A former colleague of mine (and professional dominatrix, no less) wrote an article about liberating men's sexuality. I was wondering how the various members of the PPD community felt about this notion...

roe_ · 2015-01-20T17:15:35+00:00

From the piece:

Critics of the men’s rights movement frequently note that there are many issues of concern for men, such as death at work and in war, that the movement ignores, in favour of repeated attacks on feminism and women.

I stopped reading there. The "workplace death gap" and selective service has been front & centre in the MRM at least since Farrell wrote The Myth of Male Power - and probably before. Respectfully to your colleague, if she's not going to familiarize herself with primary sources she has no credibility.

hyperrreal · 2015-01-20T17:06:23+00:00

I think the integrity of the piece collapses near the end.

A pet peeve of mine is when people make broad, sweeping criticisms of ideas or communities they haven't taken the time to understand. TRP/MRM does this to feminism, and feminism does it to the manosphere. How can there be a productive conversation if people don't take the time to understand what they criticize?

It was also a reminder of how controlling so many feminists are, in spite of their rhetoric about liberation. So many of the complaints about the conversation men are having with each other, seem to be that they don't occur in feminist controlled spaces or with feminist approved premises and language.

So I think she's making reasonable arguments at certain points, though there's a lot I disagree with. But like most women, especially most feminists, writing about men's issues she doesn't really 'get it.' It's good that she is willing to admit that she puts women's interest ahead of men's, but that very acknowledgement makes me skeptical of her analysis of men's sexuality, issues, and communities.

This idea that the core problem with male sexuality is that it has not been liberated by intersectional feminism is one I don't think most men would agree with. And in general I don't think she is offering much of solution to the problem her piece points to, as much as she is adding to the problem.

drok007 · 2015-01-20T17:23:31+00:00

So basically, allowing men the freedom to be penetrated and dominated (which I don't even see how they are hindered at the moment) will undermine the men rights movement because their anger will be subsided? That sounds crazy, but whatever, go for it feminists, let's see how that works out.

GridReXX · 2015-01-20T17:47:03+00:00

This is an interesting topic and will make a lot of hetero men uncomfortable.

For example /u/LimboLoves states he hates "anal penetration."

However women weren't made to be anally penetrated and many dislike it, but men still nag for it. See recent thread in the sub.

However the prostate makes being anally penetrated pretty worth it for men.

Furthermore I agree with /u/pickup_sticks.

I think a lot more men than TRP is willing to believe would probably get off and genuinely enjoy being the submissive party in a sexual relationship. To be dominated so to speak.

Unlike TRP, I tend to think most people have a little of both in them. Even the shyest most submissive woman would probably get off from dominating someone everyone once in a while. The inverse is likely true for very dominant men.

That said I personally don't get off dominating a man. I prefer that with women, because yes, a submissive man is not a turn-on for me sexually. However the dominance of it might be fun from a power play perspective.

[deleted] · 2015-01-20T17:36:47+00:00

How about the fact I find anal penetration disgusting? I guess to her I am repressing myself. Give me a break.

9Choronzon · 2015-01-20T18:44:54+00:00

I think the first issue would be whether the sexual preferences she's dealing with are actually at all representative of repressed male urges at large, or if they're simply a fringe group who she sees constantly and has thus come to believe represents all men.

I think the second is she assumes a feminist explanation for this occurrence. Lets hypothetically say that most men are indeed repressing these urges, feminism would likely explain it as the fault of strictly enforced gender roles. TRP, by contrast, would likely say it has more to do with biology, that the reason why men hold in these urges (and indeed, the reason the gender roles exist in the first place) is due to the lack of attraction women would feel for men if they openly expressed a desire to be vulnerable and sexually dominated. The two positions would never agree, just going around in circles over this in a chicken and egg situation.

[deleted] · 2015-01-20T17:12:54+00:00

I don't have a problem with the article. Yes, guys should be able to express their full sexuality without being shamed for it, but they also should know that not every woman is going to be into their kink.

I know a woman who is an extremely successful dominatrix. Her clients are professional athletes, Hollywood power brokers and the like. She's also a trained psychotherapist and says what she does is a kind of therapy. I take that at face value.

However, she also tells me she could never actually be attracted to any of these guys. She prefers a dominant man.

sh1v · 2015-01-20T16:25:17+00:00

Before i read, can you say if there is anything in the article other than the usual "bla bla rich white mens own fault for creating patriarchy bla blA PRIVILEGE, men need to be less traditionally masculine and more accomodating of FEMINISM (also other non rich white straight male peoples rights)"

Because yknow. Im tired of seeing/refuting that terrible argument time and again.

DoxasticPoo · 2015-01-20T19:57:22+00:00

She has a very small sample that's bias toward a certain TYPE of man... not very representative. I highly doubt the majority of men have some kind of repressed "feminine" side. Rather, it's a few who like to let it out every now and then.... Reality and her story seem very far apart, because of her sample size and bias (along with her own personal bias).

I've spent time in those communities and she's the last thing I'd want in my bedroom.

I go for the latex.

namae_nanka · 2015-01-20T17:53:31+00:00

Oh lordy, the great Futrelle!

The anger of many younger MRAs seems to have a similar psychosexual source.

lol they are angry because they are feminists who have been mugged by reality.

She is cute in her naivete,

the liberation of male sexuality will undermine one of patriarchy's principal foundations

Sure sure. hahaha

And men are, of course, raised with a tremendous, and all-encompassing, sense of male superiority, which is constantly reinforced

I dunno if boys have been raised with that feeling in america ever and surely not currently, I am reminded of this MIT piece,

It is certainly understandable that many men feel that they must go on the defensive in the ostensible intellectual battle of the sexes. After all, we have been hearing for years about women surpassing men in college graduation rates, mean GPA, and income. Wait, one of those doesn’t belong, does it?

Oh dear.

Indeed, when I was a boy of around 12 or 13, I was filled with righteous indignation that there was no such thing as a “masculist.” Most of the highest GPAs in my middle school belonged to girls. At various times I was told point-blank that girls were smarter than boys. “Who will defend us poor guys against the aggressive expansion of female achievement?” I despaired.

and his conclusion,

Fortunately, I have since grown up. I cannot say the same for someone who declares the very real phenomenon of cultural misogyny to be an “invisible bigotry.”

tch, all in good time.

http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N23/veldman.html

[deleted] · 2015-01-20T20:00:17+00:00

“Elliot Rodger – a self-described ‘nice guy’ – went on a shooting rampage as a way of exacting ‘revenge’ on all the women who’d rejected him. And while he didn't explictly describe himself as an MRA, he shared many of the central sexual obsessions as the MRA crowd

I hate anyone who uses Elliot Rodger as proof of anything in online gender wars. He had a lot of beliefs but none of them made sense and none of it really mattered. He had mental issues that had nothing to do with MRAs or PUA-hate.

GreatZiggurat · 2015-01-20T20:38:32+00:00

I've known a number of "Nice Guys". In a previous life, I might have fallen into that category myself. I've never gotten the impression that the frustration that "Nice Guys" feel stems from a repressed desire to be anally penetrated. That just sounds silly to me. The author is (incorrectly, in my opinion) assuming that her customer based adequately represents the male population at large.

She does come closer to the truth here:

A man is expected to be a breadwinner with a stable job, earning enough to support a family in an ideal of upwards mobility that no longer really exists for most of us. He is expected to present as masculine in appearance, taste, and habits. He is expected to be confident, outgoing and sociable, and to know how to fight.

It's not about anal sex. It's about social roles. Essentially, women in the First World today can play a role that would be wholly considered "masculine" in the past. On a social level, men can't act "feminine" at all without effectively removing themselves from the heterosexual mating pool.

I'm sure "Nice Guys" would love to have their sexuality "liberated" by having women reconsider their sexual preferences, so that traditionally masculine qualities (strength, stoicism, leadership) are de-emphasized in terms of mate selection.

That'll never happen though. It's easy for women to accept a man with a "kink". He might like to be anally penetrated, but he can still play a socially masculine role otherwise. It's much more difficult, even for feminists, to find themselves sexually attracted to a man who prefers to follow rather than lead, who is emotionally (not sexually/physically) vulnerable, who has strong emotional needs, who is introverted and prefers to be approached rather than to proactively approach, etc. That's still very off-putting to women, on a very fundamental level.

Based online, and also called the New Misogyny by David Futrelle, who writes the incisive feminist blog, We Hunted the Mammoth, men’s rights attracts a crowd of mostly young, mostly white men who grew up on the internet.

Actually, I've found the Men's Rights Movement to be disproportionately Asian-American (East and South Asian, that is). That conflicts with the "anyone who isn't an SJW is a bitter old poor, uneducated White man" meme, however.

Futrelle is a gross human being. His physical appearance is very off-putting. His views are very radical and extreme yet he chastises others with much more conventional views. In this bizarro feminist world, BDSM and men being anally penetrated are liberating, but a man who likes a conventionally attractive woman is seen as a horrible freak.

ECoast_Man · 2015-01-21T02:22:27+00:00

My view is that this is a third wave feminist trying to argue that patriarchy is bad for men because a minority of men enjoy sexual activities considered perverse under the typical dynamic.

Most men aren't visiting professional dominatrixes.

Pointless_Endeavors · 2015-01-21T04:20:28+00:00

OP, any chance you can have your friend come here and chat with us for a bit? I think it would make for a lively debate.

obstinatebeagle · 2015-01-22T01:02:46+00:00

This article is mainly just one big logic fail. For example:

I sometimes ask him what brought him to my door... Some are... married, and looking for something that their wives can’t or won’t provide... Many men are too shy or awkward, or simply too busy to find a partner, let alone one who shares an interest in kink.

So she is confirming that most women will not permit these men to express their sexuality in these ways, in so far as they will not participate but instead force the man's desires underground.

A man is socialised to desire a specific type of woman, to marry, to father children, and to provide them with a better life and prospects than he himself has enjoyed. He is expected to be entirely heterosexual, and entirely monogamous.

He is expected to do all these things by the woman in his life. This weight of constraints is burdened squarely on his shoulders by the expectations of women, e.g. as she said her herself above "their wives can’t or won’t provide". And though she does not explicity say it, "too busy to find a partner" is a euphemism for too busy or disinterested to jump through the myriad of hoops that women place in their way as blocks to forming a relationship.

We must offer a real answer for men consumed by anxiety, and especially those who feel a sense of sexual frustration.

But feminism doesn't do this, and in fact can't do this. That is the rub. More feminism means more women saying "I have no obligation to do anything sexual with you - too bad for you - buzz off" with no sense of sympathy or empathy for the effects that their actions have on others. The actions of feminist thinking causes sexual frustration in men, because it further restricts the acceptable sexual behaviour of men to comply with that which tows the line of narrow feminist thinking. And that restrictive compliance is exactly what the men complained of in the beginning of the article.

wazzup987 · 2015-01-20T17:18:40+00:00

This is why i hate TRP. FFS she conflates THE RED PILL ^TM and PUAS with the MRM. "Venerate the Alpha" YOU FUCKING WHAT MATE? AND SHE CITES DAVID FUCKING FUTRELLE. UHG Conflates Elliot Rodgers with the MRM. (He was only tangentially Associated with PUA's and later Anti-PUAS which both rejected him). ALSO avfm was never listed as a hate site with the SPLC, in fact its the only site to have the distinction from the SPLC as NOT a hate site.

Ok she later states the Rogder wasn't an MRA but had similar beliefs. UGH his belief system was closer to TRP. In fact the MRM Doesn't concern it self all the much with sex, sexlessness, and only with relationship in so far as giving guys guidance on what is and isn't a good one, and what qualities to look out for. Is it some thing we would like to address? sure at some point, but its way down the list of shit we have to do.

"We may not be able to reach the most hateful misogynists, but feminists must directly attack the false ideology of men’s rights."

YOU FUCKING WHAT MATE? The MRM has no ideology and ideology requires a sacred cow, a lynch pin that with out it the logical premise of the ideology falls apart, For feminism its Patriachy theory, for democrats its Social justice and welfare, For republicans its and anti-statist mentality, and for TRP its hypergamy and AWALT. If those lynch pins of the ideology were falsified (which usually they are an unfalsifiable statement which is why all ideology is religion) those ideologies would cease to have a logical premise. Essential the mark of an ideology is whether or not it has a sacred cow. the MRM doesn't have any sacred cows. The closest thing the MRM has to scared cow is gyynocentrism and there is lot evidence for its existence. Its also not the core thesis for all the problems that the MRM seeks to address. If you take away gynocentrism the issues the MRM seeks to redress still persist. It more of social impediment to progress.

None of whats in the last two paragraphs requires feminism. None.

In fact i really don't don't know why she brought prodomming. I mean the middle third is just bemoaning a straw man of the MRM. IT literally has nothing to do with the first third which was talking about mens sexually anxieties, or rigid social role. Its a complete non-sequitor.

Feminism didn't have to play a part in this at all. I know loads of prodommes and sex workers they all have the same stories. (i am in the kink community so they are pretty common same with porn stars and cam girls). About guys opening up and talking about their problems and being extremely vulnerable in a way they can't with the women in their lives. Literally none of that requires feminism.

Feminists literally can't talk about any social issues with out it relating back to feminism in some way. Nothing can lie out side the our view of feminism. Its literally the Big Sister of social advocacy. Working on custody right Sounds like you need some feminism. working on get Male Rape and DV victims seen, you must need some feminism unless you are asserting that women would do such a thing in which case your misogynist for asserting women can be assholes just like men. Wondering why a sport that targets men is where pink for cancer that affects women when a cancer the only affects the primary demographic of the sport get a tenth the fund and the sport does change its colors for that. You needs some more feminism. Are you wondering how and ideology that is trans exclusive anti-sex and predominately benefits white upper class women can also be trans inclusive pro sex and intersectional. You need to stop looking in to feminism.

I swear feminist read 1984 and thought yep that how we will take over government. Glad i don't live in Sweden.

GurneyHalleck85 · 2015-01-21T05:02:16+00:00

"Liberating men's sexuality" should start first and foremost with the complete legalization and social sanctioning (as much as possible) of the practice of prostitution. Men's sexuality (in the U.S and Canada) is not held back because they don't have the freedom to get pissed on/anally penetrated by a Dominatrix -- it's held back because they don't have the simple right to just go out and pay for sex like many men in 2nd/3rd world countries. I get the feeling that the author of the piece kind of wants to make this latter point, but for whatever reason gets sidetracked by a solipsistic preoccupation with her niche profession in the escort business.

[deleted] · 2015-01-20T20:08:48+00:00

I'll let everyone else deal with some of her mischaracterizations and strawmans about MRM. I'll address the point about male submissiveness directly.

I've actually read writings and discussions by Redpillers interested in being male submissives. IIRC the consensus was that it was a fool's errand. Women by and large disdain male submissives, so the end result is that these guys either have to satisfy their fetish with low SMV women (who must be more sexually open to compensate for their low SMV) or sex workers.

I think guys interested in being male submissives should seek therapy to rectify the situation, or otherwise force themselves to become aroused by more traditional sexual practices. Remember, Redpill is about casting as wide a net and making yourself as attractive as possible. If women were interested in guys who knew math, the whole TRP front page would be about linear algebra and differential equations. As it stands, women are by and large attracted to buff, dominant "alpha" males, so a man should suit that ideal.

Does being a male submissive cast a net? Sure, it does. But that net includes a tiny number of women, most of whom have lower SMVs...so what's the point of being one?

Do I think feminism can change this? Were it so easy...you can't legislate attractiveness, unfortunately. Humans gonna human.

A former colleague of mine (and professional dominatrix, no less) wrote an article about liberating men's sexuality. I was wondering how the various members of the PPD community felt about this notion...

Comments

basiclogic