Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Sex and Relationships

Men Who Love Burgers and Loathe Sex

By Susie Bright, SusieBright.com. Posted June 16, 2006.


There's an unhappy host of young men who seem to have soured on the mating game -- but why?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Advertisement One: A hunky guy stares at a sexy babe who appears before him -- she seems to crave his attention. He sees she would jump in the sack with him at the slightest encouragement! Yet, in the corner of his eye, he sees a brand-name beer waiting for his pleasure at an adjacent table. The beer wins his complete desire and attention; the foxy lady doesn't stand a chance.

Advertisement Two: A young man repeatedly chooses a big juicy taco over the invitation to score with willing and available girls.

Advertisement Three: Another young man is being observed in a laboratory environment. He is offered the pick between a delicious cheeseburger and a gorgeous, sexually-available wench. Overcome with his good luck, the boy gasps, "You mean I get to chose between a girl and a burger?" After a moment of suspense, he picks the girl. One of the lab observers turns to the other, and remarks, "What an anomaly! -- no one's ever done that before."

Welcome to the new breed of healthy young men who rate sex way beneath their other appetites. In this brave new world, girls are a pain, a disappointment, and rather dangerous to the soul. Self-preserving boys would rather be satisfied with a brew and bit of beef than an erotic tide of reckless passion.

Advertising agencies are capitalizing on our current generation's penchant for irony -- and yet there's a kernel of authentic confession in each of these promotions. There are lots of guys today who have sexually retreated, or soured on the mating game altogether, and you don't have to search out "Miller Time" or Taco Bell to find them.

Traditionally -- say, since the dawn of sexual stereotypes -- men have been the ones who were horny all the time, thinking with the little head instead of the big one; a heterosexual fool for Chantilly Lace and a pretty face. It was women who were supposed to say "no," who put the brakes on erotic interest in favor of their virtue or climb to success.

A woman who made an ass of herself over a sexual affair wasn't unheard of -- but she learned her lesson quickly, with a quick "Rules Girl" kick in the pants to join the feminine ranks of the sexually-reserved and pseudo-chaste.

When feminists and sex researchers started talking about women's sexuality in the 1960s, it became clear that one reason women didn't feel connected to their sexual self interest was because so many of them had never had sexual satisfaction to begin with. Finally, many liberated women spoke up, admitting that they'd never had an orgasm, and didn't know where to begin.

Sex is the one area men are supposed to excel in, by default. Their penis is so obviously "there"; their masturbation practice practically demands itself. They get an added helping of testosterone, and the same amount of encouragement to be virile that girls get to be virgins.

So when we see men today, non-plussed with sexual companionship, is it because they too, are losing their orgasmic pleasure, or because they lack desire altogether?

Let me make a brief caveat that this is not the experience of the majority, but the fact that it even exists as a tiny trend is noteworthy, because it is such a departure from the past. Sure, there are still plenty of horny men who will bark like a dog to get laid, but the big news is that so many young men in particular, are as ambivalent about sex as any pre-orgasmic housewife ever was. Some say that relief from their desire is a thing to envy.

These men say that (a) having erections is not automatic, (b) sexual pleasure can be elusive, and (c) having the drive to "score" is not their birthright. For some of them, coming out of the closet with their erotic alienation is a burden lifted from their balls. That burger is looking damn good.

The sensational event that has made so many unsatisfied men visible is the unbelievable sales of the erectile dysfunction drug, Viagra.

But what's so interesting about Viagra is the number of pills being popped for performance enhancement, not erectile dysfunction. Viagra in this case is used like a one-night insurance policy, a facsimile of a porn-star experience. These users aim for sexual performance the way they never had it. These aren't men looking for dreams of youth, they're youth who've discovered sex, in the prime of their lives, to be disappointing and even humiliating, because their penis didn't "behave" the way they believe it's supposed to, or because the pleasure it afforded them seemed less than the hype.

They aren't doing it for a thrill, they're using the drug to defend their reputations and their lovers' expectations. They know they're expected to produce wood, on contact, and that it won't be pretty if they can't. They fear their lover will feel scorned and unappreciated, and the backlash might get ugly. This anxiety is what promotes their use of Viagra, not their search for ecstatic sex. Not a very erotic or romantic picture, to say the least.

Why is sex problematic for men now, when such a "problem" was only women's in the past?

Sex research about men's erection dysfunction is woefully inadequate -- and Pfizer, Viagra's manufacturer, isn't sharing their trade insights. Instead, what we have is the gossip that has affected many American bedrooms. Ask a single woman who's dating -- and you're likely to get a story from her about how men aren't as sexually yearning, or as aggressive as they used to be. Are they shy, or is it something more? Chastity pledge blues or Paxil script? Ask the married woman who says she doesn't get it on with her husband at all without a dose of "V" in advance. And as for the porn industry- well, don't even ask!

The most alarming possibility as to why cocks are sagging is that something poisonous is in our water -- or our air, or our food -- you take your pick. Anyone who watches the cancer epidemic we're living in, or who takes a look at dropping fertility rates, has had the distinct nightmare that the human race has ensured its own destruction by creating our own ecological putsch.

The silver lining is the sensitivity argument, which would be a kind alternative: that men have had it with women's inane stereotypes about their bodies and minds. After all, men can be turned on without erections; they can achieve orgasm without a raging hard-on, and their emotions and minds are just as tied to their cock as any woman is to her clit.

Many men are exasperated with women thinking that boys can be satisfied with a warm hole and a squeeze. These are the guys who appreciate their own sense of foreplay, they dream of being seduced, and they want to be treated like an individual between the sheets instead of a stroke-by-numbers cartoon. I like this theory as a philosophy, and its feminist impulses. But physically, I don't think it explains our current predicament.

My chief indictment at present, the one we can prove, is Pharmaceutical Abuse. Many of America's favorite medicines depress the libido, and ironically, the most notorious ones are used to treat depression. Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, and all the rest have made a lot of people feel "happy" at the expense of feeling horny.

Desire, along with sadness, anger, and other deep feelings, don't feel so pressing anymore with the new mood levelers. Men and women who got rid of their depression have told me that they miss their sex drive, but they find their new contentment to be enough compensation.

What saddens me is that a person would have to choose between their sexual passion and their will to live -- we used to think of those emotions as being part of the same joie de vivre.

And what infuriates me is that young people are being treated with this crap as if their libidos were expendable.

Advertisement Number 4: A group of buddies have gathered at one member's house to watch the big football game. They don't understand where their pal "Doug" is -- he hasn't arrived yet, and they know him to be a true fan. Everyone one of these guys is in their 20s and 30s.

The story cuts to Doug, coming home with groceries and a bouquet of flowers in his arms. He busies himself about the house -- making dinner, plumping pillows -- to delight his wife, who steps in from work a few minutes later. She is utterly enchanted with him, and the music swells with their desire. A voice-over breaks in to tell us how many men don't realize what erectile dysfunction is, or how common it is, and what can be done to treat it.

Meanwhile, back at the football party, we see the dudes shaking their heads and worrying about Doug's no-show. But now we realize, that this is not just a bunch of sports fans -- they're a room of guys who haven't been laid in ages, and it's their decision to refrain from the marriage bed, not their wives'. Pfizer's name flashes on the screen, and the narrator encourages us to contact our physician and ask for details. The name "Viagra" is never mentioned.

I find the spectacle of men's declining sexual self-interest disturbing. I never would have guessed that this would be the threat I'd be confronting thirty years after the modern gender liberation movement began. I'm an advocate for men being sexually sensitive and discriminating, but what I see in the erotic arena is mostly men who feel disconnected from their bodies, from the "dating game," and who feel terribly pessimistic that anything is going to change.

Like women who pine for an erotic revelation, they will often cherish romantic dreams of a "Princess Charming," a lover whose innocent gaze and mind-reading touch would deliver them from their despair and disconnection. Until then, that bit of beef and brew are looking better all the time.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: sex

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Start With The Obvious
Posted by: Awake on Jun 16, 2006 12:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Given a healthy young man who turns down an obvious, or apparently obvious, sexual invitation from a healthy young woman, the obvious conclusion is that he does not see the invitation as worth pursuing--in fact, he sees it as something to be avoided, and a decent meal is as good a diversion as any.
1. Can't perform dependably, that is, get a sustained, firm erection on demand (her demand). He has been shamed if he shows any sexual interest EXCEPT when the young woman has been ready and very willing. If he is not uncommonly handsome, wealthy or manipulative, that doesn't happen often, so why not just turn off the whole sexual circuit?
American women do their own version of Orwell's Anti-Sex League, then expect young men to be aroused when the women really mean it. Men never know when they really mean it and when they are selling something, or just messing with his head. Instead of dealing with the ambiguous stimulus array, why not just turn off the whole response circuit?
2. Don't seem interested. Sex for American single men has become such a source of shame, blame and inhibitory responses that sexual feeling itself has been repressed. A repressed sexuality weighs in when a young man sees a sexual stimulus and poses the question to himself: is it worth the risk of rejection? Not really. Even if he can score, is it worth the aggravation? Not really. Does he want to find out that she is making more money than he is in a job that is held open for women by women personnel managers? Not really. Will he really enjoy performing the sex on demand, auditioning his knowledge of the G-spot, the anatomy of the clitoris, his sense of pacing, and whatever else he is supposed to demonstrate for the privilege of being able to share close space with this young woman and perhaps enjoy a spasm of pleasure? Not really.
He decides, best to turn on the tube. At least there you know the women are selling you something, they can't reject you because they aren't really there, and you don't have to perform.

» You ARE angry about this! Posted by: ZoomerSlick
» RE: You ARE angry about this! Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: You ARE angry about this! Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: You ARE angry about this! Posted by: ZoomerSlick
» RE: You ARE angry about this! Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: Lindie's issues Posted by: lamar
» RE: Lindie's issues Posted by: Lindie
» RE: Lindie's issues Posted by: NYRugby
» RE: Lindie's issues Posted by: Lindie
» RE: What misogyny problem? Posted by: rancespergl
» Right on brother! Posted by: jpinder
» RE: Start With The Obvious Posted by: caitlin
» RE: women DO like jerks Posted by: cold2touch
» Great Article and Illustrative Thread Posted by: Conservativation
» RE: Great Post Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: Great Post Posted by: kateoneill
» Thank you kateoneill Posted by: rancespergl
» RE: Great Post Posted by: ericn613
» RE: Great Post Posted by: Conservativation
» Better he see the stereotype... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Not the help we want Posted by: maverika
» RE: Not the help we want Posted by: dangerouslysane
» Stereotypes Posted by: BlueTigress
» Messing with his head? Posted by: eastcoker
Women behaving like pigs a turn off
Posted by: Bobsays on Jun 16, 2006 2:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can see why men are turned off by some women. I shall explain. I have a very high sex drive and have never had a problem either finding the desire for sex or finding women who feel the same. I have lived and worked in many places around the world. In Asia, I never went without. In continental Europe and Canada this is also the case. But let's take the UK for example. I found the women so unappealing, in their drunken habits, loud mouths and unsavoury behaviour. Few women turned me on.

I think it is something to do with the US/UK attitudes to life and work. It creates an environment that plants a wedge between men and women. Women have bought into sex equality equally behaving like the worst men. But that isn't equality: that is being a pig. I would never date of marry such a woman. I only date women from other countries because they behave better, are better conversation.

» Pseudo-Darwinism and EP junk Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» Durga Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Pseudo-Darwinism and EP junk Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» RE: Pseudo-Darwinism and EP junk Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» RE: Pseudo-Darwinism and EP junk Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
Reading a bit too much...
Posted by: RobW on Jun 16, 2006 2:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... into a handful of TV commercials, I think. The vast majority of ads that use sex at all still stick to the tried-and-true method of equating the product with increased sexuality, not decreased.

So, a few commercials use the opposite method for humorous effect... so what, really? The intent is to create a memorable ad- humor serves that intent nicely.

Another ad you could have mentioned, perhaps you didn't see it, had me laughing pretty hard. Young guy in car sees two charity carwashes: one is run by skimpy-clothed cheerleaders, the other by stern, elderly nuns. The cheerleaders are using plain soap and water... he's about to pull in there, when the nun holding the sign shows him her secret weapon- "brand x" car detergent. He immediately pulls into her lot. Hilarious, right?

Anyway... if you ARE going to insist on reading deep social trends into otherwise meaningless TV, have you considered simple demographics?

America's (indeed, the industrial world's) population is aging. The "boomers" are retiring. Hence, sales of Viagra are skyrocketing, memes like "50 is the new 40" are popular, adult diapers are advertised without embarrassment, etc.

AND- perhaps in an effort to avoid alienating an aging male market, these ads are a way of saying "just because your libido is reduced, you're not really getting old... you see, these young, healthy guys are just as uninterested in sex as you are!"

From my own personal perspective- at 39 (and not married), I am not as interested in sex as I was at 23... I mean, yes, I enjoy it and pursue it, but not with the same energy level as when I was younger. That is, not to the exclusion of all other interests. I think this is a good thing- I was, then, only interested in screwing. Nothing else really mattered. Not even physical beauty, really. "Available" trumped "beautiful" every time. Never mind intelligence, sense of humor and irony, conversation skills, shared interests, etc...

Maturity changes that. So these ads may simply reflect the attitude of a maturing audience: other things matter at least as much as sex, including other things like good food, good beer, sports, etc. Naturally, commercials are only going to focus on the sort of things that can be sold.

Something else I'd like to mention- actual sexual pleasure is, I think, less desirable for men than in the wild, pre-AIDS days of the mid-80s and earlier, before condom use became mandatory for all encounters.

This is something I think most women don't appreciate- sex with a condom is just not that much fun for men as it once was. Sensation is sufficiently reduced so as to make orgasm sometimes difficult to achieve, even without the ubiquitous drinking. So, if you're looking for reasons why some men seem less interested in having sex at all, you may want to look there first. Of course, NOT using a condom is NOT an option, so... we see an increase in the popularity of oral and manual sex.

» condoms are not bad Posted by: Allison
You've taught us well
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Jun 16, 2006 3:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know, when you read a constant torrent of studies like "more than half of women prefer chocolate to sex", and "three quarters of women never achieve orgasm during vaginal intercourse", you don't exactly feel encouraged to jump into bed.

Why bother? Give her a small tub of Haagen Daaz ice cream and she'll likely be happier. Stick with your hand and she won't have to fake it. It's depressing, really.

» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: NYRugby
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: NYRugby
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: NYRugby
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: NYRugby
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: NYRugby
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: NYRugby
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: Robba29
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: NYRugby
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: NYRugby
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: zoomorph
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: zoomorph
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: zoomorph
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: kc4choice
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: hmmm?
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: zoomorph
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: hmmm?
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: kc4choice
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: FauxPorteno
» It absolutely was the case Posted by: kc4choice
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You've taught us well Posted by: Katrinepa
Another Woman Talking About Men
Posted by: ChristopherLL on Jun 16, 2006 3:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a man if I were to begin making judgements about women's sexual patterns, interests and behavior the response would be, in my experience, a vehement and immediate rejection of my opinions and observations. Men do not know what it is like to be a woman would be the more common comment I suspect. Thus, as a corallary, I consider as marginal what women say about men as they have scant knowledge and minimal understanding regarding the subject. Their perspective is limited and frequently distorted by personal biased, resentment and envy. For this article I would say that men are much more than their "little brain" (a sexist and demeaning description) and that it is what is beyond the surface (body, face, hair) that is equally attractive. Feminity as it supplements masculinity is what has been waning in the progression of womens social development. Advertising takes advantage of this situation

a problem
Posted by: rsaxto on Jun 16, 2006 4:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To the extent that sex (or not) is a problem in today's world it is caused by a sea of pollutants, a sea of unnecesary prescription/other drugs, mental problems, dna problems, greed problems, religious problems, wars, diet problems and overpopulation. The first thing we should fix is the greed/war problem caused by the Bushies.

» And... Posted by: Allison
» You're delusional Posted by: rancespergl
» RE: a problem Posted by: Conservativation
» RE: a problem Posted by: Iconoclast421
» But wait! There's more! Posted by: RobW
» Materialism Equal Opportunity Posted by: Conservativation
» RE: But wait! There's more! Posted by: WhatNow?
Hamish
Posted by: JDBishop5 on Jun 16, 2006 4:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More and more men understand that the behavior and attitude of too many "modern" women proves the validity of the old rule. "If it flies, floats, or fucks, it is cheaper and better to rent."

» RE: Hamish Posted by: peterharrell
» RE: Hamish Posted by: Katrinepa
» RE: Hamish Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Hamish Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Hamish Posted by: eastcoker
Ouch Lindie
Posted by: cyclone2525 on Jun 16, 2006 5:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You bash someone earlier for being misogynistic and then you go and say that "all men" have no clue about the female anatomy. If you don't want someone stereotyping us as women, then don't stereotype all men. My husband is very "clued" in as have been most men I know. Yeah, there's a few who make me want to cry for their partners, but we're not all exactly experts either...

» RE: Ouch Lindie Posted by: Katrinepa
Few and far between
Posted by: Jeffersonista on Jun 16, 2006 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its been my experience, that the ratio of women who a)actually like sex and b) are any good at it, are extreemly rare. So why go out of your way and risk humiliation, rejection, and most of all waste a lot of time, when the likely hood of a even passibly pleasureable experience is less than 5%?

» RE: Few and far between Posted by: kateoneill
» RE: Few and far between Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Few and far between Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: Few and far between Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Few and far between Posted by: kmaripo
» RE: Few and far between Posted by: MatthewSavage
drugs yes but not where you think....
Posted by: Farmertim on Jun 16, 2006 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
given the fact that most growth hormones given to our meat supply are female in origin or that large portions of the feed given to our meat supply mimic female hormone response is it any wonder our males are reduced in the ability and or want to express the male interests?
Is it any wonder our girls are entering pueberty at an increasingly earlier age and becoming more agressive with excess hormonal response?
We take the unseen and seldom recognized forces of hormones and emotions in our sexual experience for granted and now that it has been altered we don't really understand the new conditions we must negotiate when advancing toward the opposite sex.
Even our daily response to life has been altered, leading to the authors take on how medication may be affecting our interactions given most people are medicated to reduce the affects of the food supply.
If you take a Chinese medicinal view of our diet minus the hormonal influence, how we eat, when we eat it and what we eat will produce the same response in males of our society.
As a farmer I can I can tell you I can kill a bulls desire to breed with low levels of stress in many forms, and eliminate it completly with a hi soy unbalanced diet.
While it is important to look at whats going on in our realtions to one another, it is important to turn over a few more rocks to see the bigger picture.
Farmer Tim

Combination of Unpleasant Factors
Posted by: smthomas3 on Jun 16, 2006 5:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my experience it's a combination of factors that lead men to avoid sex.

In my own case:

I've sat in bars and listened to men discussing the women around them and found myself absolutely revolted, found every word of theirs filled with violence and misogyny and never, ever, ever wanted to be put in the same category with them. I then have found myself in relationships with women who have slept with men of exactly that type and aren't remotely impressed by my would-be chivalry-feminism. It's confusing and frustrating; you sacrifices your rank in the Idiot Alpha Male game, out of a sense of self-respect and believing women will respect you more. Instead you find women seem to despise you as much as men for it, and you're at the bottom of every pile.

Then there's the Demand To Perform. Only sometimes I can't--and I've found that this started happening as soon as I started taking anti-depressants. And, of course, with pressure it just gets worse.

And then there's the "Princess Charming" dream that Arianna wrote of. Where does this come from? I really have no idea. But somehow it exists in the psyche of a lot of us, and--oops!--it's bullshit.

Now tack on to that the Numbers Game that every member of this generation loves to play--find yourself having to lie your way into double-digits when your friends of both sexes (and remember, you are only in your mid-twenties) are giving out 30s and 40s which makes you feel ashamed, strange, and insecure, and the association sex=humiliation takes pretty solid form in your mind. And you realize you're in a sexual culture every bit as bad and psychologically harmful as that of the religious right, and well damn it if you wouldn't rather have a cheeseburger.

» two faced turn ons Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: two faced turn ons Posted by: NYRugby
Not that new...
Posted by: Samantha Vimes on Jun 16, 2006 5:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Antidepressents killing sex drives is new, yes, but there are so many social and psychological aspects to sex that men have turned away from sex from religion, from emotional disappointment, from fear, from a desire for isolation, etc, etc.
A better question may be, why do we expect all men to be horn-dogs? It is common, but there are enough exceptions that it shouldn't be regarded as freakish.

» RE: Not that new... Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Not that new... Posted by: titosantana
» RE: Not that new... Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Not that new... Posted by: titosantana
» RE: Not that new... Posted by: eastcoker
"...dangerous to the soul"
Posted by: sausage on Jun 16, 2006 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the new advertising stereotype new breed "...of healthy young men who rate sex way beneath their other appetites" betrays a "conservative Christian" subtext, and castration anxiety.

I mean "Jesus" wouldn't jump into bed with the first women who came along, would he? And since the young women in the TV commericals cited above are the sexual aggressors, the young man, like the Arthurian Percival, has to protect his chasitity in his quest for his personal "Holy Grail," a hamburger in this case.

The Viagra, and similar products' to "fix"erectile dysfunction, commericals play the castration anxiety theme to the hilt, as it were. The otherwise virile, entering middle-age, husband, can no longer pleasure his sexually insatiable wife. The world is turned upside down! God's plan is out of kilter without the intervention of the "miracle" of modern pharmacology. Viagra is dropped, erection achieved, all's right with the world! "God" is happy.

Think about it. Chasitiy and castration anxiety are two constant subtexts of current Republican political messages. Just think about the conservative aversion to sexual equality in the workplace, "abstinence only" sex ed and war, war, war.

» RE: "...dangerous to the soul" Posted by: eastcoker
Personally,
Posted by: Krotos on Jun 16, 2006 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I tend to avoid younger American women these days because so many of them have become so vulgar, abrasive, and self-righteous that it kills any desire I may have to get to know them, let alone make the emotional and financial effort necessary to get into a relationship with them. Women in this society may still be biologically female, but they've long since stopped being feminine, and they don't seem to realize that men are attracted to the latter at least as much as they are to the former. With their newfound promiscuity and coarse speech and behavior, not to mention those god-awful tattoos they keep getting, women are trying to act like men. And that's exactly why men don't want them anymore.

This is also why increasing numbers of American men -- and more to the point, increasing numbers of younger, successful, attractive men who wouldn't have any problems getting laid -- are looking for wives outside the United States. Why settle for some slutty, beer-swilling, tramp-stamped shrew when there are literally hundreds of millions of quality women available in places like eastern Europe, East Asia, and Latin America? And no, men aren't doing this because they want to marry doormats or slaves. They're doing it because they want to marry ladies.

-K.Ai.-

» RE: Personally, Posted by: kateoneill
» RE: Personally, Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: Personally, Posted by: kateoneill
» stranger Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: Personally, Posted by: Krotos
» RE: Personally, Posted by: kateoneill
» RE: Personally, Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: Personally, Posted by: Thatslife
» RE: Personally, Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Personally, Posted by: Conservativation
» RE: Personally, Posted by: eastcoker
» Historical ignorance! Posted by: FauxPorteno
» Wrong Posted by: eastcoker
» Get real! Posted by: FauxPorteno
» Excuse me? Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Personally, Posted by: Krotos
» RE: Personally, Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Personally, Posted by: Krotos
» RE: Personally, Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Personally, Posted by: kc4choice
» RE: Personally, Posted by: Conservativation
» RE: Personally, Posted by: eastcoker
» it's true Posted by: Iconoclast421
» Don't waste your time Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: Personally, Posted by: kc4choice
» RE: Personally, Posted by: zoomorph
» RE: Personally, Posted by: eastcoker
» You are totally right Posted by: Bobsays
» US/UK girls Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Personally, Posted by: jeffersonian
» The Flip Side Posted by: azul
» RE: The Flip Side - actually . . . Posted by: FauxPorteno
» Not surprising, azul Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» RE: Personally, Posted by: Conservativation
» Krotos the Wise Posted by: vespasian01
» RE: Personally, Posted by: Katrinepa
» Something I Find Hilarious Posted by: Conservativation
» RE: Something I Find Hilarious Posted by: flyinfur
I've got no problem but the wife does so we have a problem
Posted by: gmknobl on Jun 16, 2006 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's an oft-told tale. I have no problem with my sex drive and never did. Of course, most women I met and were initially interested in weren't interested in me, a stable, intelligent though not a handsome guy. I was never in the "in" crowd. This could be par for the course or, more likely to me, because most women in high school and college who I was attracted to were simply immature and wanted the "in" guy who was handsome. I looked for intelligent, attractive women, but unfortunately, wasn't wise enough myself to look for wise women too.

Be that as it may, I eventually found my mate late in the game and she's a good person. We could bare contain ourselves before we got married. And after we married all was fine for around a year before she got pregnant. Many things change in a woman when she goes through pregnancy. One of those things are the hormones. My wife, who as on anti-depressants, had to change medications. Suddenly, and I do mean suddenly, she had no physical desire for me. See the change in that desire didn't coincide with the pregnancy but with the change in medication.

Unfortunately, she's never admitted that this is a problem. We've had one child and now a second. She's changed medication again because the second pregnancy was terrible on her. "Morning sickness" existed day and night for 9 months - the entire pregnancy. It was made worse, intially, by the medication she was on. It got nominally better after she switched.

of course, I did not expect her to be arroused by me during this period at all. No one wants sex when they feel like throwing up. But now that this is over and our second is a year old, she still has no where near the desire she use to have. It's not age, she's still in her 20s. It's not me, I'm in my 40s and by all accounts, my sex drive should be deminishing. It certainly hasn't increased.

The only consistant change is she's not on her original depression meds. I really, really want her to get off them entirely (though this is a sore subject since she's convinced she can't overcome depression by herself - a sad but true tale of drug company advertising and non-helpful but paid-by-drug-company psychiatrists) but will settle for her just going back to her original medication. But she won't. She refuses because she is happy. She doesn't want to risk having any problems switching back. But the side effects (of Zoloft) are causing a real problem in our marraige she refuses to see. I'm lucky if I'm... lucky 3 times a year. This is not normal. I'm never one to force myself on someone else; that's rape. But damn it, this makes me angry at her, the drug companies, and at psychiatrists who perscribe drugs first and real treatment later if at all.

I know our marraige would be better off with her at worst on her old drug but I believe it would be better without drugs entirely. That's a pretty amazing statement isn't it. I'm claiming to know what's better for someone else or at least what would be better to try. Arrogant? Not really.

I know what depression is like because I have suffered it too. And I beat it after several years, without the use of drugs but with therapy and the evolution of how I view the world and life. I know if you don't go through that evolution or try to fix yourself in this way, you are missing out on what could be a much better life. Instead, I am convinced that many people simply give up after too short of a time and decide to simply take a pill to make themselves better. And it hurts not only them, but those around them as well. And suppression of libido is just one of the side effects. Emotions tend to be depressed all the way around. Things are still funny and happy and sad but not as much. And that misses much of what life is and should be. And that's a crime against yourself and nature. My conclusion: the drug industry is our problem.

Yeah...Right! Also; Martians to Invade Tonight! Film at 11!
Posted by: hip2besq on Jun 16, 2006 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Men no longer interested in sex with women. Hmmm...me thinks this is a great way to sell more newspapers and raise more blogging revenue from advertisers. Unless, perhaps this is another phenomena of Global Warming. You know, like since the oceans are warmer and men go swimming in the oceans, therefore their testes are warmer...do you see where I'm going with this?

daw13
Posted by: daw13 on Jun 16, 2006 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting that all the comments are by men. Including mine. Personally, I think the author's right on. We're loosing our libidos, becoming more passive, and more vulnerable as a citizenry -- all these things interrelated, I feel. Fear? Anxiety? Denial? Drug induced?

Don't know, but its damned sure something to ponder.

» RE: daw13 Posted by: peterharrell
» RE: daw13 Posted by: kateoneill
Another Point
Posted by: FauxPorteno on Jun 16, 2006 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jeffersonista above and the author herself made a great point although the author says it doesn't explain our current "physical" predicament - I beg to differ

"Many men are exasperated with women thinking that boys can be satisfied with a warm hole and a squeeze. These are the guys who appreciate their own sense of foreplay, they dream of being seduced, and they want to be treated like an individual between the sheets instead of a stroke-by-numbers cartoon. I like this theory as a philosophy, and its feminist impulses. But physically, I don't think it explains our current predicament."

It has generally been acknowledged in our society that men are clumsy and inept in bed whereas women are somehow intuitively "dialed in" when it comes to sex. This may be true to some degree but the stereotype that women are somehow "instinctively" better in bed is so much complete and utter nonsense!! It has been my experience that there are far more women who are bad in bed than good. For every women that must explain how to properly perform cunninglingus to her ignorant partner there is a clueless women fumbling with a man's penis to the point where he would rather have a Miller Lite and a burger. For every woman who is spontaneous and adept in bed there is a woman who suffers from "dead fish syndrome", whose idea of oral sex is kissing you on the lips occasionally, who rarely makes a sound and prefers it the same way time and again. Every man knows what that is to be sure. I don't know if any other men have found this to be common but I have been with several women who decided to call it quits once they got off, giving no thought to my satisfaction. That was supposed to be something that happened almost exclusively to women . . .

Ask most men which kind of woman was best in bed and invariably you will hear that it wasn't the spectacular Angelina Jolie or Pam Anderson archetype but rather the less than stunning friend or girl next door who was uninhibited and whose tecnhnique was far from amateurish. The reason you might ask? - She never relied on her giant tits and model perfect ass to attract men but instead became more skilled in the game of real seduction. She developed a personality and the intelligence that is usually indicated by her sense of humor and spontaneous nature. Yes maybe men are growing tired of wasting their time actively seeking out women who probably don't have much to offer anyway besides the best experiences are always those that "just happen".

» RE: Another Point Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Another Point Posted by: Thatslife
Strange premise
Posted by: grokked on Jun 16, 2006 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Frankly, I find the whole premise of this discussion to be amazing.

Are there really millions of hot and horney american women out there who are just dying to jump anything that moves and has a pecker?

Maybe-- if you happen to be CEO of AT&T (and can prove it on the spot).

Otherwise, lots of luck to you. On the whole, american women are neither friendly nor approachable. At least, not in comparison to many other cultural traditions. To american women, men are all potential rapists, pedophiles, or just plain boring. At least, thats what they see on "Lifetime".

I think the answer to the "mystery" of young men not being interested in american women is obvious- they're simply too high maintnance to be worth the trouble. Take those same guys and give them a shot at French, or Tai, or Brazilian women and see what happens.

» Strange attitude Posted by: kateoneill
» RE: Strange attitude Posted by: Ghoulman
» You’d do it, too Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» RE: You’d do it, too Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: Strange premise Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Strange premise Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Strange premise Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Strange premise Posted by: Ivan_K
» RE: Look elsewhere Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Strange premise Posted by: jeffersonian
» RE: Strange premise Posted by: apple pie
Eeeep. Are we reading the same article?
Posted by: meeper on Jun 16, 2006 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't see a whole lot of criticism of men in this piece... quite the contrary. Concern for their health, concern for their sexual well-being, concern about stereotyping them as thoughtless horny machines...

Yet the tenor of the (male) responses is largely extremely negative about women. I mean, really, go back and read them, women are pigs, selfish, lack knowledge, dirty...

Wow. Sorry guys. Go back to your regularly scheduled misogyny. Better yet, get off a progressive website that at least pretends to support diversity and community. Differing opinions are one thing, but this stuff is just hateful.

» You're not listening... Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: You're not listening... Posted by: Kym525
» RE: You're not listening... Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: You're not listening... Posted by: Ivan_K
» RE: You're not listening... Posted by: Krotos
Disinterested in sex?
Posted by: hapibeli on Jun 16, 2006 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Huh? Seems to me that the "interest" in this article shows the opposite. I've been having a great time reading the comments. Good post if only in the comments it has generated. Sex is, and always will be one of the 3 basics of human life. Food, shelter, sex. There ain't NO gettin around it until we morph into something on a higher level than homo sapiens.

» Sex is a "need"? Posted by: nowfifty
» RE: Disinterested in sex? Posted by: nolocontendere
Don't Confuse Advertising With Light
Posted by: mikespindell on Jun 16, 2006 7:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ms. Bright's article is rather disappointing in that she confuses the images being presented in TV Ads, with indicators of the reality of our lives. These images were created for specific manipulatory reasons (to sell something via subliminal messaging) and not as sociological comments on the human conditions. Beer commercials consistently show 20ish males who are more attracted to beer than the sexy women beckoning to them. The message is: Getting stoned on beer is THE most fun. Please stop confusiong advertising with social insight.

Where's the data?
Posted by: harrysf on Jun 16, 2006 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where's the data?

Susie, although there are surely kernels of truth in your story, and it makes interesting reading, your comments seem highly anectdotal and are not backed up with any data.

You say things like (my emphasis):

"Sure, there are still plenty of horny men who will bark like a dog to get laid, but the big news is that so many young men in particular, are as ambivalent about sex as any pre-orgasmic housewife ever was."

"so many young men"? HOW many? Is it any significant percentage? Is the percentage increasing? And how did you get your info?

About viagra etc.: It's well-known that large pharma companies will do anything to sell us drugs, whether or not we need it, or even whether they're truly safe and effective. I'm not sure that the presence of ads on TV means that fewer men are horny, or horny enough.

Just because ads for beer etc. show horny, highly available women, it doesn't mean that's out there in the real world. Yes, American women are more sexually enlightnened and open than ever before, and there's lots of skin showing. But for the average guy, getting laid is not at all a slam-dunk. Just because a woman is willing and ready, doesn't mean she'll do it with anyone who approaches her.

» RE: Where's the data? Posted by: kateoneill
» RE: Where's the data? Posted by: LostCreation
» RE: Where's the data? Posted by: harrysf
Nonsense
Posted by: eastcoker on Jun 16, 2006 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have never run into a man who wants a burger and not sex. In fact I am still sick of being a sex object even after marriage. I will explain that better. I seem to invite sexual thoughts from men as opposed to romantic thoughts. Some think about marriage in relation to me, but a lot seem to want to get physical with me. Like every man. So I have *no idea* where this article is coming from because it is not my experience *at all*.

» RE: Nonsense Posted by: kateoneill
» RE: Nonsense Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Nonsense Posted by: kateoneill
» RE: Nonsense Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: Nonsense Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Nonsense Posted by: RobW
» RE: Nonsense Posted by: ToolPackinMama
» RE: Nonsense Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Nonsense Posted by: esactun
» RE: Nonsense Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Nonsense Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Nonsense Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Nonsense Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Nonsense Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Nonsense Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: eastcocker Posted by: cassius
» RE: eastcocker Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: eastcocker Posted by: cassius
» Financial Security Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Financial Security Posted by: cassius
» RE: Financial Security Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Financial Security Posted by: cassius
» RE: Nonsense Posted by: jimidee
» RE: Nonsense Posted by: pomes
» RE: Nonsense Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Nonsense Posted by: pomes
There's no such thing as love.
Posted by: Ghoulman on Jun 16, 2006 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The point of this article, that men (a "small" percent) are having a physiological problem caused by drugs/environment/whatever is fine. It's not like everyone (women included) isn't affected by this poisoned, over stressed, world, but the article doesn't exactly make a direct point. *sigh*, I'm awaiting the lawsiuts against Pfizer once the Viagra flipper-babies start appearing.

Personally, I found it interesting that womens expectations, and demands, were desidedly absent from this article. Oh suuure, women are awaiting thier "prince charming" to touch them in that empathic way. Rubbish, women want to be fucked silly by pretty boys. And I mean, fucked silly. Love, in my experience, isn't anything women care about any more than men. Money, satisfaction, status. All the things Oprah taught them to expect. Can men live up to all this? Be a sex stallion, James Bond, with the ability to pay a $300,000 morgage and still keep from having a belly after working 14 hours in front of a piss poor monitor coding some corporate ... oh, I'm being personal aren't I?

My bad. Do I have an erection right now? Are you kidding. Go to sleep honey.

» Yes, there is. Posted by: fool-on-the-hill
» RE: Nope, there isn't. Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: Nope, there isn't. Posted by: kateoneill
» RE: Nope, there isn't. Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: Nope, there isn't. Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Nope, there isn't. Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Nope, there isn't. Posted by: kateoneill
» RE: Nope, there isn't. Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Nope, there isn't. Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Nope, there isn't. Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Nope, there isn't. Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Nope, there isn't. Posted by: Katrinepa
» RE: love for Polly Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: love for Polly Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: love for Polly Posted by: Ghoulman
soy
Posted by: Polly on Jun 16, 2006 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Farmer Tim didn't say it reduces inhibitions. There is evidence soy decreases sex drive because of the phyto-estrogens in it. There's a lot of debate about soy among believers in a healthy diet. I don't know all the evidence (who does?) but I would encourage a man with sex drive problems to avoid soy in his diet.

» RE: soy Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: soy Posted by: bjerko
advertising promotes impotence
Posted by: wleming on Jun 16, 2006 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the article doesn't address -- tho it gives myriad examples, is the fact that advertising is interested in and very determined about promoting impotence. Of all the examples given-the ad message is clear... our product is preferable to your sex life, and given advertisings sexualisation of children--does that come as a surprise?
Having taken on the poisoned mantle of unbridled consumerism-with all of its negatives- Americans have created a sexual dystopia--which they are in the process of selling to the world.

So, are people (even men) finally realizing that QUALITY is more important than quantity? Hooray!
Posted by: fool-on-the-hill on Jun 16, 2006 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is a serious error to presume that sexuality and sexual expression are the zenith of human experience, much less the defining attributes of humanity. (These notions are not facts, they're marketing suggestions!)

Way too many of the under-thirty-five crowd seem to take for granted that the more sex the better, and that anyone (esp. male) who prefers quality to quantity has something wrong with him/her, maybe is even suffering "castration anxiety" or some such, brought on by a "conservative Christian sub-text", as an earlier post suggests. Horse shit!

Chastity (i.e., sexual restraint) is held to be necessary to spiritual (and physical!) health by ALL religions. Moreover, there is literally NO human society or culture that says everyone can have sex with anyone they like any TIME they like---except western "pop" culture, which is in fact a sub-culture, at variance with societal norms, even in the licentious west!

Throughout history, physicians (and philosophers going back to Aristotle) have promoted sexual continence as necessary both to physical health AND to sexual pleasure. A person who practices the high road of chastity until s/he finds the person they genuinely love, is unlikely to be too jaded for sexual activity.

» Please don't ... Posted by: fool-on-the-hill
» RE: Please don't worry Posted by: Ghoulman
I'm astonished that no one mentioned AIDS
Posted by: ToolPackinMama on Jun 16, 2006 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember the early 80's when the terror of AIDS threw a bucket of ice water allll over what previously was a non-stop orgy. AIDS is still there, and people are still afraid of it, but NOW it's not the reason that sexual enthusiam has dimmed?

Since when?

The Real Problem is S-E-X...
Posted by: Kym525 on Jun 16, 2006 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We live in a curiously sexphobic culture in which hardcore porn is readily available and yet neither gender knows anything about themselves or each other. Women are socialized not to know the difference between sex and love as well as having a hatred of their genitalia. Men are expected to know everything about sex and expected to be hung like the proverbial horse. With unrealistic expectations on both sides, no wonder some men are preferring sports to sex.

It's past the time that all genders shed outdated notions of sexuality and started creating a healthier and more do-able reality.

Guys - really, it's okay if Mr. Happy isn't quite so happy for the moment. Put that time to good use, like some really nice arousing foreplay - sharing a bubble bath or shower perhaps? A little light blindfolding and bondage??? And ladies, if he's not John Holmes, don't hold it against him. There's a zillion ways for him to hit your g-spot, just use your imagination. Oh, and your vaginas are beautiful works of art, don't go cosmetically enhancing them.

Most importantly, isn't sex supposed to be FUN? Leave the whole orgasm thing at the door and just spend hours on the journey...

» RE: The Real Problem is S-E-X... Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: The Real Problem is S-E-X... Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: The Real Problem is S-E-X... Posted by: FauxPorteno
spiritual crisis
Posted by: kungfujack on Jun 16, 2006 9:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the fact that this topic exists and creates such a heated debate, gives indication of an uderlying spiritual crisis in our culture. 9 times out of 10, relationships are doomed to failure from the start because the partners aren't at peace with themselves. they are constantly blaming the other for problems that come up. ultimately the problems can't be resolved because neither party has a clue about unconditional love. we see ourselves as separate from each other, and from the world, and feel that we must constantly protect ourselves (or in the case of these posts, our gender).

untill we see that the "problems" in our lives are inconsequential compared to the deep peace that comes from unconditional love, we will continue to have the debates in this thread, and the wars around the world, and against nature.

as for sex, there was a time when it was primarily about procreation. now it seems to be primarily about pleasure seeking and emotional security. when we are able to to look to ourselves for emotional security (instead of our partner), sex can become focused instead around a deep connecting with another human being, and a tool in spiritual enlightenment. when that happens, all this talk of "performance pressure" becomes irrelevant.

» RE: spiritual crisis Posted by: Kym525
» RE: spiritual crisis Posted by: weiwuwei
» RE: spiritual crisis Posted by: okcamp
» RE: spiritual crisis Posted by: eastcoker
just maybe .....
Posted by: weiwuwei on Jun 16, 2006 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like to imagine, in my polyana-ish way that just maybe more men are beginning to realize(even if being totally unconcious of it) that they have a emptiness and longing for something- call it spiritual if you want - that neither sex or any sense gratification can fulfill. I say this because i realize that for some people, men and women, there comes a point where you've had so much sex and money and vactions and food, etc, and you're still lonely and afraid, and you suddenly, truly understand that more is never enough, and that no experiences and no person can fill that hole. This may only be the cause of loss of desire for a few men. and it seems this loss of interest in sex is just a natural falling away of what doesn't work anymore, not really a concious decision. this has been suggested by other posters. i guess it tends to come with age and a clear intuitive sense of our mortality. as for young men losing interest, maybe they ARE wising up early, having had so much sense gratification by such an early age compared to those of us who were raised with more inhibitions about sex.

and i guess the good part is that if people realize that sex is(in the "big picture") really just no big deal, they will have relationships based on real freinship and respect. Polyana-ish? I don't think so...

» RE: just maybe ..... Posted by: Thatslife
Too Tired
Posted by: tjohnson on Jun 16, 2006 10:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it funny that no one has mentioned the fact that daily work, chores, and general life gets in the way of having sex! Both my husband and I work full time. He even works 10 hour days. Our evenings generally consist of: dinner, short conversation, news, and TV. By 9 pm I'm going to bed, he says, I'll be up in a minute. I wake up at two in the morning and he's sleeping on the couch still fully dressed. I'm exhausted most of the time just trying to keep up, never mind doing fun things. My husband says, we have a sex problem, I say no we have a lifestyle problem.

» RE: Too Tired Posted by: gmknobl
» RE: Too Tired Posted by: yesman
» RE: Too Tired Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Too Tired Posted by: cassius
Speaking from personal experience--and what else is there? ads? sex surveys?
Posted by: Sojourner on Jun 16, 2006 10:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) "You can't tell the woman from the man" is a third world evaluation of the liberated US. As I worked with and for women all my life, I agree with the critique.

2) Most, if not all, of the women I've known well enough to try to understand them seem to me (none of them seem to be aware of it, however) that they choose a man who will impress their girlfriends.

3) Men do not know squat about the possibilities of intimacy, physical or otherwise, even if they've tried to find out. So unless women (one of whose traits, not mentioned so far, is tend to mature earlier) are willing to teach men, we going to continue to spin our wheels.

4) The problem with teaching men isit requires women to know and take responsibility for what they want. That means abandoning the role of "Our lady of perpetual disapproval," the other side of "It's up to you, big daddy."

5) Pussywhipping has worked for women since time immemorial. While I know some women who have traded that in for intimacy, I can count them on one hand.

6) The dominatrixs posting on this topic are surprised that most men are not masochistic? Hello.

Bravo! Let's see if we can inspire the men to get more vicious
Posted by: Lindie on Jun 16, 2006 10:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whew! I think I have third degree burns from all the flaming invective. And nope, not contrite, and not retracting a thing I said about AWAKE.

All this furor, and all because I decided to post what was a very specific post calling AWAKE on his SH*T, after he posted what I still maintain is a misogynistic diatribe against women in response to what is, after all, a rather innocuous post on a non-issue. And so now we're for it ...

SO TO GET THIS OUT OF THE WAY FIRST, MAKE A NOTE, Ninos/Ninas - I WASN'T GENERALIZING ABOUT MEN, I WAS GENERALIZING ABOUT AWAKE.

I obviously hit some nerves and started a heated discussion - facinating. That aside, I stand by what I said, as it applies to AWAKE. ALL OF IT - and guys - I mean boys - try reading it all before you start flaming me and calling women fat pigs, castrating bitches, loud, crass, abrasive, too ugly, too fat, hysterical, etc., again, then feel free to launch the second wave.

I finally saw some where, down towards the bottom, that somebody finally clued in that the so-called 'issue' might be nothing more worrisome than the fact that men are human (WOW). GASP! Damn, sometimes men JUST DON'T want any. Others are responsible enough to know and take note that sex can kill - lots of scary disease out there, and then againsome men just plain have standards, just like some women do.

It's curious that, early on, ACROSS THE BOARD but one, the men have gone on the defensive and characterized women (and me, in particular) as every kind of man-hating misandrous misanthrope in the book.All in all, this has turned into an outpouring of some of the most vicious and hostile rhetoric against women I have ever seen in one place. Congratulations we get it = you hate us and welcome any excuse to get as nasty as you can. Or maybe you just hate me. Good - hate me some more.

What is most telling is what it says about us all (including myself) - we have a LONG way to go before we communicate so well that we don't willfully (or not) misinterpret what each other is saying, before we're all grown-up enough to own our own sh*t, and can leave of the dirty blows and cheap shots on the floor where they belong.

ASIDE TO CONSERVATIVENATION: not all men are morons, and some women are morons - don't assume generalizations where there are none, then stoop to level the crap you've been flinging at me. I have thought better of you, in what I have read of your posts on other issues in the past. Well, you killed that. Tsk.


So do attack what you thought I meant, rather than what I said, some more.


TTFN

» Inorganic food? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Inorganic food? Posted by: Conservativation
» RE: Inorganic food? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Inorganic food? Posted by: Conservativation
» RE: Inorganic food? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Nah Posted by: Conservativation
» Actually... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Why is this so surprising?
Posted by: Pintado_Petrel on Jun 16, 2006 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay....as a single hetero woman....

Ignore for the moment the small sample size error. I don't always want all sex, all the time. From asking friends, family, etc, I have found out that my sister and various female friends of mine don't want all sex, all the time. Is it so unreasonable to believe that there exist men who might not want all sex, all the time?

I didn't think so.

What IS sad is that a man who would rather not have sex with a woman, for whatever reason at all, is considered an object of humor. It's degrading, and it is as pernicious as the virgin/slut image that permeates attitudes towards female sexuality.

» RE: Why is this so surprising? Posted by: ehormony
» RE: Why is this so surprising? Posted by: LostCreation
It's not me, it's everyone else
Posted by: bittersweet on Jun 16, 2006 10:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This particular article has unleashed a lot of bitterness between the sexes. On the male side, it's a justification of their anger toward the women in their lives. Something to the effect of "Yes, I think I would rather have a burger, because even trying to pursue the opposite sex leaves me feeling empty, frustrated, and insecure."

Women commenting on this article are frequently posting responses to the sexually disgruntled men to the tune of "Well, that's what you get for being a big fat misogynist!"

When you all complain about the opposite sex, you're saying "it's not me, it's everyone else." Not a single one of you sounds willing to take on any personal blame for failed relationships or what may have gone wrong in your ill-fated romantic pasts. And here come the drugs and the hormones. Yeah, likely stories. Ever hear of personal responsibilty? Is it the drug company's fault that you pop that pill every morning? No. But they're getting richer every time you do it. And by the way, try some real food once in a while. Go to the freaking farmers market. They don't put hormones in that stuff.

Overall, a pretty sad commentary on the view AlterNet readers have of relationships with the opposite sex. I get the feeling many see sex as an entree to the relationship rather than the other way around. Attraction certainly figures into interactions with the opposite sex, but I think if you go around focusing on that, you're going to miss the big picture and a lot of simple pleasure that one can experience simply getting to know another person. It isn't about you. It's about finding a connection with another human being on this planet. It isn't about getting off or physical pleasure. That should be the least of your worries. If you start paying attention to life around you rather than retreating into some drug-enhanced, digitally romanticized version of the life you would rather be living, you might actually have a real relationship with a real person one day. Get out of the fetal position, remove your fingers from the keyboard, enjoy a good sunset once in a while. That constant flow of information pushing more and more "things to worry about" into your brain. Cut that off. Live a little, people. Enjoy each other. It has been proven over and over again, life, due to some great cosmic tragedy, does not go one forever. But the real tragedy here is how we waste it.

» Thanks. Posted by: ezilla
just the usual battle of the sexes
Posted by: anniedine on Jun 16, 2006 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading this article and comments just makes me happy yet again to be a lesbian. Out of thousands of sexual encounters over a long life I can count on one hand those that were disappointing.

From what I know, this experience is very common among lesbians. I don't know what it's like for gay men, but I bet their rate of misery in their sexual relationships is far lower than that of the average heterosexual male.

I have no doubt that the answer to the bad experiences het couples have could be solved by studying what it is that lesbians are able to accomplish with each other. Or you can just continue treating each other like crap - you seem to enjoy that sport quite a bit.

Sex is the anti-commodity
Posted by: yoursfaithfully on Jun 16, 2006 10:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sex is free. People don't have to interface with the market in order to have sex. Neuroscience has shown that sex triggers reward centers in the brain - the same areas triggered by drugs and shopping.

To me, that suggests that sex is the free version of the stuff we are encouraged to buy, like iPods, SUVs, designer fashions, and anti-depressants.

The only significance of a luxury is how good it makes you feel. So sex is really a free Hummer (pun intended). And the market abhors free Hummers (ditto).

So what's a market to do? Make people feel bad about sex. Make people put off sex until they're 10 years past puberty. Make people stay home and chat on-line and play video games and do whatever it takes to avoid people from getting into a situation where sex could occur. Scare people the hell away from sex so they'll buy crap to make them feel good! And then they'll work hard so they can buy that crap that makes them feel good!

We need to take sex back.

» RE: Sex is the anti-commodity Posted by: bittersweet
» Coitus interruptus? Posted by: kateoneill
» RE: Sex is the anti-commodity Posted by: nowfifty
» RE: Sex is the anti-commodity Posted by: LostCreation
Interesting stuff
Posted by: EZJ on Jun 16, 2006 12:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This thread has been a great study in current psychology.

I have had my ups and downs with women, and with all the women I have known and been with in the past, I am not going to make claims to totally understand them or speak for them.

I can only offer my perspective:

Without women, what is the use of living guys?

Gripe about them all you want, but every single one of my life motivations from financial to otherwise is driven by the thought of women.

I have been one of those asshole guys in the past, and sometimes, as it is a part of my testosterone and being, it certainly pops back up from time to time.

All I know, is that I have had my extreme ups, and my extreme downs. It is certainly tough when you go through a string of rejections and get the impression that "women don't care", or that you have to be a certain "status" just to get their attention.

Even if you know you know you are good looking, and you should be scoring, sometimes the chase is just too much to deal with.

I have went into a form of repression myself the last couple of years because I did really well in business, and I have nearly lost everything. Coupled with the fact that I recently lost my license due to having pot in my work van, I haven't even pursued women.

In fact, I have been embarrassed to pursue them because I have found that most DO fit the stereotype of wanting a man that is financially grounded and on his feet.

When I was grounded well, my confidence was up, and I did well.

But, who wants to tell a woman that you have a negative bank account and mommy has to drive you around for 3 more months until you get your license back? Eh? lol.

Is it right? Maybe, maybe not. I'm responsible for my own mistakes. No doubt about that.

I think the main point is to keep in perspective that there are many fish in the sea. My area is not a good area, because it is small, and most of the women are married or prefer to be married.

I have always been very clear, that is something that is not my intention, nor, will it ever be. But, I had a lot of female friends in college simply for the fact that I listened to their fears and wants, never judged them, and never pressed for sex.

A combination of those things, and it just naturally happens.

(It also helps in a big town or college atmosphere that you have a lot to choose from, I no longer have that luxury, for now)

Just my experience. Just my 2 cents. But, I am still conflicted as the next guy or girl.

But who nowadays isn't? :)

» "So. What do you do?" Posted by: kateoneill
» RE: "So. What do you do?" Posted by: zoomorph
» RE: "So. What do you do?" Posted by: FauxPorteno
I find this fascinating ...
Posted by: drmeow on Jun 16, 2006 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
simply because so few of the comments seem to match my experience. What I can’t relate to in the comments is the seeming narrowness and sameness of people’s experiences. I’ve been with guys who were jerks and guys who were awesome ... and I’ve been a jerk to guys and I’ve been awesome (well, at least I think I was). I’ve been used for sex and I’ve used someone for sex. I've had sex with guys who had no clue about what they were doing and with men who seem to have made a study of figuring out what turns women on. I’ve gone for the macho types and the sensitive types. My point is that I have not had a pattern of constantly bad relationships that fit the stereotypes expressed by both sides of the aisle in these comments. That’s not to say that there were not patterns in my relationships ... and in the guys I went for. But as I got older, I started looking at those patterns when I got hurt (and when I hurt someone) ... and admitted my own role in being hurt by following those patterns (and some of the inappropriate things I did that hurt someone). I started to recognize that there was as much of a problem in my “going for” the same type of guy who ended up hurting me as there was a problem with them behaving in ways that hurt me. And, most importantly, I worked at changing that - and am now happily married to a guy who doesn’t fit the pattern of the guys who ended up dumping me or guys I ended up dumping (although he’s a lot more like the guys I ended up dumping than the guys who dumped me).

My point is that there’s a lot of blaming going on it a lot of these posts ... and chances are that blaming is a big part of the problem from both sides. Yes, there are some men who are consistenly hostile and jerks to women and there are some women who are consistently hostile and jerks to men. But if all of your relationship experiences are like that, there’s a good chance that part of the problem is that, for some reason, you are overly attracted to those types ... and maybe its time to broaden your horizons.

I'm also pretty stunned by the unbelievable hostility in the comments and the incredible degree of anger that seems to be out there about human sexual relationships. Unlike some posters who would blame our genes or say that's just the way men and women are, I'd say the fault lies in our country's schizophrenic (permissive yet repressive at the same time not to mention full of misinformation) attitudes about sex. We have not been comfortable with our sexuality since the Puritans came here and this article and its comments shows that we've got a long way to go.

» RE: I find this fascinating ... Posted by: Katrinepa
» RE: I find this fascinating ... Posted by: Thatslife
On the verge...
Posted by: YHWH on Jun 16, 2006 12:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, I will point out that the TV commercials that inspired this article aren't about men losing their sex drives, they're about trying to market food with the message, "Our burgers are better than sex!"

But the fact that they did inspire an article about men losing (or perhaps hiding?) their sex drive, combined with the enormous response, shows that the author has hit upon something here. She's really on the verge of revealing a pathology which is becoming pervasive within our culture, namely that a lot of men and women are pretty bitter and resentful about their relationships, and no one can really agree why.

The first response to this article was from a bitter, resentful man. He has been burned by women in the past and hasn't adopted a constructive attitude because of it. But then immediately we have damage control from an outspoken women who threatens men with the Rape word and implies that all men must be polite, respectful, defering, and nice at all times. She even reveals her contempt for her own gender (and possibly herself) declaring that only stupid/drunk women are promiscuous. And the author is wondering why some men might sublimate their sex drives? Men are constantly afraid of hearing the rape word and being portrayed as sex-crazed animals. Many men reject this idea to the point they join in with feminist male-bashing. Look at the poster who said he was disgusted by men who were 'degrading' women (i.e. expressing their sexual interest). Another poster is urging people to consider that relationships aren't about sex. Why are we always trying to avoid the Sex topic? Then the responses from men show that many men are nice, polite, and respectful... and they don't get anywhere with women! And again the women's response to this is to insist that these guys are all just sex-crazed perverts and that they must be lacking in redeemable qualities somehow or they would be getting women. Amazing. What he have here is a fundamental inability to look at things from another person's perspective.

continued in next post

» RE: On the verge... Posted by: YHWH
» RE: On the verge... Posted by: EZJ
» RE: On the verge... Posted by: kateoneill
» RE: On the verge... Posted by: drmeow
» RE: On the verge... Posted by: drmeow
» RE: On the verge... Posted by: Lindie
Porn Star Wannabes
Posted by: livingthelife on Jun 16, 2006 12:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I gather from talking with young men these days is that they are not as interested as my generation was (I am 54) in sex without love. They want the real thing and if the girl wants to hop into the sack without it, these young men are not interested. Today's young women seem to think "scoring" with lots of men makes them more desirable. The opposite is true, but today's media-addled porn star wannabes don't seem to realize it. They think virtue is passé.

» RE: Porn Star Wannabes Posted by: Katrinepa
Arrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhh...Spare Me!
Posted by: Riverside on Jun 16, 2006 12:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would seem that we are so besotted with sexual issues, good and bad, that we have lost sight of love. The best sex, the most lasting sex comes from shared love. The other stuff is just a run of "if it feels good..." Well, after awhile the feel good bit get 's just flat boring.

Men and WOMEN are not less interested, but a little bit of love really stokes the fires and most of all caresses the heart. Too busy for love, well then don't holler when you are lonely.

Generalizations abound
Posted by: nowfifty on Jun 16, 2006 1:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the article: that a few commercials - the intent of which is not to analyze the male psyche, but to sell products - are generalized (incorrectly) to be representative of the majority of males' experiences.

In many of the responses to the article: that a few individual's experiences are generalized to be representative of the majority of males' and females' experiences.

In research parlay - neither is a representative sample. Show me a large population study that investigates the issue and I'll pay attention. These are merely anecdotal accounts - personal stories. Interesting though they may be, we have no idea as to how common these few experiences are.

I'm a Pornosexual
Posted by: strahlungsamt on Jun 16, 2006 1:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was browsing through all the comments on here to see if anyone else admitted to being in my situation and came up negative. I am also part of a new breed of sexuality that is part of the Internet generation. I'm a pornosexual.
Note I didn't say pornoholic as that suggests some new brainwashing psychological fad. I have become so addicted to porn that I don't even bother chasing real women anymore. They just don't measure up and are too expensive.
Let's go back a few years. I'm a successful systems analyst in a big NYC financial firm. I make over $100,000/year and am not especially bad looking. I went back to college in my thirties. Suddenly, I was surrounded by hot gorgeous babes and immersed in programming exercises that took up ALL my free time. I just didn't have the time, the money or the emotional energy to date and besides, dating usually involved alcohol or pot which impaired my studying skills even more.
At the same time, Internet porn came into existence. Newsgroups and p2p made paying for porn unnecessary. Suddenly, I was downloading thousands and thousands of pictures of the hottest babes imaginable. Soon I realized that jerking off to these babes was better than anything I would ever pick up in college and it "slaked the snake" so to speak so I could concentrate on my studies uninterrupted.
(Disclaimer - I deleted any and all kiddy porn and even reported a few sites for carrying it.)
Then one day I graduated and got a job in a dot-com where my initial salary was over $60k. Suddenly I noticed another phenomenon. Girls were chasing after me now. Girls I could never have gotten before, not being a football player, 18yos were finding excuses to visit me at work in miniskirts and turning on the seduction engines. Did I jump on the opportunity? Hell No! I was pissed! I wanted nothing to do with these women. Right there I saw what a bunch of materialistic bitches these women were and never asked them out. Besides, at this point, my porn hobby was more than keeping me satisfied. The moral of the story: If you didn't want me when I was poor, you don't get me when I'm rich.
New York City today is the most fucked up place in the world to pick up women. With overpriced rents and no nightlife worth talking about, it seems every woman I meet is only interested in how much money I make. On top of that, they're rarely as attractive as they think they are yet they think I am there to finance their lifestyles.
I've given up on women and retired to porn. Lonely? Sometimes. But the amount of time I spend enjoying my hobby plus the extra time I have not thinking about sex all the time more than make up for it.

» RE: I'm a Pornosexual Posted by: Krotos
» RE: I'm a Pornosexual Posted by: kateoneill
» RE: I'm a Pornosexual Posted by: Krotos
» RE: I'm a Pornosexual Posted by: strahlungsamt
» RE: I'm a Pornosexual Posted by: stevefoagardner
» RE: Hooker love Posted by: cold2touch
» RE: I'm a Pornosexual Posted by: kateoneill
» RE: I'm a Pornosexual Posted by: strahlungsamt
» RE: I'm a Pornosexual Posted by: EZJ
» RE: I'm a Pornosexual Posted by: RobW
» RE: I'm a Pornosexual Posted by: Kym525
» RE: I'm a Pornosexual Posted by: EZJ
» RE: I'm a Pornosexual Posted by: Kym525
» I would find it strange, Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: I'm a Pornosexual Posted by: strahlungsamt
» Fascinating Posted by: Conservativation
» Interesting Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: I'm a Pornosexual Posted by: Thatslife
» RE: I'm a Pornosexual Posted by: cassius
Jaded
Posted by: cispirit on Jun 16, 2006 2:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thirty years ago, while in my twenties, a friend in his late forties saw this coming. His belief was that the “Sexual Revolution” would lead to a culture of sexual boredom. That the repeal of our social taboos would result in the loss of our sense of the erotic. I think he was right. Due to the surplus of “Pornography”, (from soft like Playboy, to the extremely hard-core on the internet) the mysteries of sex, that helped stimulate our libidinous drives, have disappeared. The young men of today have never had to work very hard to get laid. The thrills of the chase and seduction are absent. A lot of what made sex satisfying, in my case, was getting there. Like most things that require little effort and can be had on demand, sex becomes humdrum. It becomes just one things, like doing one’s laundry or washing the car.

It's not the hamburgers.
Posted by: axolotl_helix on Jun 16, 2006 2:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And there's nothing wrong with my erectile function either, contents of my junk mail inbox nonwithstanding. I don't know why the author is dwelling on that one issue so much. I'm not on any antidepressants (which should be obvious...)

Sex is nice, but it's vastly overrated. It's definitely not worth all the bullshit most people put up with to get any in our society. In a perfect world, or even a reasonably sane one, everyone would be having lots of sex.

It has nothing to do with the ability to produce an erect penis and everything to do with having an acceptable place to put it. A lot of guys have completely compromised the rest of their lives just to have a girlfriend. They spend most of their free time and disposable income on a person they probably wouldn't even want to hang out with if she were a guy with all the same interests and personality attributes. A lot of guys just have sex with whomever they can, whenever they can.
If you're not willing to do either, you can wait a long, long time for something better- or just get 'sour' and not even try.

If you have ever had the misfortune of listening to the Tom Leykis show (and if you've not, I can only describe it as "LoveLine For Assholes") it basically sums up all the ways in which male-female relations in American popular culture have gone horribly wrong.

I think sex that's just sex, no love, no relationship, "I-just-want-bang-bang-bang..." is absolutely not worth the trouble. I have no moral objection to sex-for-sex's sake, but realistically, that's not going to happen with anyone I like as a person and see as an equal. It's going to be some insecure skank I met clubbing (I loathe "clubs"- all the atmosphere of a factory farm minus the merciful relief of the bolt gun...) made temporarily tolerable by desperation and tequila. To hell with that.

A woman I could really love, is either going to be already spoken for (which makes up a solid majority of them) and I absolutely will not go there... again- or if single; it's because they don't currently want a boyfriend. As for the few remaining desirable women who want to be in a relationship but aren't, it is either because there's something badly wrong with them under the surface, or because their standards are way too high for them to be interested in a loser like me.
So, that's why I don't have sex. Or love.

And I can live without sex. It's the one biological 'need' you will never die from a lack of. I can even live without love, if only out of bitter cynical spite left over from my previous attempt (love's a happy delusion, a conspiracy of brain chemistry to trick you into making babies, a cruel lie, long-term beer goggles of the heart, etc. etc...) but I'm only half-convincing myself.
Living without hugs & kisses may prove more difficult, after a few years...

There are a LOT of Bitter Men
Posted by: Kym525 on Jun 16, 2006 2:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
who have given their views of this article and I feel very sorry for them. Of course, as is their wont, everything that's wrong in a relationship or with women in general has nothing to do with the society in which we live. It's far easier to simply blame women (American women) rather than try to understand how the dynamics between men and women have shifted. In one case, a poster has decided to completely give American women the boot (has this man ever dated an American woman of another race perhaps?) in favour of women of other countries. Another poor soul decides that porn is a better substitute than being in a meaningful relationship.

Are women more materialistic in this culture? In many cases yes. Why? Because society teaches women - from inance fairy tales to soap operas - that men are supposed to take care of women, especially in the financial sense. Also, the take on marriage and relationships is essentially a throwback to this 19th century ideal that the man will be the breadwinner. As much as we'd like to think we've gotten past that in our post feminist culture, the truth is we haven't. There are men who become highly incensed if a woman makes more money than they do - they take it personally.

Let's be honest - men DO have just as unrealistic expectations of women. We all have heard of husbands who expect their wives to be ready and willing for sex in spite of her having to work, take care of the kids and the house. We all have heard some men complain when their wives have gained weight after childbirth or in the normal course of life - suddenly they lose their libidos because they no longer look like Pamela Anderson, never mind they themselves have beer guts and crusty feet. There are also the young men who complain the pretty girls don't want them. To that I say, so what? Pretty is a rather subjective term and if you're not willing to see a woman as a whole rather than just some package, no wonder you're miserable. After all, why is it that the nerd girls never get the hunky guys, even though they'd probably make better partners?

» FauxPorteno - Why are you so vindictive? Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» RE: FauxPorteno Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» RE: FauxPorteno Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: FauxPorteno Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» RE: There are a LOT of Bitter Men Posted by: strahlungsamt
» RE: There are a LOT of Bitter Men Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: There are a LOT of Bitter Men Posted by: FauxPorteno
» BITTER is such a controlling word Posted by: strahlungsamt
» RE: BITTER is such a controlling word Posted by: stevefoagardner
» RE: BITTER is such a controlling word Posted by: strahlungsamt
» RE: BITTER is such a controlling word Posted by: strahlungsamt
Too Cheap
Posted by: mistery509 on Jun 16, 2006 3:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think sex is no longer something to enjoy and respect. Years ago not many men and women had sex before they married. There were good girls and bad girls and only boys who were out for a one night stand would take a bad girl out. You would not bring a bad girl home to introduce to your parents because her reputation would be known around town.

Girls should not sell themselves so cheaply. I really think the freedom of free available sex has spoiled the mystery and anticipation. Men like to chase and pursue. At this time women are available on the first date and men are not interested.

Clothes are so provocative. You can already see what you are getting when the blouses are open to the waist line. A woman who dresses to make herself look feminine, has a clean, new look about her is appealing. Men like a challenge.

» RE: Too Cheap Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Too Cheap Posted by: jimidee
» RE: Too Cheap Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Too Cheap Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Too Cheap Posted by: jimidee
Backlash
Posted by: aloneforever on Jun 16, 2006 3:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The feminist movement has had this term around for years, to represent the upswelling of public outcry against long-held social beliefs that are negative.

I have dated several feminists, all of whom treated me terribly in the long-term. Because they embody the social belief that men are powerful and women are weak, they act like men (lying, cheating, manipulating to their advantage). In the bedroom, they are demanding orgasms for THEM, any failure of yourself to bring that demand is grounds for rejection. I don't know about you, but the last thing I want to do is what I'm told I MUST do.

Bring up that women can get things through their 'wiles' that men cannot DREAM of to them, and they will deny that women have any social power. Instead of promoting change, these few work against progress by becoming the very things they fight against, injustice and imbalance.

My point here, is that perhaps all these years of women-power, man-hating bulldung have finally hit a point where what men knew to be true for ages is finally becoming a mainstream idea.

Articles like this, smartly summarizing things, make the best progress forward towards real change.

You are provocative!
Posted by: eastcoker on Jun 16, 2006 3:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will add that all the married men in my church ran for the hills when I separated from my husband and said "you are provocative" and stopped complimenting on my beauty. Now I am a pariah because I am separated from my husband. So how's that for double standard? I have been *shamed* for my sexual attractiveness by the men of my church and blamed for their lust for me. That is how I ended up married, by the way. So you want to know some dark dirty secrets? There you go.

» RE: You are provocative! Posted by: Krotos
» RE: You are provocative! Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You are provocative! Posted by: Krotos
» RE: You are provocative! Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You are provocative! Posted by: Krotos
» RE: You are provocative! Posted by: stevefoagardner
» Church People Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Church People Posted by: stevefoagardner
» RE: Church People Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Church People Posted by: stevefoagardner
» Jesus wants what? Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Jesus wants what? Posted by: stevefoagardner
» RE: You are provocative! Posted by: jimidee
» RE: You are provocative! Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You are provocative! Posted by: FauxPorteno
reading posts has made me impotent
Posted by: goldenlink on Jun 16, 2006 3:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so mentally taxing!! i am now limp

i'll tell you what's going on:
are you ready?

mother earth is pulling the psychic cords
z.p.g. whether you like it or not
you start treating her right...
and you'll get your sexy back

a question:
what happens when sex gets reduced to a well worn series
of mechanized, mediated and pre conditioned call and response patterns? What happens when the mystery is flayed by science and technology? What happens when we over intellectualize, disect, and blog it to death?

we get bored.

besides
who wants to make babies when this world is so f'd up?!

» RE: reading posts has made me impotent Posted by: nolocontendere
Huh?
Posted by: Gregor on Jun 16, 2006 4:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this is an interesting opinion, but a few adverisements and miscellaneous observations doesn't make for good research...I don't know how you can prove this. Very generalized opinion. But I guess whatever is in people's heads gets published these days.

It's this simple
Posted by: pomes on Jun 16, 2006 5:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Men are sick of getting humiliated by women. We're sick of being debased by the women we're expected to provide for. We're sick of being seen as sub-human by the people we put our blood and sweat into providing for, because in most cases she REFUSES to provide for herself.

And those are the ones who can get girls. The truly decent guys, with self-respect, dignity, compassion, equity, fairness are seen by women as LOSERS for them to chastize and mock while they spread their legs for dude with more tattoos, bigger piercings, and louder cars (who they then complain about only being interested in sex). They call the former group "friend material" and NOBODY ON THE PLANET is more mocked and debased behind his back than a woman's "friend."

The kinder he is, the more contempt she has for him. We have compensated in the past by being kinder and more giving, but that just instilled a deeper contempt in her. So now we have a choice between being the kind of man that disgusts us so that we will be accepted by women, or withholding our opinion of ourselves from the world of female manipulation.. and that definitely means cutting back on sex, woman's first weapon of manipulation and social conditioning.

» RE: It's this simple Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: It's this simple Posted by: stevefoagardner
» RE: It's this simple Posted by: Ivan_K
» RE: It's this simple Posted by: stevefoagardner
» RE: Crotch rocket Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: It's this simple Posted by: Llama11
no soup for you
Posted by: vespasian01 on Jun 16, 2006 5:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article and some of the follow-up commentary have convinced me to withhold my manly attentions from all American women for the foreseeable future. Laugh now, cry later, ladies. They don't call me Mule because I'm stubborn.

It isn’t worth the trouble.
Posted by: supercrisp on Jun 16, 2006 5:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can’t carry on a conversation with a woman without sex lurking around in the corners. All those other guys or magazine articles or something have poisoned the well. Even when I couldn’t care less about the woman sexually, I get the impression that my conversation appears to her to be some sort of come-on. And I mean stuff like “you have a cute dog” or “hey, did you just come from the [insert political name] rally?”

It gets old quick. I don’t especially want to hop in bed with a woman. I’m 37 and in the middle of a dissertation, I prefer to wait awhile before getting all intimate and emotional, which sex always is for me (and most of my male friends to whom I’ve spoken about this). In the end I’d much rather hang out with men, just because there’s no sex there, aside from a couple of gay friends who like to aggravate me with flirtation.

I guess I can say it simply. So many women think that men are always after them, that men are big stupid walking penises. Many guys look and act like they are, but even those fellows aren’t. And there’s a lot of propaganda that says all men are such penis monsters. I find it demeaning; it pisses me off; and I’d sooner tell a women who thinks that to go to hell than screw her.

Personally I blame a lot of hacks who write about feminist theory they don’t quite understand, and I blame a lot of middlebrow and mostly dense women who seize on bad ideas to justify their own crankiness. I say this as a huge fan of Irigaray, Kristeva, and others, but their work is so much BETTER than the ideas people are seizing upon about the nature of men.

There are intelligent, kind, and alert women out there who realize men aren’t pigs but are also human and who are perfectly happy to engage in the difficult task of being equals in a relationship. But many others do the same thing men do with patriarcialism: use it however they need to to justify whatever they want.

Feh. The human race. We’re a hopeless self-serving lot.

Lydia in Phoenix
Posted by: lydia cypher on Jun 16, 2006 5:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good lord, Susie's little rant really hit a nerve among both sexes! I wonder how many people recognize how erotically deprived they are and also recognize it's at least partly this moment in history that's to blame? Really awful pornography everywhere, men and women blurting out whatever pops into their heads and all too often with no wit or finesse or consideration for themselves or anyone else. We'll all have happier and richer love lives when we wake up our imaginations and take the time to be gracious, playful and kind. I say, step up to the plate, ladies and gents, and reclaim your right to the joys of romance...and remember, all the world loves a lover :-)

» RE: Lydia in Phoenix Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Lydia in Phoenix Posted by: eastcoker
women - who needs 'm?
Posted by: Franco33 on Jun 16, 2006 6:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is a hamburger or beer more satisfying? Too many women are crazy, hysterical bitches. I can enjoy a hamburger and just throw the wrapper in the trash. Women stick around to torment you and act neurotic.

If she would hold my beer and let me eat my burger...
Posted by: johntindale on Jun 16, 2006 6:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
while we have sex, now that would be cool!

I think its cool that men are finally wisening up to the idea that they don't have to worship the golden vagina any more. Men have been masturbating to fertility godesses ever since someone figured out how to carve boobies out of rock 6,000 years ago.

We have been so eager for years to lay all of our hopes, dreams, plans, money, power at the feet of the altar to the Golden Vagina. Maybe if men wouldn't focus on the GV so much we could get back to important things like science, math and space exploration, constructing things and then blowing things up.

How many men wasted hours and hours of their teen years hunched over in the bathroom with the latest Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition worshipping the glossy airbrushed skinny waifs laying on a beach, making them feel like less of a man cuz- I could never get that chick, she's too hot.

Objectification has two victims, and we're so willing to talk about how exploited women are in the areas of fashion/ media and porn, but all the women being photographed, video'd etc. are in positions of power- "Beg me for the GV" if you are good enough, or if your penis is long enough, or if your abs are tight enough, or if you're successful enough, etc. I might be kind and benevolent enough to give you a small sample of the GV- oh and by the way, you better know how it works and how to please me...

Yeah, Yeah, you're a liberated goddess, whatever- hand me my beer and pass the remote.. the game's coming on.

Disheartening
Posted by: maddy on Jun 16, 2006 7:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iran, the deficit, global warming, etc.? NO, I think THIS is about the most disheartening message board outburst I've ever read.

Am I the only adult here, male or female, who finally hit an age where I was honest enough to admit to myself that any comment like "All of THESE folks reject ME because there is something wrong with THEM" is a self-deluding lie? Isn't it obvious that spending all of your time trying to "prove" who has the worst lot leaves you the loser? The fight will never end, because the winner demands that the loser deny his or her own experience. Personally, I wouldn't claim to "love" any human being I treated thus.

Am I the only person tired of being angry with phantoms, tired of projecting my own insecurities on the opposite sex, and tired of the utter refusal to practice compassion toward the opposite sex?

Really, people...

Why is it "feminists" or "American women" who are to blame for the narcissism that plagues American life? Doesn't our dumbed down consumerist culture teach ALL American children to devalue themselves and those around them??? Last I checked, feminists have not cornered the market on a national loss of courtesy and grace: Have you not seen Ann Coulter lately, not to mention the corporate media's proud displays of Zarqawi's corpse? Have you not noticed the degree to which "stepping on" those deemed beneath you is rewarded as "patriotism?"

It seems to me that the hostility that pervades these posts is just further evidence of a deep hatefulness toward anyone who dares claim to have their suffering heard. It's a victim competition--who has it worst?--that presumes that empathy granted one victim by default denies it to another. It's false logic, but a familiar one: "If I consider feminism, it must mean that I'm, by default, attacking men." Nonsense.

Acknowledging the simple reality that at all societal levels men have power over women does NOT also mean that our society doesn't also place unfair expectations on men, nor does it discount the degree to which women can "use" men for security. Nor does it discount the "biological reality" of attractiveness and courting. People are rejected for shallow reasons, on both sides, but individual acts of rejection, no matter how painful, are NOT THE SAME ISSUE as how power is distributed within American llife. In fact, it seems to me that patriarchy itself sets up these kinds of wars, not feminism.

I, for one, will not marry a man without my own financial independence because I could never place such expectations on a person I claimed to "love." The fact that that expectation is still presumed "normal" is a product of post-industrial patriarchy. Women who learn to "use" their beauty as currency have learned that from a social system that teaches women that that is their only currency...that's a product of sexism, not feminism. If such a women self-describes such behavior as "feminist," I would beg to differ.

So, my take? These posts serve as a parade of real and serious symptoms, but they have been horribly misdiagnosed.

» RE: Disheartening Posted by: titosantana
» RE: Disheartening Posted by: eastcoker
» Eastcoker Posted by: maddy
» RE: astcoker Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: astcoker Posted by: stevefoagardner
» PATRIARCHY Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: PATRIARCHY Posted by: stevefoagardner
» stevefoagardner Posted by: maddy
» RE: PATRIARCHY Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: PATRIARCHY Posted by: stevefoagardner
» [sic] yourself Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: [sic] yourself Posted by: stevefoagardner
» A Patriarch is not a Polygamist Posted by: eastcoker
Irony at its finest
Posted by: Cornfused on Jun 16, 2006 8:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excuuuuuse Me....I love how I was brow beated that I could never understand anybody but me (I tried it for awhile with women..you know..sensitivity and stuff...and the dirty little truth was...it was the longest dry spell in history). I think there are jerks, spineless wimps, and normal dudes...and women will take the jerk over the spineless wimp any day of the week (for the most part). The irony is Jenna Alternet tells me about me...at least the male part...but I wait for for her other articles dissecting us by race and other factors besides Madison Avenue's depictions...Taco Bell...really....I love it. Thanks Babe or should I call you a Chick or maybe Honey Pie (most Alternet dweebs won't get the joke until I say it is a joke). The best advice as a happily married dude...and I'm sure a majority of you dunderheads won't get it...is treat people with respect...and if she is crazy don't stay...if she calls herself a princess (go to match.com) don't treat her any differently or stay away. If she says she doesn't get the big deal about sex in the world...stay away unless you like projects. If she writes articles on alternet about men and their sex life stay away.

Most people don't want a pain in the ass (no pun intended). We just want to live with good friends, good companions (hetero or homo), and watch the sun set. This article just sucks.

I can't believe what I'm reading...
Posted by: kcampbell on Jun 16, 2006 8:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it rather painful to have read both sides of the response to Susie Bright's article. First of all...I think it is definitely true that Bright has missed the fact that the far right conservatives (isn't that redundant?) have manipulated the news media and what difference is there between the advertising media and "journalism" at this point??? Hey!!! I started reading this website because I saw truth for a change! This debate that has generated so many venomous responses it sickens me!

I don't see any of this lack of libido in men. I haven't seen many women who have been so aggressive they make men shy away. These have to be troll statements. I am repulsed that any woman would take an immediate opportunity to point out that any man could be a rapist. In this venue, that's totally inappropriate. I thought this was a progressive forum, not a place to air past grievances. "Progressive" people would not stoop to such ugliness and name calling. Please recognize that we have achieved a quasi equality that is teetering here...both men and women accusing eachother of being inadequate? That's just silly. Everyone knows that there is no explanation for the electricity of a kiss and what comes after...no teaching that. Cynicism is the last resort of the idealist...I have no idea who is responsible for that last statement but I think it might be true.

Get Satisfied at the King
Posted by: ehormony on Jun 16, 2006 8:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having trouble achieving a lunch erection? Then slip on into
The King (tm) for a Triple Patty Whopper (tm).
Slip your tongue twixt the nubile patties and let their vital juices dribble down your throat
for a mouthgasm (tm) you'll never forget!

food is king
Posted by: yellow on Jun 16, 2006 9:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An angry feminist was heard to describe men as "two eyes, a dick, and a stomach." She is somewhat correct. As one who is addicted to both food and sex I can tell you both are very satisfying and probably stimulate similar areas of the brain. The great thing is you don't need a relationship to indulge. Just take a trip to Burger King after jerking off!

» RE: food is king Posted by: Llama11
» RE: food is king Posted by: Turtlesruletheworld
hmmmm
Posted by: mousemanjp on Jun 16, 2006 10:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with your observations....

I would like to add the fact that our "reality" based TV and MTV shows have really shaped many of our perceptions upon the world, culture, and how it 'should' be.

Women and some men have higher expectations, and will dispose of those who do not meet her requirements.... why? because they know how many people are in the world, and they 'deserve' better.

Aside for Prince Charming expectations, self-loathing, and many other factors that our culture have been subjected to as a means for helping their own in-securities... we have all forgot what sex is, and was supposted be used for.

Reproduction, something humans decided we can alter for our pleasure. It has become normal to frequent this pleasure because it's addictive. What is an erectile dysfuntion exacly? Unable to get it up.... or keep it up for as long as you are expected? This general symtom allows for the public to self-diagnose their problem and seek help for it.
How many use it to keep it up? I bet you it's 90% at least. It also increases blood flow and allows for you to apear "Larger"

The penis is a muscle..... this should be an obvious fix for "length problems" and does not require a doctor.... or pills... or sitting on the couch... excercise does wonders ;)

How long is an erection supposta last? Considering the objective is to finish it so Nature can take it's course, 99.99% of men have a problem.... YOU ARE BORN THAT WAY TO REPRODUCE QUICKER!!!!!

How many people are together and don't even feel the need to have sex? Why is this not considered a rare and special moment to be shared by two who are actually in love and planning on doing it for a good reason... not some self-indulgent action for pleasure...

Men who understand that... of course would be depressed.
Love can be bought at any price, as long as you are willing to pay to fit into modern culture.

» RE: hmmmm Posted by: RobW
» RE: hmmmm Posted by: Conservativation
Okay, it could be . . .
Posted by: yesman on Jun 16, 2006 10:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
anti-depressant medications. But how about the more obvious: You can't turn around these days without having some kind of sexual image or innuendo crammed into your face--TV commercials; TV shows; advertising on the internet, in magazines; magazine articles; music videos; etc., etc., etc. And these images and words are almost always some kind of sleazy neo-porn, if not just outright porn. Couldn't it just be that this inundation with sleazy sexual imagery is so over the top that it's made sex BORING? How can you be constantly titillated without eventually just getting fed up and tired of it?

Perhaps it's not so much sex itself that is a turn-off as the boring, predictable, dumbed-down sexual images that are ubiquitous. If sex is so omnipresent that there's no mystery, no allure, then it becomes just another bodily function, like taking a crap, and just about as romantic and appealing.

» RE: Okay, it could be . . . Posted by: mousemanjp
» RE: Okay, it could be . . . Posted by: ethanay
Strange or Normal?
Posted by: mousemanjp on Jun 16, 2006 10:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"A lifelong bachelor, he led a somewhat isolated existence, devoting his full energy to science. Tesla allowed himself only a few close friends. Among them were the writers Robert Underwood Johnson, Mark Twain, and Francis Marion Crawford."

"He was quite impractical in financial matters and an eccentric dedicated to helping humanity. Tesla had more than 700 patents worldwide. He spent most of his life in New York City and died at the Hotel New Yorker on January 7, 1943, at the age of 87. Broke, Alone, and miss-understood by everyone."

We must pay tribute to this man for turning down his best-friend's wive's invitation for sexual encounters. His dedication to others exacly 150 years ago, could have set forth the essence to what men seek in sex to begin with.

"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success ... Such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything."

His dedication and focus has givin us electric power in our homes, and will continue to drive the world past the Petroleum age.

The Forgotten Genius - Nikola Tesla

Google Search For Nikola Tesla

A man who did not care about himself, but others. A man who did not want to add to the population and raise a family... but wanted to truly help the families already alive... continue.

» NEW TREND Posted by: Conservativation
» RE: NEW TREND Posted by: JoshuaLudd
here's my take
Posted by: ethanay on Jun 17, 2006 12:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My interpertation of those commercials is pretty different...I thought the subtext of the commercials was something along the lines of
1) Sex is very fun and pleasurable for guys, historically
2) Guys love sex
3) TV guy chooses burger over sex
4) Burger must be even better than orgasm w/attractive mate ("yes, folks, our food is JUST that good!")

In other words, it's standard advertising hyperbole. In fact, it's pretty funny simply because it is rediculous. But it get's the message across pretty well: "We're confident we have a good product."

The problem I see is that the commercial wouldn't work if women were substituted for guys--on a cultural level. And if that's a true, it's a shame. However, in keeping w/the biological realities, it SHOULD work, and has every right to work, and that's partially what feminism should be about acheiving. So we can all laugh at ourselves and our collective horniness shamelessly...but deal w/it responsibly (on emotional, social and physical levels).

» RE: here's my take Posted by: kcampbell
» I'd be lying... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Here's what this trend is about
Posted by: johnvogelin on Jun 17, 2006 12:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry if this has been stated in a previous comment, but..
The reason some men are less interested is that we are simply sick and tired of having to be the ones to take initiative and risk, and all the hurt and pain that comes with rejection, in asking someone out or encouraging them into relationships of any kind. Women's liberation is a great thing, but in America we are still wedded to ideas of the men making the first move and taking initiative in relationships. For those single women out there-I challenge you to make the first move, ask him out. Maybe once you've been rejected more times than you want to count, you'll start to understand a lack of interest in relationships and sex.

WOW! Talk about a fire storm!
Posted by: sweetmorganlefey on Jun 17, 2006 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It obvious this article caused a firestorm of comments and rebuttal. There are many emotions surrounding this issue and it's crystal clear from some of the comments there's still a huge compassion gap between the genders.

We need to take a collective deep breath and realize issues surrounding sexually are heavy on the emotionally charged meter. We're bombarded with sexual messages thousands of times a day in advertizing yet we Americans still can't seem to shake the taboo of talking about the emotion of it as well as the act of sex.

We can't just pop a pill and think the problem will go away. Sex and emotion, even the zippless fuck, are very connected. It's still about the individual.

Maybe sex is the opiate of the masses?
Posted by: hagwind on Jun 17, 2006 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Take a deep breath, people. Reproduction is necessary for the continuation of the species, and sex (one way or another) is necessary for reproduction, but sex is not necessary for individual life, health, creativity, and happiness. If I don't have air, I die. If I don't have water, I die. If I don't have food, sooner or later I die. If I don't have sex? Thirteen years and counting, and I don't see any ill effects. However, if I were convinced that sex was necessary to my mental and physical health, that my self-worth and my worth to others was totally dependent on whether I have sex -- well, then, I might be unhappy. I might fear that the lack of sex was almost as important as the lack of air, water, and food. Instead I regard the absence of sex from my life pretty much the way I regard the absence of, say hang-gliding: nothing against hang-gliding but it's way down my list of priorities.

If I obsessed about alcohol the way many people seem to obsess about sex, I would get myself to an AA meeting. Unfortunately, when the whole culture is out of whack, it's hard for individuals to recognize they have a problem. In a culture that wasn't out of whack, who would have heard of Susie Bright? She feeds on sexual insecurities the way the religious right feeds on economic insecurities. (Hmm. Why are some people more worried about their lack of sexual "performance" than they are about the size of their credit card debt?)

It's the premature ejaculation, stupid.
Posted by: Danger Russ on Jun 17, 2006 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Erectile dysfunction is an immediate embarrassment. Much more shaming to men in the long run is inability to sustain an erection for long before ejaculating. A woman may act understanding about it, but after a while she's liable to view it as a lack of self-discipline on the man's part and come to view him as selfish and child-like. Premature ejaculation is really the last word in blows to a man's self-esteem. If a man can't provide a woman with sexual satisfaction, especially if he doesn't have the money to, if not provide for a family in style, at least match her income, he feels he has absolutely nothing to offer. No wonder lack in his inability to measure up keeps him out of the game.

Oh, Please!
Posted by: playitsam on Jun 17, 2006 8:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blame pharmaceuticals, blame the food industry, etc. Too many young people are commitment phobic. They expect their mates to be perfect human beings. They watch Branjolie on television and think they are real people. Real people often have bellies, sweat, and are often unattractive. It's sad that two people can get together and produce a baby but can't produce enough love for one another and their child to form a family. It's not all about pharmceuticals and food. It's about a lack of education, caring and commitment.

jesus christ, all this over a few pathetic ads
Posted by: Neilium on Jun 17, 2006 9:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't beleive that any bloke would turn down the advertisers ' fantasy woman' that doesn't exist anyway. I'ts a rare day in may that a man would meet a woman that ' just wants to 'give sex' as it's comonly put by women.
And this beautiful sexy fantasy girl is getting turned down by mr ordinary bloke.. wakey wakey u watch too much tv and not enough real life. Lindie seems to be out on her own here it's turned into a bit of a dog ( to use lindies choice of words) fight.
Lindie ,I don't ever meet woman of your intellectual calibre, why is that? Most are pretty unsophisticated in conversation I find your ability and willingness to get in to this, quite refreshing. I have something to say about men...Men are basically terrified of women it's all about that all powerfull being " Mother" I often wonder if the opposite applies to those women who ' say have been married twice and have two lots of kids and suddenly become ' lesbians' Father just too daunting to tackle?
the bottom line is... as Warren Farrell puts it. men want 1 thing... sex with a beautiful woman.. women on the other hand want 101 things from a man.
And sex is way way down the list.
Neil

There is something very wrong in relationship in North America.
Posted by: Falang on Jun 17, 2006 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not young anymore, 47, and reading the posts here and seeing how young people behave on the last few years I must say I am happy not to be young.

That said I don’t intend to offer any solution in this post only some observations I made on the last few years. First I am sorry to say to North American women that there is something very wrong on young men and young women now but let say it is a trend because not everyone are having those problem or falling for that trend.

Sorry to say that to the people who are so harsh about relationship but I am in a happy 10 years relationship with my Thai partner, I say partner because we are partner in life and she is not my wife because I don’t possessed her. A little precision here, she is not in her 20’s, she is not a prostitute and she is not submissive because she is Thai, in fact she 47 like me. I am happy to say that we are still in love after those years, the sex drive is very good, I don’t need Viagra to sex with her, she is my Viagra lolll.
Observation I can make on our couple is that at this age we don’t have to prove anything to anyone, we don’t care what people think of us in North American society or Thai society and we don’t try to live the life of people who have to show wealth by having the biggest house or the latest SUV to impress other people. I notice that in the last decade the younger generation start to be push very hard at a younger age to perform, they have to perform very hard at school, in sport, at work, financially and to try to expose to the world that they perform very well by having the latest SUV or sport car, having the biggest house in the neighbourhood so when it’s time to have a relationship or to have sex they think they have to perform also. The models that the North American society is putting in face everyday is a false one, sex have nothing to do with what you see in porn, you are not abnormal if you don’t have a 10 inches penis and you don’t need to be blond and to have the biggest silicone boobs in the neighbourhood to have a good relationship and sex.

To the men who are complaining about the sex drive of the women in a relationship, ask you this question, what do you do or say to make her libido go up ? Since you are married to you think that she was won the day you married her and now you have nothing to do to win her heart everyday?

Finally to the North American women, there is something very wrong going on and I address that to you because of what I saw in the last few years abroad, when I go to Thailand with my partner in life to see the love ones we always go a few weeks on a resort island of southern Thailand and in the resort town we are going at night when you walk on the street there is a multitude of beer bars and disco and there you can find a lot of prostitute young women and what I was seeing before were men in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s with those young women but on the last few years what I see is that now it’s the young boys from the west that are at the arm of those young girls and I never saw that before so I think you have a pretty image problem with those young boys. I know that not every young boys are doing that but I notice that this is a trend and by letting this trend happening it’s nothing to help the relationship in North America. A other trend is the men choosing other mean to satisfy their sex drive with porn, prostitute, and a new trend I see here since people are more open about that ( I live in Canada ), men who are looking to have sex with other men even if they are not homosexual to relive their sex drive, to don’t have to believe me just go on web personal sex ads and look carefully.

The only advice I can give you is to try to live your life not the one in other people eyes.

Reject Sex for Blogging
Posted by: Conservativation on Jun 17, 2006 11:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone here put off any good sex so they could keep posting?

» RE: Reject Sex for Blogging Posted by: kateoneill
» RE: Reject Sex for Blogging Posted by: jukeboxhero
Self Fulfilling Prophesy
Posted by: Christian Southern Liberal on Jun 17, 2006 12:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we believe and teach our children that we can't control our sexual desires...guess what?

As a parent I taught my male and female children to equally abstain from sex until adulthood. We role played how to say no, how to tell their friends that abstinence is cool.

Sex at too young an age causes emotional upheavals and can affect the ability to learn in other areas.

STD's can kill.

Pregnancy and childbirth should be planned.

They have their entire adult life to enjoy sex with their partner, why hurry?

I disagree that men should be forgiven for being horndogs; it just excuses behavior that has serious consequences.

I believe that sexually frustrated people should masturbate and they will no longer be controlled by hormones and even recommend daily masturbation for young males who are having thought control problems due to excessive sex drive. (Caution the water and hot water expenses wil increase...but lots cheaper than caring for a grandchild)

In civilized society people should treat all other people with dignity and respect. People should learn whether another person is compatible, if they are friends, if they have the same goals and enjoy doing the same things.

We have let the media influence us to the extent that we ACCEPT that sex will occur as a short term goal in the dating game instead of after we have decided whether we even are suited to each other.

Want to reduce pregnancy, abortion, STD's, and divorce? Speak openly about sex with your teens, and discourage it from happening casually. Let them know that masturbation is absolutely the safest, most satisfying alternative.

» RE: Self Fulfilling Prophesy Posted by: Vixenne
Something is drastically wrong!
Posted by: mzbuz on Jun 17, 2006 2:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Folks, as a 70 yr. old woman, I gotta tell you, I am appalled by what appears to be happening with young married folks nowadays. I can't address the subject of sex without marriage, because I have no first hand knowledge of that subject. And while my late husband seemed to pretend that his knowledge of the subject was "vast", I figured out early in our marriage that it was actually pretty limited. All that aside, what is with young marrieds? According to the young folks I know, sex between husbands and wives is rare. I know young wives who can't get their husbands to have sex, or are only able to get them to have sex on rare occassions. I'm convinced that, aside from the chemical soup we live in, the fact that almost everyone is on anti-deppressants these days, is the fact that we seem to ascribe to a view that sex is something special and requires a whole lot of effort from both partners to be satisfying. Maybe. But maybe, we ought to just leave the subject alone for a while. We seem to take our expectations of sex from what we see on the movie screen and read in our silly novels. Truth is, everyday sex is nothing like that. Or at least it wasn't for my generation. We used to say that women wanted intimacy more than sex while men wanted sex, not intimacy. Women gave men sex to achieve intimacy and men gave women intimacy to achieve sex. Sometimes women achieved an orgasm, but it wasn't the end game for them, it was the intimacy of sex that turned them on. Men weren't interested in intimacy so much, but they wanted sex and so learned to become intimate in order to achieve sex. It worked, at least for my generation. We were married 52 yrs when he passed, fell in and out of love about 7 times over those 52 yrs. Falling back in love with the man you are married to is great, it kept the marriage going for all those years. I can't imagine being married and having sex once a month, which some of my young friends tell me is the case for them. Even when we weren't "in love" we never quit having sex. I don't know what is wrong with this generation, but I suspect it may be unrealistic expectations. Whatever it is, it isn't good and it doesn't bode well for the future of sex or marriage.

» RE: Something is drastically wrong! Posted by: Conservativation
Buster
Posted by: buster on Jun 17, 2006 3:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
sEXY WOMEN HAVE TANTILIZED US FOR DECADES BY THEIR DRESS, MAKEUP, SHOWING THEIR ASSETS. WHEN THEY THEY WERE APPROACHED THEY SAID GET LOST. THEY WANT THE GUYS (LAPDOGS) CHASING THEM ALL OVER BUT NEVER ALLOWING OUR SATISFACTION. NOW WE DON'T GIVE A D___ ANYMORE (BURNOUT, GIVE UP, NOT WORTH IT) AND I NOW HEAR THAT ANY HS DUDE CAN GET LAID BY ANY GIRL.
THEY CAN'T STAND IT WHEN THEY ARE IGNORED AND THE TRICKS DON'T WORK IN THEIR FAVOR ANYMORE. WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND.

Why I LOVE My Toys
Posted by: Vixenne on Jun 17, 2006 6:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After reading this article and all the typical woman-bashing comments that followed it, I am more than certain that I made the right decision in giving up on self-centered and selfish men who haven't the slightest idea as to what turns a woman on in favour of my sex toys. I'm healthier, happier and far-better pleasured in all ways.

On the other hand, I do rather well with women, but that's another post for another time.

The best thing about toys is that the only performance issue they have is battery related. Outside of that, they're always ready to go when I am, they don't pester me for sex when I'm not in the mood, they don't depend on some foreign substance that may eventually cause health problems to get them horny, they don't smoke after sex, nor do they bug me with that favourite inane question so many insecure men like to ask after they've gotten their selfish rocks off, "was it as good for me as it was for you". I don't have expectations of putting out just because they take me to a nice restaurant, nor do I have to worry about how long it takes for me to get off - my toys are always patient and gentle (or hard aand fast) depending on my mood. I don't have to deal with trying to bolster some guy's flagging self-esteem because I make more money that he does (I'm an investment banker), nor do I have to feel like a nymphomanic because I happen to be comfortable with my sexuality.

I will say the few decent lovers I've had - and unfortunately I can count those on ONE hand - have all been European, and THEY know how to make a woman's body purr. They knew how to make love to the total package--how to engage all five senses in the act of passion, not just the three available holes. Sorry American guys, you just don't make the grade in that area, so perhaps maybe you're preferring football to sex isn't too bad a thing after all.

The sad fact is, most of you couldn't find a woman's erogenous zone with a Thomas guide and compass. Most of you have been so brainwashed by Hugh, Bob and Larry that understanding a non-augmented female with her own thoughts and feelings is beyond you.

» RE: Why I LOVE My Toys Posted by: Ahimsa
» RE: Why I LOVE My Toys Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Why I LOVE My Toys Posted by: Vixenne
» RE: Why I LOVE My Toys Posted by: FauxPorteno
» Not to be rude or mean... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Did it ever occur to you . . . Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: Did it ever occur to YOU. . . Posted by: FauxPorteno
STILL BINARY AFTER ALL THESE YEARS?
Posted by: Ahimsa on Jun 17, 2006 6:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a bit confused by this article, written with so much authority by a woman...about the sexuality of men...
Gee I wonder the kind of bashing I'd get if I did the opposite! (I'm a male). It is confusing.
I like the fact that it tackles one of those things that Americans are so afraid to talk about, which is what they do with their butts.
And in some way I could understand how our society is becomeing sexless, which I think is one of the saddest things to become. Probably the saddest.
If chemicals, prescription medicine, work-induced conditions (stress, et al), or religious dogmas are effectively turning us into frigid automatons, then we are really screwed. Sexual repression is a very effective form of domination. We have seen it in use for centuries by different opressive powers in history.
On another note: Condoms DO reduce sensations for the male (someone wrote about condoms being a probable cause of loss of interest in sex by males.) Yes, there are thin ones, but the pleasure is reduced considerably. It's a glove you put on, c'mon! That was not an absurd inference.
Also, we cannot forget that this article is phallo-centric, it is framed as if men were walking dicks.
Female fellows can think of shielding their clitori and vaginas with latex and then have sex and see how they like it.
Yes, we have other nerve endings too and love foreplay, but the genitals are our primary sex organs!
And no, condoms aren't bad, or good, they are NECESSARY.
How many chips on our shoulders do we have? Gee we are touchy feely!
Still, I agree, it is alarming to think that Americans HAVE TO CHOOSE between being "happy" and being horny. Damn freedom of choice!

Author, Author
Posted by: doctorclam on Jun 17, 2006 11:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Susie Bright is a brilliant sexual sociologist. Her simple question, "why are today's men (especially the younger ones) ambivalent about sex?" produced a landslide of passionate responses of incredible variety from both men and women (certainly more than to most AlterNet posts), all of which lends support to the relevance of her question and the areas of most concern for future study. It would be great to hear her perspective on all the above responses.

What about the old timers the?
Posted by: jbloggz on Jun 18, 2006 2:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a so called senior. I got lucky I found and married a much younger women from Eastern Europe about 16 years ago. Okay, my sex life has slowed somewhat over the years but I can still enjoy! I am very happy with my situation and no I don't take the blue pill either. Now I read a lot about satisfaction and desire waning etc amongst the younger people.

My friend is even older than me. His partner a much younger woman very good looking and with a nice well paid job. On the face of it you could say contentment rules. However... my pal has just decided that it's not for him cos he found an 'older woman' of his age who gave him a much better time in the bed. Not only she's compatible in many other ways.

I imagine that in this day and age where casual sex is the norm, it's in your face at all times. What with politicians doing it with complete abandon too! Alot of the allure has gone from the days when, you finally got trembling fingers into those knickers! Now it's an 'automatic' process. And it's taking more to turn people on. Plus the additional attractions on offer can be as satisfying. Hence the beer and burger stuff!

Throughout my life I never found it difficult to find a willing sexual partner, but it still took some 'work'. Perhaps the work ethic is not available nowadays in sex rather only in the day job!

Right now I'm a football world cup fanatic.. but frankly given to choice of watching the abysmal England team and a good session with my wife....then guess what? Yeah your right stuff England lets go for the nookie!

» RE: What about the old timers the? Posted by: Turtlesruletheworld
Got our priorities right!
Posted by: Thatslife on Jun 18, 2006 4:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Took me hours to get through all these posts....highly entertaining!

I've not seen a longer Alternet post than this...seems the battle of the sexes far outweighs world events in importance!

And guess what....this discussion achieved fuck all....

» RE: YEAH YOU TELL 'EM!!! Posted by: FauxPorteno
very simple
Posted by: chomsky on Jun 18, 2006 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Simple answer... its all about POWER.

Last 40 yrs of gender wars has taught this lesson and men have learnt it... grudgingly.

Women disarmed traditional male power over resources by getting jobs.

Men are disarming traditional female power over sex thru ambivelance, detatchment and distraction.

Power is the only tool in a power struggle.

Its essentially a waste of time trying to get the opposition to moderate their exercise of power by using reason, logic and words. It is far more effective to DO than TALK. Looking at it from a new perspective and accepting one's own innate power and using that to break the monopoly nuetralises the one way flow.

That is what men are actually doing. There are a tonne of reasons offered about disappointment and what not... all marginally valid and largely smoke screens.

Once you figure out that the other sides power monopoly is not earnt but in fact given, its very easy to nuetralise by not giving it in the first place (taking it away by refusing to enable).

Taking it away in this case requires NO REAL EFFORT. Which makes it very powerful.

Women need sex and union of the sexes as much as men. If you are gonna use that as your ultimate trump card in this game, then wot you gonna do when your bluff is called?

Answer... write articles and complain.

Funny thing about sex... its not all that its cracked up to be. Lotta fanciful notions and empty romantic illusions shroud the simple act of making babies. Its all the other stuff, like deep emotional and psychological bonds, that actually bind people in committed relationships. That was one of the big lies and fatal flaws of feminist rhetoric... that men are wantonly sexual and that women can 'have it all' by being like (stereotypically base) men.

Bzzzzz.... wrong.

You have effectively debased your sexual power ladies by embracing this patently absurd nonsense. You have actually loudly, proudly and with seemigly oblivious irony, demonstrated how so very reliant you are on this power. That is evident in the way you have been weilding it for the last few decades.

You basically showed your hand and many men know that for many/most women... its the only substantive card they have to play.

Take it out of the equation and its basically game over.

In a power struggle people only respect/respond to a real threat to their own power. Only when both sides have been sufficiently nuetralised can they actualy MEET as EQUALS and actually NEGOTIATE for BALANCED COMPROMISE. The compromise has been almost exclusively lop sided in favour of females in recent times. Its changing.... very slowly.

Men spent 40 yrs having all the male power and privilege thrown in our faces and we mostly compromised. Most men l know can cook and clean. Personally, l live for the day that a most women will start a lawn mower and change a flat tyre... neither of which take anywhere the effort nor strength it takes to carry a bun in the over for 9 months.

Shoe is just about to switch to the other foot. Get used to it.

» RE: very simple Posted by: Thatslife
» RE: very simple Posted by: maddy
» RE: very simple Posted by: Logic's Edge
» laugh it up Posted by: maddy
The Hamburger
Posted by: cassius on Jun 18, 2006 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By the way the proper name for Hamburger is Buletten ^^. People outside of Hamburg who were to lazy to remember the name called them Hamburger.

It's: General Lee Scheißemeinburger
Posted by: Bulldog on Jun 18, 2006 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What do you think of this hypothesis, then?

The reason men are going off women in preference to their (veggie)-burgers and ball games could also be down to the fact that us men are scared of other men. That in the predatory world that is modern dating and relationships men are always, even if subconsciously, acting out some scenario in which a bigger ape comes along either as a direct challenge to territory or simply to remind the other male of how much of a useless prick he is.
In the predatory nightmare experimentation that is modern sexual game-play, the MO of the modern man & woman, whatever they say, is to compete. Simply all of us over 25 years of age were brought up this way; being told that competition is good in all areas of life.
The implementation of these beliefs I consider results in a society of 'winners' & 'losers'. This MERITOCRATIC-FILTERING of human life could even be viewed by many as a voluntary adoption of a eugenics like politique or a unilateral cultural purification program, biased heavily in favor of the 'winners'.

The primary instinct for MANY males today is not how to succeed in passing on our SELFISH-GENES, but of figuring out on an almost day-to-day basis ways of survival for us, our minds, spiritual beliefs (if we believe) & above all our morale in the face of all possible threats and dangers that the world poses today.

Do we communally as men, do as I do at 49 years of age in seriously starting to believe, that it may not be a good idea at all to attempt to bring more innocent life into this world of 'ultimately unjust & undeserved suffering'?
If so, then that would explain a lot wouldn't it!

Whether the criteria by which the 'lesser-male' (as I have nominated him) be judged shall be financial standing, aggressive reputation, dangerous &/or protective personality, political or community reputation & power, or simple physical stature and size; there is always one potential outcome from a male's point of view when he attempts bonding or paring with a mate of the opposite sex. (Even possibly the same sex, I don't know as I'm straight).
That is: "One man's Blue sky is another man's rain." (Thanks Michael McDonald)
I guess for some, that outcome is more certain than it is for others.

I cannot justify polygamy as a solution to this, since experiments with it back in the sixties revealed a bed of worms regarding strong emotions of jealousy and covetousness.

So, is the human race heading for, as some evolutionary-biologists or even environmentalists may conclude, a 'judgment day', a catastrophic event of depopulation encouraged through our own inhumanity to man (women, co, blah)?

Or am I just a looser as well?

QUESTION: -
I’m thinking of changing my screen-name to General Lee Scheißemeinburger.

Do you think that will make me more attractive to power-mad & slightly overweight women?
Now, I must away for coffee & a doughnut or whatever I can get my hands on and quickly.....mmmmm, better than sex...arghhhh!

Love, peace & cruelty!

Slacker Male
Posted by: Llama11 on Jun 18, 2006 11:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm at college, and I can say, there's lots of girls out there who get into bed the first night they meet someone, which I personally do not have a problem with. I've done the same thing, I can't get mad because I'm a slut too. In a relationship now, and definitely not pulling my weight. My girl has been really supportive and I love her for it. On a side note, I was out job searching, applied to all the same places she did, and guess who didn't get a call? It's so much easier to get a job as a woman, at least around here.

One more
Posted by: Llama11 on Jun 18, 2006 11:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What do sex and air have in common?

They're both not a big deal unless you're not getting any.

» RE: One more Posted by: lamar
...WHAT'S THAT SPELL??
Posted by: chuckville on Jun 18, 2006 11:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
GIMME A "P"...

GIMME AN "A"...

GIMME A "B"...

GIMME AN "L"...

GIMME A "U"...

GIMME AN "M"...

WHAT'S THAT SPELL...???

PABLUM!!!

Alternet sinks to new pop-culture worshipping lows...

-Bye

GIMME A "P"...

» RE: ...WHAT'S THAT SPELL?? Posted by: harrysf
Just the observations of a guy...
Posted by: dadzilla on Jun 18, 2006 12:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you want to ask why guys are not as interested in both marriage and or child rearing, look at any divorce court or child support hearing. Try to visualize it from the guy’s perspective and ask yourself, "What's in this for me?"

With marriages somewhere around the 50% divorce rate the still vastly unfair and biased court systems treat guys like something just out of the sewage system you have to be half crazed to sign up for that bad deal.

And God help you if you’re a guy with a child out of marriage. You’re handed all the responsibility yet far to frequently, can't even get meaningful visitation with your own child.

The Answer
Posted by: Turtlesruletheworld on Jun 18, 2006 4:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Groan...the article is illogical. A functional man would sex with the hot chick and then send HER out to get the cheeseburger and the beer. If you really know how to score, SHE would cook it for you and serve it to you in bed :D

» RE: The Answer Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: The Answer Posted by: Turtlesruletheworld
» RE: The Answer Posted by: jimidee
» RE: The Answer Posted by: eastcoker
Quid Pro Quo Social Norms
Posted by: Dingwing on Jun 18, 2006 9:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To certain extent, I fit the profile of the men described in the article. Courtship has taken on a bit of the character of a chore for me. I readily admit that I have a bias that gets in the way of my desire for romance, but it's not gender based. It's cultural. American social relations have become in all-encompassing ways, to put it bluntly, transactional (it feels that way, at least). The days of sitting on the porch and playing music for sheer pleasure, for example, are over. If I take a simple pleasure like music and look for other musicians who want to make music, I can easily find them, but the expectations of my fellow musicians are often enormous. It goes way beyond music as an end in itself. For the vast majority of them it's about rigorous discipline, getting a recording contract, and breaking through to the winning side of the big payoff. I find the same Tony Robinson culture of endless busy-ness (foisted on Americans when Ronald Reagan began dispensing with the middle class in the eighties) in most of my social relations.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not immune to the seductions of capitalism, personal initiative, and compensation. I think healthy ambition is good, but somehow when it comes to romance American social norms and the expectations resulting from them have left me cold. I'm not cynical about romance, but, like everything these days, the brutal realities of a conservative corporate social ethic that has ruled America for far too long have made romance even difficult.

I wish you would talk to my 23 yr old son
Posted by: form516 on Jun 19, 2006 11:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He is currently involved with a 34 year old woman who is already collecting so much child support from two other guys that she can afford a nanny. I'm afraid that she is looking at my son (who makes over 50 thou already in computers) as another guaranteed two grand a month for the next twenty years or so. I really doubt that she would be going after him so hard (and it is HER doing the chasing) if he did have the kind of financial future he has.

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement