Why is female sexuality so easily dismissed?

submitted by RedditHatesLesbians from self.Lesbians

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]a_blue_bird 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

I think it has to do more with women's own actions than with misogyny. Who argues that sexuality is fluid? Mostly women. Who are ''homosexuals with an exception''? Mostly women. Who won't date bisexual women due to a fear that they won't be committed to your sex like they would be to the opposite? Mostly women. I've yet to see a single straight man who re-identifies as a gay man because his girlfriend of one year decided that she is actually a man.

[–]Astrid2448 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Unfortunately I agree somewhat. I do think there’s a lot of social causes for it too though. Like men make a lot of the money, they are socialized take charge romantically and sexually, they have most of the power, they have social acceptance on their side, and women are taught to be more demure. Then there’s the fetishization aspect, because men drive what’s considered desirable. All of these things feed into the way bi and gay women act. I think if gay men were in this situation, we’d see a lot more “fluidity” with them too. But unfortunately, we’re in this situation...

Additionally, this kind of thing is why you don’t see straight men jumping around on their identities so much. Women’s sexuality is belittled and fetishized so women feel free to exaggerate, lie, etc. about it without fear of the consequences. No man is going to risk coming out as even bisexual unless they lean towards men, because they’re going to carry a stigma, be seen as less manly, and have a hard time with women from then on. Even if they admit to being with another man once, while on the other hand straight women are being pressured into threesomes and experimentation with women.

[–]a_blue_bird 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Like men make a lot of the money, they are socialized take charge romantically and sexually, they have most of the power, they have social acceptance on their side .. if gay men were in this situation, we’d see a lot more “fluidity” with them

Aside from social acceptance, these are things that women value in partners. Men are usually more than fine (and may even prefer) with ''marrying down'' - having a wife who earns less, has an occupation where she holds no power, and doesn't take charge in the relationship. Men value different things, like youth and beauty. I'm pretty sure this also holds for gay men, who have a beauty cult - unlike lesbians. Yet we don't see straight men ''go gay'' or ''make an exception'' for good looking young guys, or gay guys do something similar for hot young women. Why don't middle aged gay men go for youth, beauty, social acceptance and a family with biological children by marrying a considerably younger woman? Not even MGTOWs or incels go for men. Yet we all know of ''political lesbians'', ''lesbians with an exception'', ''my ex-bf was horrible so I'm a lesbian now'', ''my bf goes by Jessica now, so I'm a lesbian'' and what not. It seems that for a lot of women it takes very little to ''change'' their sexuality.

I agree that various things like money or wanting to appear ''exotic'' play a role in women's sexual behavior, but I don't really see much of that affecting men's sexual behavior. So it seems to largely boil down to the biology of the sexes.

[–]TalerTest 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

So it seems to largely boil down to the biology of the sexes.

Could you elaborate more on this? I think it's more nurture than nature. Why do you think it's biology?

Edit: I would agree if you meant 'biology' as in physical differences, but I know you're talking about psychology/sociology here.

Women are the ones who give birth to men, but men have the biological advantages of testosterone, including physical strength. So, they grew up to overpower the one's who birthed them. They have had since the dawn of humanity to set up the traditional heterosexual relationship & family model (HRM) wherein the man is the Sun and his family has to orbit him. So, of course men would want to have a wife who has less power than him in the relationship. The Earth can't outshine than the Sun.

Political lesbians are bi/straight women who likely view the world from the Heterosexual Relationship Model. So, they think that by choosing to opt out of sleeping with men or choosing women over men, they are defeating the precept that women exist to live in servitude to men. Sex in the het world has always been seen as part of that servitude. It's something women give, and men get. There are still countries where martial rape is not a crime. I suppose polilez think, with their HRM mindsets, that not sleeping with men or choosing women (who are lesser in the HRM) over men is like the ultimate revenge.

It makes no sense to compare Political lesbians to MGTOW or incels. Their motives are very different. Polilez want to get away from men because of something men did to them. Usually that something is violence or abuse. MGTOW (claim they do but never seem to actually want to) get away because of something women did not give to them. Usually, that something is sex.

''lesbians with an exception'', ''my ex-bf was horrible so I'm a lesbian now''

"bisexual woman who probably calls herself a lesbian to wet the dicks of men who get off on the delusion that they are so sexually potent that they converted a homosexual" - so fetish-ish

"Pitiful woman who thinks that being a lesbian is a choice that one makes as some act of grand emasculation of men or revenge" so Polilez-ish

''my bf goes by Jessica now, so I'm a lesbian''

This just comes back to the HRM where the woman orbits the man. Straight (and bi) women bend over backwards to please men. Could also be the fetish and wanting to appear exotic thing, too.

I acknowledge all the points you made are facts, and we've all seen them happening around us in reality, but I definitely don't think biology (as in, males and females being born with fixed mindsets) has anything to do with how those things have come about to be facts.

[–]a_blue_bird 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I don't know what else to write beyond what I already wrote. But one thing really can't be explained away with ''women are just raised to be docile and to go along with the stream" - the political lesbians among radfems. They're very clearly going against the stream. And there is plenty of men who think at least as badly of women as radfems think of men, yet those men aren't ''switching teams''. For all the different cases that you can imagine where a woman ''changes'' her sexuality there just don't seem to be analogue behaviors among men.

[–]Astrid2448 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You mean like straight men sleeping with each other in prison? Sexual behavior can be weird anywhere, people just hide it depending on how it’s seen by their demographic of interest. In the case of radfems, they aren’t trying to impress men, they’re trying to impress their radfem friends who see lesbianism as some pure higher existence (which it is not). They are trying to show that they are independent and don’t need a man to those people, often after something bad like abuse. Gay men are not seen as pure by anyone, because what they do isn’t trivialized and fetishized. Instead it tends to mark whoever does it as feminine (which is seen as insulting) and disgusting, especially historically.

Edit: person above me explained this very well

[–]a_blue_bird 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You're giving various explanations, but it doesn't really matter. The question of the topic is ''why women's sexuality is taken less seriously'', I replied ''because of women's actions''. You write that women act that way because they are trying to break away from patriarchy, are trying to appeal to men, are trying to get back at men, are trying to create a certain image, etc., etc. Ok. But none of that affects the claim that women are taken less seriously because of their own actions. Even if every word that you write about women's motivation is true.

Edit: ok, that comment wasn't by you, but it applies to both of you.

[–]TalerTest 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You said, "I think it has to do more with women's own actions than with misogyny." If you just said "because of women's actions" I don't think I would have even replied to that. You can't separate those types of women's actions from misogyny. If we were not living in a man > woman world, I have no doubt that those women would behave differently.

But none of that affects the claim that women are taken less seriously because of their own actions.

I don't think anyone was disagreeing with this either. The comments I see are disagreeing with those actions not having much to do with misogyny.

[–]a_blue_bird 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Okay, I see your point.

You can't separate those types of women's actions from misogyny.

Why not?

If we were not living in a man > woman world, I have no doubt that those women would behave differently.

If by man > woman you mean men holding most of power and wealth in the world, in relationships etc., then I think you're wishing for an unrealistic world. Yes, if our biology was different, women were biologically the same as men, we could have that world where women would act just like men. It's just not going to happen.

Plus, the way I saw it, the behaviour vs misogyny argument was between whether a person who dismisses women's self-ID'd sexuality is doing that because this person is a misogynist, or because s/he has observed the way how women tend to behave and then drew some conclusions.

[–]Astrid2448 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well yeah, of course we're talking about our thoughts, first because this is a forum where discussion is allowed and second because you said that it was because of women's biology that these changes are there and not social causes. You didn't just say "this is why", you said "this is why, and men don't do this, and its because of biology" which is why people are explaining why they disagree with you.

[–]reluctant_commenter 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And there is plenty of men who think at least as badly of women as radfems think of men, yet those men aren't ''switching teams''. For all the different cases that you can imagine where a woman ''changes'' her sexuality there just don't seem to be analogue behaviors among men.

But that does not prove that biology is the cause.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Political lesbians are not women who “switch teams.” Ffs. Why does not one who argues about this know what it actually means?

Heterosexual political lesbians were CELIBATE. They abstained from sex with men, especially piv sex. It didn’t mean they just switched teams. The bisexual ones would partner with women but that’s nothing new or shocking.

Political lesbianism was a POLITICAL act and a political stance. Centring women instead of males. It was not “switching teams.” Lord. I feel like we need a thread defining this stuff.

It’s a super dated concept anyway because many women are not beholden to men now compared to the time it was created as an option to show women they had choices.

[–]Astrid2448 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You misunderstood my first point. I’m not saying that they’re with men because they like power. I’m saying that it’s much, much easier to find a boyfriend than a girlfriend given that men have much more capital and are raised to be forward. Lesbians don’t even really have spaces for you to go to, meanwhile you can walk down the street and have a man who will not only date you but pay you to be there essentially. You can go to a bar and have sex lined up. This is a big part of why out bi men tend to go for men as well, because they can find a man much more easily.

On incels: Because being a gay man is seen as degrading while being a lesbian is fetishized and not taken seriously. Meanwhile, because of the history women have, being “above the patriarchy” is something that’s seen as cool and independent. It is not cool to be above straightness as a man. Actually, if you know a lot of gay men, almost all of them will tell you that they’ve hooked up with men who say they are straight. Plenty of times they even really believe it and string gay guys along, etc. There is a lot of heartbreak that goes on in that community as well, because men who are not out bi men (the out ones being those who PREFER men, not just like both) are extremely reluctant to announce it out of fear. Women tend to jump on the opportunity to even call themselves lesbians because they will get seen as sexy by their future boyfriends. And many women are desperate to be seen as desirable by the people who have historically literally owned them. You see this same kind of behavior with other minorities too.

Of course men will show less of this behavior when historically they’ve been the owner of the woman. A guy dating a woman who makes more, is taller, is smarter, is more authoritative, etc. is seen as a loser and frequently insulted.

[–]a_blue_bird 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

you’re not thinking about it past “it’s just in our DNA then, nothing else makes a difference”

Because I think that people are much more influenced by their biology than they want to believe. We like to think of ourselves as above our animal nature, as cultured and socialized, but that is only partly true. I don't relate to all these narratives about ''socialization'' and ''docile women'' at all. Yet I had average parents, grew up in a conservative religious area, didn't know about feminism until I went to uni (and even then didn't read much of it) etc. Everything was there to ''socialize'' me into docility and ''comphet'' and what not. So if all people are basically the same, why didn't it happen? I think it's simply because I'm much more disagreeable than the average woman, and most likely the average man, too (who himself is considerably more diagreeable than the average woman). Which I think is also the reason why so many more men than women go against social norms, don't seek groups to belong to and to be approved by, don't try to be liked by others, to please others and so on and so on. Yes, I agree that women are socialized in ways in which men aren't, but that is made possible by their underlying biology. Would it be possible to make men behave in some of the women-typical ways? Probably yes, at least to a large extent, but I think that you would need to exert much more power over them to achieve that in the first place, and even more to make them maintain this behavior over long periods of time.

[–]reluctant_commenter 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Everything was there to ''socialize'' me into docility and ''comphet'' and what not. So if all people are basically the same, why didn't it happen?

It happened to me. You can set up the right conditions for any human being to be socialized into docility-- but at some point you've got to roll the dice. Odds are, some people will be greatly affected, and others will be little affected. Epigenetics suggests that biology (via genes) "loads the gun" so to speak, and environmental factors (such as socialization) "pulls the trigger", and thus the outcome, such as docility, happens. Or doesn't happen, if there was no ammo in the gun.

Women have this "pull the trigger" happen WAY more than men-- that is, most women have a significant pressure to be docile, applied to them, at some point in their lives. Many men never have that pressure, so if they were born women they might have been docile but we'll never know.

I think we all agree that the answer here is nature AND nurture, not one or the other. Broadly speaking, the social sciences have been moving towards this perspective for the past few decades or more (as opposed to before). The question is how much does each part contribute. I think you are underestimating nurture. Just my take.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It’s not biology as much as men lose a lot more status and masculinity points when they “fag” out, and gay men AND straight women, and even bisexual women don’t want to date a bisexual man.

Men are willing to fuck sofa cushions. They can be pretty gross. Lol. Men are probably much much more fluid than women, they just stand to lose a hell of a lot more in society than the sex (women) who are already considered possessions. You are also taking female sexual orientation less than seriously if you think basic biology has more weight than being taken seriously and having power in society for males. Biology is a base for this, but men are allowed much less leeway and that is likely WHY they develop so many disgusting fetishes. You can see that same development in repressed societies. Women don’t have to worry about losing status for being “fluid.”

Edit: also, gay men tend to not believe in bisexuality. They do not take bi men seriously, neither do women. It’s the same for males there are just less of them willing to risk being bi because the consequences are much harsher than being considered a sex doll. They are also considered perverts. Men are more likely to not even understand their feelings or deny attraction toward other men. Most men get almost no touch from anyone but their romantic partners past childhood, because touching people as a male is generally unwelcome. They have such different rules under patriarchy that it’s really hard to make much of a comparison to women.