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.)
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.