought and clearly presented.
Comment by Rufus — February 2, 2006 @ 7:29 am
its so frustrating when culture and language piss all over sense.
i love how men can be attracted to younger women because theyre more fertile but when older women go for younger guys, whos swimmers are all new and fresh theyre some sort of deviant messing with nature.
that whole article just reaks of proving men as right and that once again agression and sexual impulse are their natural right not ours.
is it me, or are everyones blogs someone how laced with sexual content right now?
charlotte
Comment by damagecontrol — February 2, 2006 @ 11:19 am
First, normal is boring.
Second, having different sexual organs does indeed make us different. Very different, in very many ways.
Comment by Samborera — February 3, 2006 @ 6:33 am
It’s going to take a bit more than an unsupported assertion to convince me, I’m afraid.
Comment by Laurelin — February 3, 2006 @ 9:55 am
What, pray tell, would it take to convince you.
Comment by Samborera — February 3, 2006 @ 3:17 pm
An assertion that is, ooh I dunno, SUPPORTED? What do you think!?
Comment by Andrea — February 3, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
“In our patriarchal culture, force is eroticised to the point where rape is confused with sex, and is then interpreted as being ‘natural’.”
So our culture interprets rape as being natural? Are you serious? Okay, I’ll do an experiment next time I’m out in a group. I’ll announce I have to leave now to go raping, and see how many folks seem unfazed by my announcement, like it’s *only* natural. I mean, really, where *do* you get such ideas?
Comment by Richard — February 3, 2006 @ 9:26 pm
Richard, read ‘Rules of Engagement’ and consider what tone you use with me. ‘Are you serious?’ is patronising, and I will not be spoken to in that manner.
Comment by Laurelin — February 4, 2006 @ 12:01 am
It’s Richard the nit-wit, Laurelin….still being a pompous, arrogant, whiney nit-wit… thinks he’s sooooooooo clever…
*yawn*
Comment by deedle — February 4, 2006 @ 1:15 am
Richard, you are awfully literal-minded about this stuff. Obviously, no one is going to say, “Oh, he’s only off to rape someone, it’s only natural.” But how is that in any way relevant to Laurelin’s point? Have you really tried to consider what she’s getting at?
Comment by The Happy Feminist — February 4, 2006 @ 2:21 am
Hah!
Ovbiously not…..
Sometimes, what they don’t say is soooooooooo telling.
Now nob off Richard, like a good boy, and stop bothering the grown ups
.
Comment by deedle — February 5, 2006 @ 3:57 am
Just thought I’d attempt to substantiate my assertion. Testosterone and oestrogen. Have different effects and we have different levels mainly due to our gender. Makes us pretty different methinks.
Comment by Samborera — February 6, 2006 @ 6:33 am
Oh, you got tagged by Richard the dweeb. See, Laurelin, you’ve made it to the big time *grin*.
Go away little one (that being you, Richard) you are out of your league and furthermore, this blog, while new, has plenty of radicals around to help when the trolls show up.
As for Samborera-
As for the differences, you’re correct, they are entirely genetic and, to quote something that another blogger has said, “So is my genetic predisposition to call you out on your bullshit”. The EP thing has LONG outlived it’s welcome. And rape as a ‘normal’ desire has also far outlived it’s welcome.
Now, if you’re asserting that Laurelin posits a true theory, that rape is a ‘normal’ fantasy, then I’m sure you won’t mind if I call you a mindless animal who is no better than a dog as well as a potential rapist.
Afterall, if you’re so ‘different’ that your genes make you believe that rape is normal, then women out there should probably know that BEFORE you talk to them.–>
Comment by Biting Beaver — February 7, 2006 @ 5:43 pm