Links of Great Interest: Happy Monday!

Share on Tumblr

The story of an amazing mom.

Racism in the ivory tower.

Feeding a black nation.

Waiting for results.

“I benefited from apartheid.”

HOORAY FOR OPEN RIVERS!

The lie about periods.

Why won’t men grow up? Okay, readers. Have at it!

FIERCE.

 

Comments

  1. Nuri says

    “Dr. Baumeister, begins with the premise that men want sex more than women do. (…) Consider the famous psychology experiment in which female research assistants were sent out across campus to approach attractive males and ask if they wanted to have sex that night. Seventy-five per cent of the men said yes (and those who couldn’t make it that night asked about the next night). When the experiment was repeated with the genders reversed, all the women said no.”
    I call BS on this one. The reason behind this is not a difference in sexual desire, but the slut shaming a willing women will have to face if she says yes.

  2. DM says

    But of course when woman are more reluctant to sleep with strange men who randomly approach us in the street, than men are to sleep with women who do the same, it must mean we just want sex less! It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with fears for physical safety due to sexual dimorphism and the risk of unwanted pregnancy, oh, no.

    The lack of even the most basic logic in evopsych theorists continues to astound me.

  3. sbg says

    DM,

    Yeah. Basically, a woman automatically has to think with her “upstairs brain” for her own well-being and safety, where a man can lead with the “downstairs brain” a lot more frequently without the potential for real harm.

  4. says

    The defining rape article is POWERFUL. This totally explains that “1 in 4″ number that so many people find so hard to believe. Add to that, how many of us who have not been raped have been in situations where we narrowly escaped an assault – especially as kids?

    I can’t believe both this doctor and the reporters happily accept as “fact” that men want sex more than women. How can you not notice that your society encourages men to have sex at every opportunity while punishing women for having it in all but a handful of situations (and even then, in many ways)? I mean, if you’re 12, okay, you can claim ignorance, but if you’re old enough to get up every morning and drive yourself to work and cash a paycheck? You should be working at 7-11, and glad of the opportunity.

  5. Copper says

    Yep, if you look at the *full* study, they did a follow-up where participants were approached by same-sex researchers (so, men by men and women by women) – and in this one, the response rate between men and women was pretty much the same. Other parts of the study concluded what we’ve all known for years, that the main reason (straight) women aren’t as open to casual sex as men is fear of violence and societal recrimination. If we genuinely didn’t have as much of a sex drive, why the hell would vibrators be so damn popular? (Plus, it neatly and more fully explains why empowered women are more sexually open, too! If we’re not terrified of the consequences, it starts to look like a good idea, funny that…)

  6. Amy McCabe says

    Nuri:
    “Dr. Baumeister, begins with the premise that men want sex more than women do. (…) Consider the famous psychology experiment in which female research assistants were sent out across campus to approach attractive males and ask if they wanted to have sex that night. Seventy-five per cent of the men said yes (and those who couldn’t make it that night asked about the next night). When the experiment was repeated with the genders reversed, all the women said no.”
    I call BS on this one.The reason behind this is not a difference in sexual desire, but the slut shaming a willing women will have to face if she says yes.

    I vaguely recall reading about this, then a follow up study done where they did the same thing, but then polled the decliners and the major concern of the polled women was sexual violence.

  7. Cheryl says

    That experiment was 35 years ago, but does anyone think the results would be different today?

    Are they for real? Seriously? Anyone who’s going to think that a study done on attitudes toward sex thirty-five years ago still reflects attitudes today has their head up their ass, and any study that’s going to totally ignore the influence of how society tells us we should view sex and, like DM and Copper pointed out, the risks for women are a lot higher than they are for men. I find it interesting the article didn’t mention the results from same sex researchers asking people if they were open to sex that night.

  8. says

    Cheryl, it’s working for me. *puzzled* It’s possible you have to be logged into Facebook, because they’re assholes and make some things that way. That’s the only thing I can think of that would explain it working for me but not you. :(

  9. Cheryl says

    The authors of the disparaging comments about the ‘I benefited from apartheid’ shirts quoted in the article possess a disgusting amount of White Man’s Burden and ignorance of the pre-colonial tribes and nations in equal portions (not that I know much about pre-colonial Africa, but compared to those muppets, I’m an expert).

    Whites came to a country where there was nothing, just some black tribes living in mud huts killing each other.

    If black people in mud huts(and I know that’s not how Africans lived then, but bear with me) are savage and brutal when they kill each other, what are white people in stone and wood houses when they kill each other? Oh, I forgot. The truly civilized kill each other with swords, guns, and bayonettes. Only the savage kill with spears, knives, and bow and arrow. Europeans are so past those inferior means of homicide. And if Europeans kill Africans for their territory, it’s because the Africans were too stupid to realize having their land stolen was for their own good. Those killings are totally justified. [/sarcasm]

    No roads no infrastructure no South Africa even.

    And no roads or infrastructure? O RLY? According to Wikipedia, a road is “…a thoroughfare, route, or way on land between two places, which typically has been paved or otherwise improved to allow travel by some conveyance, including a horse, cart, or motor vehicle. I can’t recall learning about any tribes/nations that used horses or carts, but that doesn’t mean there weren’t any, and if there were, there were roads. Dirt roads, yes, but the same could be said of many, many, many European towns and cities in the colonial era, so, yeah, there were roads and Europe wasn’t exactly sporting lots of smooth roads of tarmac. As for infrastructure, our friend Wikipedia defines it as the “…basic physical and organizational structures needed for the operation of a society or enterprise, or the services and facilities necessary for an economy to function.” *thinks for a moment* Yeah, they had that, too.

    No kidding there wasn’t any South Africa. That didn’t exist until European colonial powers decided to draw random, arbitrary lines all over the map of Africa, totally ignoring the tribal/national boundaries that Africans had already established. What an area is called is irrelevant, anyway. ‘South Africa’ doesn’t somehow impart magical wonderfulness and prosperity to that part of the continent that, say, ‘Zoogahlagagmewithaspoonlandia’ doesn’t.

    Blacks were always dying from famines when there were droughts, from tsetse fly [sleeping sickness], from yellow fever, malaria, name it they died in droves.

    Ooookaaaaayyyy…and, last I knew, Blacks are still dying from all those things, albeit at lower rates (for some). People are still dying in “droves” from famine, and people continued to die in droves after the Europeans came in and took over because the Europeans didn’t much give a damn about Blacks dying as long as their lily-white selves didn’t.

    They had no doctors, no writing, no schools no hospitals no roads, and worst of all and something which probably cause more deaths than the rest, no sewage system.

    Doctors – I don’t think European doctors were much farther out of ignorance than their African equivalents, and when there were advances in Western medicine it wasn’t like Blacks were given much opportunity to benefit from them.

    Writing – Google searches for ‘writing systems in ancient African civilizations’ and ‘writing systems in African tribes’ turns up a fair number of solid hits. ‘nuf said.

    Schools – What do pastorial, agrarian, and nomadic cultures need European-style schools for? Their ‘schools’ were in the pasture, around the cooking fire, by the loom, in the dancing circle, and out on the savannah digging for roots and plants. They didn’t need schools, so the absence of them doesn’t mean anything.

    Hospitals – In small villages and wandering tribes, they didn’t need them. I forget what they had going on in the cities, but, for the most part, hospitals weren’t needed, so, again, the absence doesn’t mean anything.

    Roads – You already said this and I already addressed it.

    No sewage system – London didn’t have an underground sewer system until the late 19th century. People were still dumping their bedpans into yards and the streets, and sewage went right into major rivers for quite a number of years. Paris had a sewage system of sorts centuries earlier, but it emptied into the Seine or its tributaries, so people were drinking contaminated water. Germany didn’t get sewer systems until a few decades before London. Any cities in Africa would have worked on the same ‘funnel it all into the river’ type of system, with the same kinds of problems, so Europe definitely has nothing to feel proud of here. When sewer systems were brought into Africa by the Whites, as if they wasted their effort, time, and resources on making sure Blacks were hooked into the system.

    Whites came and provided all those at the expense of whites for the Whites. Study your history and look at who had access to medical care, paved roads, comprehensive schooling/adequate space for schooling/adequate supplies for schooling/access to schooling, access to proper sanitation and clean water, etc.

    white know how gave blacks everything they take for granted today. Like

    abject poverty, squalor, slums, ignorance, lack of opportunities to get ahead in the modern world, inadequate pay, lynchings, a long list of diseases brought from Europe,…oh, yes, there’s so much Blacks take for granted today they can thank the Europeans for.

    clothes, pens, computers, everything of a billion things it needs to create a civilization.

    Africans had clothes prior to the arrival of Europeans. I simply LMAO at the idea anyone would think otherwise.

    Africans were building kickass civilizations when Europe was still groping itself blindly in the Middle Ages.

    Oh, and here’s a quick overview of the science and technology Africa gave the world.

    BUT whites couldn’t civilise them, so apartheid was necessary to keep whites alive.”

    If strange people came busting in to my town and declared they now owned all the land and buildings and tried to force me and my neighbors to do things their way, I think I might start to behave in an uncivilized manner as well–because the arrogant strangers hadn’t gotten lost when we pointed out this was our home, not theirs, and they needed to respect that. Then there are cultural differences. Americans are far less reserved and generally louder than the British. That doesn’t go over so well with our friends across the Pond, and we Yanks can be looked down upon by the Limeys for our outspokenness. Considered uncivilized, even, but is it a lack of being civilized, or just a cultural difference? What’s uncivilized is forcing others to live by your morals, ethics, mores, and taboos.

    I’d dissect more of the stomach-churning blather, but this is already long enough.

  10. says

    That sexual economics article is gross. How can you talk about sex in college without mentioning that 1 in 3 college women are raped? Or that 1 in 10 college men will admit to forcing, coercing, or drugging a woman into having sex with them as long as you don’t use the word “rape”? And do you think maybe those statistics are helped along by attitudes like “Today, plenty of 22-year-olds can get all the sex they want for the cost of a pack of condoms.” – as if the woman’s consent was guaranteed or irrelevant? It’s bad enough to reduce women’s bodies into commodities; do we really need to tell young men that these commodities come out of a vending machine if you put a condom into it?

    Also, LOLOL at “In my parents’ generation, the only way for a 22-year-old guy to have a lot of sex was to get married.” My grandparents had premarital sex. My great-great-grandma had nonmarital sex. The Victorians? Totally sexing it up behind closed doors. The first novel ever written, The Tale of Genji in the early 11th century, was erotica. We’ve found dildoes from the Stone Age. Sex is not new. Premarital, extramarital, and nonmarital sex are not new. The Millennial Generation is neither sexually liberated nor sexually depraved. Sorry, folks, but we’re not particularly special. We’re just more willing to talk about our sex lives in public. In fact, if you compare how much access I have to abortion now versus how much access my mother had when she was my age…we’ve come backwards.

  11. says

    Sylvia Sybil,

    There are two studies that found it was 1 in 6 guys who admitted to “forced sex.” One at a college, and one in the navy or some branch of armed forces.

    Sylvia Sybil: We’re just more willing to talk about our sex lives in public.

    Actually, the 70s and 80s were pretty debauched and there was no shortage of chatter about sexuality in public – I think it just seems like we were quieter about it because none of the chatter got preserved on the internet which came later. I’m too young to remember the 70s, which was probably the 20th century peak of sexual hedonism, but for example: the 80s had “hook ups”, it’s just they called it “casual sex.” They also had “booty calls”, but just called it “dating”. Phone sex was widely available and huge – a lot like cybersex, except safer. The sex therapy movement was hot, and there were a lot of self-help books that probably often got used for masturbation fodder even though they were intended as therapy.

    It’s just my impression, but I don’t think there’s been any real change in 30 years. Shifts, yes, but not changes.

  12. says

    Jennifer Kesler,

    See, I almost cited the hippies and the “Make Love Not War” signs, which was just barely my parents’ generation, but I couldn’t figure out how old the author was as that might have been after her parents’ generation.

    (Yes, I should have substituted “more talkative” with “more documented”. Slip of the fingers there.)

  13. says

    Sylvia Sybil, no worries, it’s hard to know what sexuality was like before our time because history written about it often comes from an emotional bias.

    Just occurred to me: I wonder about the roaring 20s. People may have been discreet, but the diaphragm was a well-known tool then.

    As for that author, I don’t think it’s just when she was born, but where. The 60s (or any other decade) in a small town in the Bible Belt was a whole different world from the 60s of NYC.

  14. facebook_patrick.mcgraw.7 says

    Regarding the “study” that totally proved men want sex more than women do:

    Who was it that said this? “Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.”

  15. says

    facebook_patrick.mcgraw.7,

    I believe it’s Gavin de Becker. It gets attributed to Margaret Atwood, who reportedly asked a group of men what they feared from women, and a group of women what they feared from men, and got the answer given here. And in looking up this information, I had to wade through men doubting women could possibly fear men would kill them for rejecting them, and talking about pussy power, so I need a shower now.

    I think I’ll start a thread on scary rejection stories.

  16. SunlessNick says

    Sylvia Sybil,

    “Today, plenty of 22-year-olds can get all the sex they want for the cost of a pack of condoms.” – as if the woman’s consent was guaranteed or irrelevant?

    This and these:

    “Sex was the main thing they had to offer men in order to get a piece of society’s wealth, and so they restricted sexual access as much as they could, to maintain a high price,” … “men will do whatever is required in order to obtain sex” – and that, historically, society has made them do quite a lot.

    … turns of phrase give me deeply creepy feeling about this Dr Baumeister.

  17. says

    SunlessNick, and furthermore, these theories (which are nothing new) always seem to rely on the idea that men are equally attracted (demand) to every woman out there, which is absurd. A woman who’s desirable to a high number of men will have plenty of “demand” to keep up her price even if she “supplies” fairly cheaply. A woman who’s desirable to very few men won’t even need to withhold sex because there is no demand for it. On both ends of the curve, it doesn’t matter how often the woman supplies sex because the demand is what it is. This theory doesn’t even hold up in its own context. And that’s because it’s hastily installed window dressing meant to cover a misogynistic agenda.

    In short, it’s exactly the sort of gaffe we saw from a lot of Congressmen this year – realizing how bad it sounded to just admit “Look, I hate women, so I want to punish them by making them have babies they don’t want, teach those bitches their places”, they tried to come up with something that sounded less bad… only the things they came up with were just so insultingly stupid that it hung a lantern on what they really meant.

  18. says

    SunlessNick,

    Oh yes. I mean, even claiming that sex is a “service” one person buys from another, rather than a mutual enjoyable activity they perform together, says something about your view of sex. (If the woman has an orgasm, does she have to refund half the cost of dinner?)

    But the author doesn’t even grant women the dignity expected of, say, accountants and personal gym trainers. There isn’t a sense that these are free agents engaging in mutually profitable business transactions – instead, the author acts like women are vending machines.

  19. SunlessNick says

    Jennifer Kesler,

    On both ends of the curve, it doesn’t matter how often the woman supplies sex because the demand is what it is. This theory doesn’t even hold up in its own context.

    Further, I don’t think he’s thought through some of its other implications. Such as that according to his thesis, little of anything would be achieved by married men, because for most of history and geography, married men had access to sex whenever they want, as the right of their wives to refuse them wasn’t recognised or supported.

    And also that the greatest pioneers in all fields would be gay – he might be inclined to dispute that, suggesting that both men would desire sex equally – but of course that doesn’t hold up because gay men have always had more trouble finding sex on account of how looking for it is more likely to get them killed (though acknowledging that might force him to admit that it applies to women who look for sex too).

  20. Cloudtigress says

    Sylvia Sybil:

    Also, LOLOL at “In my parents’ generation, the only way for a 22-year-old guy to have a lot of sex was to get married.” My grandparents had premarital sex. My great-great-grandma had nonmarital sex. The Victorians? Totally sexing it up behind closed doors. The first novel ever written, The Tale of Genji in the early 11th century, was erotica. We’ve found dildoes from the Stone Age. Sex is not new.

    Define ‘novel’, or heck, define ‘erotica’, since I suspect a lot of what modern readers call ancient erotica would have been classified by their authors as Slice of Life, if such classifications existed back then. As for ancient works of fiction, the Satyricon is also considered erotica by modern standards, and it was published in 1st century AD Rome, so it’s much older than 11th century Genji. And even it wasn’t the first work of fiction to be published anyplace. Again, though, it all comes down to defining things in their modern and ancient forms, I think.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.