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.)
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?
Signs point to no.
Don’t see your point PJ. No one is debating the reasons for behavior, just that the behavior exists.
Dude. nobody is trying to say breasts are sex organs.
I stated that they are not sex organs and was told point blank that I was “wrong”. Breasts and penises are not comparable.
What is a strawman made out of, precious? You could say I threw the baby out with the bathwater, maybe…. but learn what words mean before you use ’em. Since calling yourself “good” is a hell of a misnomer.
@Good
LInk plz. Cuz it seems like you think people pointing out they are sexualized more than chests w/o breats is saying they are sex organs…so…
Guys, I feel like I’m not really coherent today, so tell me if I don’t make any sense. I’m betting I still make more sense than good though.
So if anectdotal evidence is good enough
(http://www.good.is/posts/you-won-t-attract-women-with-cellphone-pictures-of-your-penis)
how come its only good enough
to support one side of the argument in this binary “Yes / No”, “Do, Don’t”?
“Women don’t” is clearly wrong, since women here are saying “Uh, yes, do”. Then it becomes not a categorical “Women are not” but a general “most women are not”, and even then, it seems to me to be an even balance.
And yeah, my anecdotal experience runs along the lines of “Likes the male form”.
( Tumblr is like an ocean, vast and deep. Oh, and all the ships )
interesting choice of words though;
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.
in the context of this conversation.
It’s like Obsidian again, and the entire “But enthusiastic consent is hard! What if you’re not a man who is good looking enough to get it? As a feminist, you then want to deny these men the right to get laid”, ie, arguing falliciously against others stated preference and opinion for the sake of denying someones existence.
So really it ties into the information that your linked science research offers – men are not too good at admitting they like the male form, and it’s much, much easier to say “Yay! Women!” because everyone already has a lot of training there.
Seriously, Good; “
”
vs
How much evidence is “significant”?