Women are lying when they say they want more dicks on TV, Men’s Rights Redditors explain
Artist Louise Bourgeois also pretended to like dongs.
So for some reason the fellas on the Men’s Rights subreddit are discussing an article by Australian newspaper columnist Clementine Ford in which she expresses her desire to see more dongs on television.
As she notes, there are plenty of boobs on display on HBO shows like Game of Thrones, yet “rarely are we treated to the visual smorgasbord of a well stocked meat platter. ” Ford is sick of it. “So bring on the parade of wangs, willies and woodies!” she demands. “I’m fond of a wand and I’m not ashamed to say it.”
I’m not terribly familiar with the writings of Clementine Ford, but evidently she’s not big on subtlety.
Anyway, the fellas in the Men’s Rights subreddit aren’t having any of it. Nuh uh. They ain’t buying it, ladies! You may write columns about how you want more wang on TV. You may talk about it with your friends. You may have gigantic collections of peen pics hidden away on your hard drive.
But the MRAs of Reddit know better. It’s all some devious feminist ploy, as Steampunk_Moustache helpfully explains.
Huh. That took an odd twist at the end there.
But it’s our old friend Giegerwasright who provides the real answer, in the form of a wall-o-mansplainin’ so giant that I had to shrink the text to even screencap it.
Huh.
So why exactly are women pretending to be interested in seeing more penises on television? So they can point at them and laugh?
Women are such an enigma, especially if you just assume that nothing they ever say is true and that it’s all part of some weird plot to screw with men’s heads.
(H/t to r/againstmensrights for pointing me to geigerwasright’s lovely comment.)
Posted on August 21, 2013, in antifeminism, boner rage, dozens of upvotes, evil women, mansplaining, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, none dare call it conspiracy, penises, pig ignorance, racism, reddit, the enigma that is ladies, the eternal solipsism of the MRA mind and tagged men's rights, misogyny, MRA, penises, reddit. Bookmark the permalink. 410 Comments.
Traditionally the one big block is that male dominated censorship boards like the MPAA and the FCC decided that the sight of a penis, especially an erect penis were something that we all needed to be protected from.
There’s also a bit of a flashback here to the movie Watchmen, anyone else remember all the male commentary hysterically complaining and panicking over the sight of some blue superhuman cock on the silver screen. I sure do.
As for Steampunk_Moustache’s contention… erm… does he know any actual women?
The Real Men know that women just want to have sex with their money. Well, I’d have sex with a dollar bill before I touched one of these gents, so…
He starts off with “OK, my negroes” and expects to be taken seriously? No.
He really needs to educate himself about who’s supposed to be looked at/whose looking is privileged in this culture. Generally, it’s not men.
You’d think they’d be all over this since they’re so fond of showing their asses.
^Generally it’s not men who are supposed to be looked at.
@Hyena Girl: That does seem to be the answer. For whatever reason, male nudity is considered more offensive than female nudity.
It reminds me of something I read about nudes in contemporary pop culture. In film and artistic depictions, women are often shown in an exaggerated state of sexual arousal. Outside of porn, you don’t see the same for men. That’s just society’s take on it.
@Andrew
Which is a shame. An aroused man with a nice physique is as much fun to look at as a similarly turned out woman. Perhaps its a crippling fear of being seen as gay which bothers them?
You know… this brings to mind a quote…
“The gun is good. The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was, but the gun shoots death, and purifies the Earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth … and kill!”
one only needs to browse tumblr for a few hours to see how many women “appreciate the male form”
could it be that women’s bodies are depicted in art more because women’s bodies are sexualized, objectified, and all their value rests in their appearance? because I’ll gladly relinquish that to be valued for utility…you know, a word that implies I actually have use or a purpose.
This is true. Though I have noticed women are doing a bit more looking too. I’ve also seen MRAs complain about that as well. In short, anything women do is bad.
We don’t want to see penis. That’s why so many women on my Facebook and Tumblr feeds were buzzing about the “full frontal Eric” on Sunday night’s episode of True Blood.
Also, MRAs use the “male gaze” and our culture’s insistence on framing sexual desire from a straight man’s perspective as proof that women don’t like sex. SMH.
I’ve known very few straight or bi women who have not, often enthusiastically and with no prompting by me, expressed pleasure at viewing the nude male form, particularly one that is athletically fit. And they all enjoy the sight of the peen.
The “Things MRAs don’t understand” list just keeps growing, doesn’t it?
ERICS PENIS IS ON TRUE BLOOD NOW?
I need to start watching this show again.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334832/Womens-sexual-desire-just-strong-ravenous-mens-claims-explosive-new-book.html
The videos consisted of a heterosexual couple having sex, male and female homosexual couples having sex, a woman masturbating, a man masturbating, a naked chiseled man walking along the beach and a naked toned woman doing calisthenics – and a male and female bonobo monkey mating
Men who identified as straight were aroused mentally and physically by all the videos featuring women – bar the monkeys
*snip*
‘No matter what their self-proclaimed sexual orientation, [women] showed, on the whole, strong and swift genital arousal when the screen offered men with men, women with women and women with men. They responded objectively much more to the exercising woman than to the strolling man, and their blood flow rose quickly… though to a lesser degree than during all the human scenes except the footage of the ambling, strapping man — as they watched the apes.’
So it appears that a fully naked well built man walking on a beach naked is the least arousing of all videos including apes having sex, whereas straight men are aroused by all videos including women. Thus, it does seem that women are not that interested in seeing penises.
Below is another study that seems to support what the subreddit guys are saying. I would agree that it is mostly a case of “because they can see this, I should be able to see that”. The problem is that breasts are not sex organs, while penises are and showing a penis is comparable to showing a vulva.
http://www.nerve.com/news/love-sex/study-men-and-women-both-uncomfortable-looking-at-male-nudity
Fuck off, Good.
Ok, I’m trying to connect the dots here.
So women don’t like male nudity, they only say it to make a feminist point. Feminists are also anti-sex puritans, since, of course women don’t like sex. Women who won’t have sex with me [hypothetical MRA] are mean.
Makes sense.
MILD SPOILER refers to cliffhanger ending of this current season:
It’s a “death” scene so I was underwhelmed. I’d rather see sexytime peen, not “he might be dying but he better not because then I’m done with this show, kill bill instead” peen.
Yes, male MRAs, please tell women what they are sexually aroused by. I’m sure your assessments are 100% accurate because RED PILL
I see this bullshit in every comment thread about this video.
You are wrong. Women’s breasts are sexualized in American culture (they are in other cultures, too). Men’s bare chests are NOT sexualized to the degree that women’s breasts are, therefore they are NOT an equivalent example.
Also, the study you cite regarding arousal still falls in line with our point that culturally, we view the female body as = sex in a way that the male body is not. It is not surprising that straight women find themselves aroused by nude women — we are socialized to see them in terms of sex.
You need to read again, Good.
What you’re pasting (which, incidentally, has received a lot of scientific criticism after the book came out – evo psych is still mostly a hypothesis generator) does not mention that it is impossible that a woman may be aroused by the sight of penises.
But yeah, duh, men are less objectified. It’s not clear how much it has to do with biology though. There are still a few tribes where the roles are reversed (though most of them have now been westernized). Maybe the first thing to do would be to calm down on slut shaming and stop telling women they are lying when they mention their sexual desires, if you so wish to be objectified.
Oh man, now Good is linking The Daily Fail.
*Fetches some popcorn*
Yep, saw that Daily Fail link and LOL’d.
Chie: Agreed. I think breasts and buttocks are similarly sexualized, but even on that standard you’re far more likely to see a woman’s bare butt in mainstream media than a man’s.
And that’s a ‘blood flow measurement’ test, isn’t it?
The ones that time and time again have directly contradicted what women said they were aroused by?
@Good: Curious little study that I’ve heard about over and over again. I wonder, would the results have been the same if the methodology was used in say… ancient Greece?
I’m hesitant to say that studies like those indicate any “nature” in terms of sexuality or sex, because so much of that is socialized. I mean, when you have the majority of women in media being portrayed as objects of desire and sexual objects, their very roles in the medium linked specifically to sex and sex appeal, can you really blame women who get aroused by women in some shape or form?
It’d be interesting to see the framing of the videos of the exercising woman and strolling man… I wonder if the camera stays still or if it kinda pans around and zooms suggestively.
The results make me wonder why the videos weren’t both strolling (or both exercising). Surely there’s a huge difference between a naked body just walking versus exercising… I’m pretty sure the difference is why there are so many almost naked ripped bodies in slow motion on exercise equipment commercials.
Oh.
Yeah. That’s less exciting.
I know Eric is evil and all but Bill is boring and Eric is hot and I want to see sexytimes Eric penis.
Lies! Terrible lies!
…
I mean, Good said so and everything. On the internet. There’s laws about lying, so he can’t be wrong or anything.
Sorry Good, you were Ninja’d
Totally off-topic.
So Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal is one of those comics where the punchline is always horribleness and horridness and the utter depravity of human nature and it’s outstandingly funny, right? (plus graph jokes)
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=20130332 Today’s comic is different. Today’s comic might make you cry. In a good way.
Howard, that’s my favorite one of their comics to date! *sniffle*
I’m feeling kinda bored and I have an impulse to go back trolling.
Can I, please?
Howard, I dunno if it’s just my browser, but your link sends me to random comics, not today’s. This link might work better if other people are seeing the same thing.
Good
You should read the second study you linked to, it does not say what you think it does.
@Chie and @entropistanon
Just to clarify, it’s not a study, it’s a pop psych book. Media made a big deal about it, just like they did with the ‘not wearing a bra will make your breasts tighter’ non-study. It is not taken seriously scientifically. Not saying there is no place for pop psych books, but taking them seriously is ridiculous. It would, also, bring us to have completely contradictory views of human behaviour, since all these books contradict each other. Let’s see, “The Moral Animal” by Robert Wright is pretty much a treatise on why women don’t like the sex, but strategize to get a monogamous relationship (while the book Good is writing about says women are more aroused than men at having multiple partners), and trap men into being providers by being sexy. Of course, this is complete with the ‘men love sex to spread their seed, but have zero interest in commitment’ narrative.
The reason people are talking about this book is that it says the opposite of the typical pop evo psych narrative. I definitely have a preference for it (women loving sex is closer to what I am familiar with, and that is the basic thesis of the book), but that doesn’t make it factual. In other words, it’s all bullshit until there is a reliable manner to test large random samples and to separate culture and biology. For the latter, unless we are planning to put thousands of people in an isolated vat and record their behaviour, culture and biology will just remain indistinguishable (especially in an interconnected world).
Regarding the article here: http://www.nerve.com/news/love-sex/study-men-and-women-both-uncomfortable-looking-at-male-nudity
Both this article and the article that is linked within (http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/02/15/gendered-reactions-to-male-and-female-nudity/) give no details on what women actually said about looking at naked men aside from” “both men and women felt uncomfortable looking at male nudes.”
After that assertion comes discussion and quotations on the discomfort felt by men, and men only. On the subject of women’s discomfort, it says: “Many women also did not feel lustful when looking at male nudes and those that did often experienced lust mixed with guilt or shame.”
So we have “many” women reporting a lack of lustful thoughts. (Is there anything more vague than the word “many”? 75% of women could have reported arousal and it would still be strictly true that “many” women did not report lustful thoughts.) And then we have them “often” experiencing guilt or shame, which has more to do with culture than whether women are attracted to men.
Long story short, without actually looking at this study, this has no facts whatsoever to conclude that women in general do not like penises.
With regards to the blood-flow study, it specifically said that women were aroused by male-on-male sex. Is there anything more “women are aroused by men” than that? The fact that women were less aroused by a man walking naked just indicates that the context of the nakedness is important to women’s arousal, not that women don’t find naked men appealing. Just a naked man having sex is even more appealing than a naked man walking around.
Aw, duuuude.
And naked Eric being seductive and hot is more appealing than naked injured Eric.
@chibigodzilla: weird, it still works for me. Hmm.
That’s my first ninja!! I’m so proud.
It is true that my vagina renders me incapable of telling the truth. It’s too busy getting tingles over a man’s big fat wallet to have time to tingle for his big fat… you know. >:D
Holy fuck Good, maybe start reading your articles. Women were aroused by EVERYTHING, please explain how this means that women are not attracted to the sight of penises. And this is not even taking into account that this is an article from the DailyFail.
From the New York Times Sunday Book Review of the same book;
“A “raw portrait of female lust . . . was emerging” from the work of one researcher, who found that for heterosexual women, the sight of “an isolated, rigid phallus filled vaginal blood vessels and sent the red line of the plethysmograph high, niceties vanished, conventions cracked; female desire was, at base, nothing if not animal.”
Just to add to the LULZ, one of the DailyFail commentator made quite the idiotic statement that he knows women aren’t turned on by the sight of men because we never spend time checking out store mannequins. Oh my, if he only knew the truth. Keep your adolescent daughters out of the underwear aisles, menz. I’ve even caught my eight-year old daughter staring a few times. 9_9
“Fond of the wand” is officially my favorite penis related rhyme. She sounds like a real peen fiend.
*Raises hand*
I admit to liking such scenes myself.
That SMBC comic… Who’s cutting onions in here?
Ah, forgot to link said New York Times review;
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/books/review/what-do-women-want-by-daniel-bergner.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Also, historical views of female sexuality contradict each other, too. At various points in history, women were viewed as licentious and unable to control themselves sexually. Kind of suggests that such views have nothing to do with “nature” and everything to do with “socialization.”
I was thinking that I’m not into penises, then I remember the most explicit image of a man I have seen is the guy on the Abercombie and Fitch bags so I actually have no idea if I do or not.
@MaudeLL: Thanks for the info on this thing. I’ve heard about it so often and heard so many ridiculous conclusions drawn from it that I don’t know up from down anymore. That sucker just needs to die already…
Personally, I have little desire to see anyone’s genitals on tv. I would like to see people get less uptight about seeing them, though.
Also, to the persons who say women don’t like the male nude. You can take my naked Jason Statham-images when you pry them from my cold dead hands.
Art history, sociology and history fail from the the last OP. He mentions four modern female artists (whose work he incorrectly and incompletely characterizes) to counter hundreds of years of objectification of women by male artists, then completely dismisses the role of the church, patronage and societal pressure in deciding what women (and men, for that matter) “want” to paint or make work about. Then he ends with “Puppetry of the Penis” as the exemplar of mockery of the male form. Guess who created that show dude? MEN. A BUNCH OF MEN WHO LIKE TO PLAY WITH THEIR JUNK ON STAGE. Perhaps the dudes who treat their genitals like play-doh should be the ones to explain their motivation. I hardly think it was in any sort of response to a mass demand for humor-peen by women. Please. Don’t dabble in fields you know nothing about.
North Carolina has a law now that will send women to jail if convicted of trying to arouse people with their naughty, naughty nips in public. 6 months for a first offense.
Apparently this law is in part a reaction to a topless/topfree demonstration in Asheville last year.
I’m not sure how effective it’s going to be, because topless/topfree (as I understand it) is not about sex.
I’m no kind of scientist but that would seem to be introducing another variable. I’d like to see the other videos. Gotta make sure there aren’t any confounding variables there.
Awww, that was sweet.
For some reason, completely absent any evidence, I’m interpreting the relationship in that comic as homosexual. This makes me worry that I am subconsciously denying that a woman could plan such a thing.
I do life drawing classes when I can & I’m perfectly happy to sketch a male model. Some of my best sketches are of men. When I’m sketching, I might not be so interested in the genitals, I’m more interested in the musculature of the torso.
& FFS: Georgia O’Keefe painted amazingly sensual flowers, abstracts & landscapes. Cindy Sherman is a photographer who uses herself as the subject. Her work appears to me to look stills from movies & I always want to know the story. I know I shouldn’t get annoyed at the lack of basic research.
Women don’t appericate the male form? I think someone needs to take a trip to Y-Gallery (http://www.y-gallery.net/).
It just goes with the MRA belief that all women are supposed to not like sex (and only the frilly candles and such if they do) because if they do, “they’re acting like men”.
Mez
The article placed the nude man as the least thing the women were aroused by. Also, outside of porn, erect penises are not shown on television. So we are dealing with flaccids. There is little evidence supporting a significant desire for women to see male full frontal nudity on television. The responses here are mostly anecdotal and I can point you to women making similar personal statements supporting the study:
http://www.good.is/posts/you-won-t-attract-women-with-cellphone-pictures-of-your-penis
Again, you have a group of women who to desire something because they see men doing it and since men’s bare chests are commonly shown on tv, they target the genitalia.
The.. the daily mail? SERIOUSLY?
@falconer
Wow. Fuck North Carolina. al;djadlkj. Can’t thought, just PO’d.
Well US movies have a really wierd stance on penises. They usually don’t reveal them other than when the scene calls for the man to reveal his vulvernability in a very dramatic and touching scene. So I’d guess the producers imagine that the regular viewers would expect the manly hard men in their manly fantasy epic to break down and talk about body issues or how their divorce has been eating at them every time the camera somehow captures their penises along with everything else.
And that^ was Marie, wordpress changed my name :(
“Again, you have a group of women who to desire something because they see men doing it and since men’s bare chests are commonly shown on tv, they target the genitalia.” Please make this sentence make sense.
You are wrong. Women’s breasts are sexualized in American culture (they are in other cultures, too). Men’s bare chests are NOT sexualized to the degree that women’s breasts are, therefore they are NOT an equivalent example.
Breasts are not sex organs. That is a fact. Being “sexualized” does not make them sex organs. They are mammary organs. Butts are also sexualized, but they are not sex organs. Men’s bare butts are commonly shown on screen. Any body part can be sexualized. Every part of a woman’s body is sexualized in some Muslim cultures.
Personally, I think it’s really a shame that an erection is defined as obscenity. I understand the logic that it’s the same as a woman with spread legs, BUT. If you see a picture of an attractive naked man giving the camera a come hither look, and his junk is soft, then you know the picture is a LIE. An attractive naked women giving the camera a come hither look, at least everything looks consistent.
I like wood. I really wish that there was a flavor of softcore porn that included erections. I don’t like hardcore porn, but I find softcore a little dull. We need wood!
@good.
Dude. nobody is trying to say breasts are sex organs.
“Women are bitches who want to take away men’s natural right to be the center of all human sexuality by claiming that they have needs and desires when we all know they are vicious harpies who only use sex to get money.”
Everything is sexual if you’re doing it right. Or very, very wrong. And good, stop talking like you’re a robot who just discovered humans.
Wow, way to miss the point, there.
The law goes on to say that it’s up to the local governments to regulate things like strip joints.
Oh, good. I was worried men would be forced to stop exploiting women for a moment there.
Good
http://manboobz.com/2013/08/21/women-are-lying-when-they-say-they-want-more-dicks-on-tv-mens-rights-redditors-explain/comment-page-1/#comment-342061
The.. the daily mail? SERIOUSLY?
This Straw Man is so weak. This info originally came from the New York Times and can be found elsewhere:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=sex%20research%20female%20desire%20male%20visual&st=cse
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/07/how-strong-is-the-female-sex-drive-after-all/277429/
Least arousing of a selection of possibly arousing things is not the same as “women are not aroused by penises and those who say they are are liars”.
Yeah, but when we read it at the NY times and Atlantic it becomes more obvious you don’t understand it at all.
Whoooooops.
In other news, does Good actually know what “straw man” means?