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 -  (5 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 -  (4 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 -  (3 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.

[–]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.