On “Creepy Asexual Guys,” Porn, and Misogyny

/ Elizabeth

Occasionally, people will use search terms to find this blog that pique my curiosity. I had never heard of a gray fetish until today, but apparently someone else has. I also sometimes get search terms including words that I know I’ve said before in the same post, but not together, not as the topic of the post. Today, someone viewed my blog after searching for asexual guys, and I was curious to see what else was out there about asexual guys, so I looked, too.

Of course, there were the usual posts about people seeking to date asexual guys, and those with people wondering whether some male relation of theirs is asexual or gay or just socially awkward, but then there was this strange offering by Rabbi Schmuley Boteach. Confused by the title, “Asexual men and the creeps who live on campus”–since when are asexual men associated or equated with creeps?–I clicked the link. The Rabbi’s main argument seems to be a variant on the idea that rampant sexual debauchery leads men to become desensitized to the point that they are no longer attracted to most normal women, but rather only to a very specific type of woman (presumably strippers and porn stars), and to a very specific type of violently misogynistic situation. I have a few problems with this. Number one is the way he defines asexuality:

The male overexposure to women has even led to the death of the heterosexual man as we know him. If the definition of a heterosexual man is a male who is attracted to women, then most men today are barely heterosexual. Think about it. Nearly all the men I know are only attracted to about one in 10 women, that is, the 10 percent of women they consider “hot.” The other 90 percent leave them cold. Doesn’t that mean that they are 90 percent asexual? And I’m not trying to be funny. If a man is not attracted to a woman, then he is not heterosexual. Period. And if he only attracted to a small fraction of the women he meets, then he is fractionally heterosexual.

Although I can follow his logic, I find that logic flawed on the level that this makes no distinction between a person who is asexual, a person who is just extremely picky, and a person who has a fetish. Now, that word has several different meanings, including two that are non-sexual (an asexual might have “an irrational or abnormal fixation or preoccupation” with something that does not arouse them sexually, for instance). By fetish here, I mean an extreme sexual interest in something to the point that the person cannot get off at all without the presence of that thing. I think what the Rabbi is really meaning to refer to here is the development of such a fetish for the demeaning situations (allegedly, at least–as I have limited experience, I wouldn’t know) shown in porn, and the type of woman who looks like she belongs in one.

The problem is, the way this is worded indicates to me that this has not been thought through and articulated carefully and with a clear understanding of what he is literally saying. He talks of an overexposure to women, for one–how can men be overexposed to a group of people who comprise roughly half of the population? Is he suggesting that we should all be wearing burqas, here? On the contrary, I would infer that he is talking about an overexposure to fantasy women (and any women willing to cater to male fantasy), and an underexposure to real-life women (who are not willing to cater to male fantasy). But this is not made clear in that sentence, so it makes little sense taken on its own.

I think the fallacy with regard to asexuality and heterosexuality is that he is defining them based solely on the percentage of the time that a person is attracted or not attracted, without any regard for the intensity of that attraction when it is experienced, the feelings and attitudes that a person has towards sex, or the fact that these words are labels that refer to the way a person is categorized, rather than indicators of that person’s actual levels of eroticism towards any particular group of people.

For things like this, it usually helps to have a visual model, so let’s use the Storms model. According to this, heterosexuals are people who are high in hetero-eroticism but low in homo-eroticism, homosexuals are people who are high in homo-eroticism but low in hetero-eroticism, bisexuals are high in both, and asexuals are low in both. This seems similar enough to what the Rabbi is saying, but the problem here is in defining what constitutes “high” and what constitutes “low” levels of eroticism.

According to him, if you find 90% of the people around you sexually unattractive, then you are 90% asexual.

However, the people he is talking about devote an extraordinary amount of time thinking and fantasizing about, planning, and engaging in sexual activity. According to him, they have even gone to college expressly for the purpose of indulging in sexual debauchery. You could say that (at least) 90% of their lives are devoted to the pursual of sexual activity. Perhaps they have an extremely narrow idea of what constitutes a sexually attractive woman, and are unable to explore sexuality with the vast majority of the women around them, who do not indulge them in their misogynistic fantasies, but they are still absolutely obsessed with sex. To me, that indicates high levels of eroticism. It’s only a very specific kind of eroticism–as previously stated, a fetish.

So to call them asexual, even while acknowledging that they are “10% sexual,” is highly inaccurate. They would likely not self-identify in that way, and would have very, very little in common with people who do, since usually those people do not miss the sex they are not having, and don’t feel the need to actively pursue sexual activity. Of course, there are people who identify as asexual who might experience sexual attraction a very low percentage of the time, and still consider themselves asexual. I have never heard an estimate of ten percent, and that’s probably quite high, but theoretically, such a person could exist. That’s because these words are labels that are meant to express how people are the vast majority of the time, without getting into very fine details like that one man a lesbian might fall in love with. The Storms model might more accurately look like this (image originally found in this thread)–a blur of different colors with no clear lines in between. There is no simple litmus test that people can take to determine their sexual orientation, and how much a person is attracted to x gender alone is not the only factor that goes into its determination. For those who exist in the borderlands, there may be many more things to take into consideration aside from attraction to people.  There are objectum sexuals, and people who are aroused by certain situations but not by the appearance of other people, to take into consideration as well.

In short, being a sexual person does not mean that you want to bone EVERYONE, or even everyone of a certain gender, and being asexual does not necessarily mean that you NEVER feel sexual attraction. Although the main factor for determining sexual orientation is the level of attraction one feels for other people, and which gender those other people are, it cannot be said that men who are only attracted to women 10% of the time are only 10% heterosexual, because that shows a lack of understanding of how self-identification and use of a label that describes sexual orientation works.

And, just for further clarification, I’ll repeat an example I used a long time ago about the availability of attractive women:  In a country with an extremely skewed gender ratio like China, where there are so many more boys than girls, a heterosexual male might only encounter a small percentage of women he is attracted to on a day-to-day basis, but does that mean he is not heterosexual? Not many people would answer yes to that question, but if you follow the Rabbi’s statement through to its logical conclusion, then he must.

I have many more thoughts about this, but I’ll have to cut it short for now. I may return to this topic in a future post, though.

Edited to add: I’ve made a second post about this: Dismantling Emotional Flatulence.

18 thoughts on “On “Creepy Asexual Guys,” Porn, and Misogyny”

    • Exactly. I’m working on a second post about this, wherein I try to work through his “logic”–which does make sense to me, sort of, but not on a rational level.

      Someday I will have the time to read through your older posts, I’m sure! ;P

      Like

  3. I wouldn’t worry too much. Everyone knows Rabbi Schmuley Boteach is a moron, and he belongs on the street, shouting from atop a milk crate.

    Like

  4. “overexposure” probably just refers to abnormal amounts of sexual material that they opt to view – obviously college campuses mostly have both genders present, but to make a sweeping stereotype, the guys probably watch porn more than the women do… but percentage wise, a few fellows will spend WAY more time watching porn and becoming desensitized.

    Like

  5. how absurd.
    although i have had an experience with an incredibly creepy asexual guy. just in a totally different way. more in a “i love you foreverandever even though i only know you on the internet and if you don’t love me back i’ll slip back into my depression and my life will be meaningless” stalker kind of way.

    Like

  6. @ Tivvy and the Author.

    I knew a chick once that was able to hack into my head. Like I was next to this one dude she liked after she was fired from where I worked at and as soon as I walked up to him my phone would get a SMS message “hey can you hand your phone to him?”. I would pick up my phone to call my buddy, shed SMS me as the phone entered my hand. I’d be on the way out the door and she’d sneak up on me from nowhere and strike up a conversation about something I was thinking about. Real “soulmate” stuff if you call it that; the way she used it hurt.

    She was engaged and I consider that “back off” terms. She did not get it, I made the determination to refrain from talking to her so much or letting out cue’s I liked her, she thought it was because she was ugly or crazy. I let her do that.

    Because I’m a mature, strong person I’m capable of making decision that may result in extreme mental, emotional, or psychological pain and damage for my own good.
    If that’s creepy, I’ll let you in on something else.

    I’m a 27 year old Virgin that’s never kissed a girl. Why? My mother was a floozy and my father a schitzophrenic; I have no memories of them being intimate, only fighting. When I was in school, kids would beat me up every day and the teachers did not care to challenge my intelligence; to the contrary they considered it a problem. Simply, I was never trained by my parents or by other kids to interact with women on an emotional or intimate level, much less sexually; I do not get the urge to ask women out or socialize with them and honestly when I force myself into doing this;; When I read books, make myself pleasant, talk to them (and I impress the hell out of everyone I talk too), I do not find myself attracted to their personality or even aura of femininity whatsoever.

    Feminism is when you take a women from her rightful duty defending a family from food allergies, toxins, and edible trash and put her to work at burger king creating an inferior product. It is when you take her from the home providing a safe, clean environment for her children and employ her as a security guard defending business from disadvantaged, confused youth raised by the God box. It is when you take her from the home sewing station or church school room and put to work on long manufacturing lines or in a union of teachers who lobby to illegalize all meaningful competition to a system created to waste a third of a persons life and consummate income acquiring a 3rd rate education which does not challenge even half the populaces intelligence or esteem.

    Feminism requires a women to believe in her total, abject independence from and equivalence to men; that men are the same as her and therefor present no benefit to interact with save for money and semen. That because she is not to be worshiped she is nothing special and is required to uphold neither chastity nor virtue. It is a style of living which promotes the most daft, senseless, meaningless existence despite whatever level of education is acquired.

    Consider for once it is your demeanor that makes you utterly unattractive; it is your lack of investment in yourself that “asexual” men find distasteful. Consider it is your resolute belief in substituting the real for a materialistic substitute; that your body is your clothing, your face enhanced by some colored paint, your personality enhanced by teeth whitener, your demeanor enhanced by a purse full of money and your status enhanced by children; that make men such as myself appraise you as utterly disgusting.

    If I could find a women I could actually talk to and the conversations were me being interested in what she was saying, not me explaining everything in the world to her and being amazing, then I might feel otherwise. If I could find one that’d make me laugh I’d be in heaven but unfortunately, in all the time I have been alive, I have not. Like many women, I have developed subtle vetting system most people do not notice I use on them. I don’t care about being better than others; I do not care for entitlement. I simply wish for the same emotional engagement others possess.

    I asked on a forum once “how’d you meet your wife/boyfriend/girlfriend/hubby?”; everyone gave a different answer but the constant was, when they were not looking. I’ve seen men who’s lives have passed them by; perhaps sometimes the circumstances under which soul-mates meet are not advantageous. Perhaps some people were born without one.

    I’d rather be a serial killer and give to society what it gave me; The most effective means of doing so is to join the French Foreign Legion which, if I am not in a meaningful relationship by 29, will be doing on my birthday as a gift to myself. I need nothing more than a wallet of cash and a passport; I become a missing persons statistic.

    I have already begun the rigorous physical training required for success in this endeavor.

    Pain, if severe enough, becomes numbness; numbness grows until other faculties like sense of self or common decency go out the door; some men try to get out of that dark place and they do so by following the only thing they know of capable of doing so; that women, money or power becomes the light in their darkness they must acquire at all costs thus they seek to possess that object. But because what they are chasing can never be acquired, their desire becomes twisted, their minds confused, and they increasingly confused, violent, self-destructive creatures pulling the world around them into it.

    Some men are stronger than that. They find and adhere to a code of conduct that requires their absolute, resolute obedience. The cost of learning this code is so great none want anything of the reward when it is offered; they do not view anything as being of value to them, even themselves. They would rather give it away to the covetous and deceitful; to accelerate their demise and anyone unwise enough to commune with them.

    Like

  7. Dude, I don’t know what I did to deserve your little woe-is-me fest, here, but I hope you will take a step back to actually listen to yourself someday, cause man, that is some seriously fucked-up shit you’re spewing. I’m going to quote your comment and put my own comments in bolded brackets as a response:

    I knew a chick once that was able to hack into my head. Like I was next to this one dude she liked after she was fired from where I worked at and as soon as I walked up to him my phone would get a SMS message “hey can you hand your phone to him?”. I would pick up my phone to call my buddy, shed SMS me as the phone entered my hand. I’d be on the way out the door and she’d sneak up on me from nowhere and strike up a conversation about something I was thinking about. Real “soulmate” stuff if you call it that; the way she used it hurt. [Uhhh… sounds like a stalker to me, not a “soul mate.”]

    She was engaged and I consider that “back off” terms. She did not get it, I made the determination to refrain from talking to her so much or letting out cue’s I liked her, she thought it was because she was ugly or crazy. I let her do that.

    Because I’m a mature, strong person I’m capable of making decision that may result in extreme mental, emotional, or psychological pain and damage for my own good. [Ok, whatever dude.]
If that’s creepy [Not really, it’s pretty whatever.], I’ll let you in on something else.

    I’m a 27 year old Virgin that’s never kissed a girl. [Good for you.] Why? My mother was a floozy and my father a schitzophrenic; I have no memories of them being intimate, only fighting. When I was in school, kids would beat me up every day and the teachers did not care to challenge my intelligence; to the contrary they considered it a problem. [Okay…? And why exactly are you telling me this?] Simply, I was never trained by my parents or by other kids to interact with women on an emotional or intimate level [You know, I don’t think that’s something that most people have to be trained to do.], much less sexually; I do not get the urge to ask women out or socialize with them and honestly when I force myself into doing this;; When I read books, make myself pleasant, talk to them (and I impress the hell out of everyone I talk too [So you seem to think, but then again, you don’t even seem to know the difference between “to” and “too” or how to punctuate sentences correctly. I am certainly not impressed, and not just on a grammatical level. I wonder if you are able to tell the difference between when people are genuinely impressed and when they are faking it.]), I do not find myself attracted to their personality or even aura of femininity whatsoever. [How would you find out what a woman’s personality is like through awkward small talk? And what’s this “aura of femininity” you refer to—could it be what Betty Friedan referred to as the “feminine mystique?”]

    Feminism is when you take a women [A women. Nice.] from her rightful duty [Rightful duty? RIGHTFUL DUTY???] defending a family [What if she doesn’t have or want a family? Is it still her rightful duty to defend it?] from food allergies, toxins, and edible trash and put her to work at burger king creating an inferior product. [Oh, I love your choice of professions, here. Burger King? Really? Women not good enough for anything else or something? And not only do all women apparently work at Burger King in your mind, but they are so incompetent that they are creating an “inferior” product there, too!] It is when you take her from the home providing a safe, clean environment for her children and employ her as a security guard [Security guard!] defending business from disadvantaged, confused youth raised by the God box. [What’s the “God box?” Are you referring to the novel by Alex Sanchez? If so, are you referring to (homosexual?) youths raised with the ideas in that novel as “disadvantaged” and “confused?”] It is when you take her from the home sewing station [Yay, stereotypes! Did you know that you can be a feminist and still choose to sew at home if you want to? I do!] or church school room [Ugh, who the hell would ever want to be THERE?] and put to work on long manufacturing lines [I think you’ve been watching too much I Love Lucy.] or in a union of teachers who lobby to illegalize all meaningful competition to a system created to waste a third of a persons life and consummate income acquiring a 3rd rate education which does not challenge even half the populaces intelligence or esteem. [Ooookay then. I gather you’re talking about education, but other than that, I’ve no idea what you’re referring to.]

    [Yeah, so feminism is not about any of that. Apparently you want to force all women back into the realm of family-driven domestic duty, to erase their opportunities to carve their own identities for themselves. Is this “rightful duty” of ours supposed to be fulfilling? Maybe it is for some, and that’s their choice. But it’s not for me. I don’t want to deal with children, ever. Is that the kind of person you’d want to be your mother?]

    [But wait, there’s more!]

    Feminism requires a women [A women. Nice.] to believe in her total, abject [abject – extremely bad, unpleasant, and degrading; absolute and humiliating; completely without pride or dignity; self-abasing] independence from and equivalence to men [How could independence from and equivalence to men be abject? Wouldn’t it be far more degrading to be constantly told that women are inferior to men, to constantly have to rely on them as if you are a child? Feminism is uplifting, not abject.]; that men are the same as her [No, that’s not what feminism says. Men and women are still different, but they should have equal STATUS.] and therefor present no benefit to interact with save for money and semen. [No, that’s not how it works at all. Nobody’s saying that men are good for nothing.] That because she is not to be worshiped she is nothing special and is required to uphold neither chastity nor virtue. [Now we’re getting into the Madonna/Whore complex. Look, dude, I’ve had people put me up on a pedestal before and it’s not fun. I don’t want to be required to uphold whatever you consider “chastity and virtue” to be, especially since usually that idea is used to hold women to an unfair double-standard. Men are praised for being promiscuous, but any woman who admits to enjoying sex (even in safety and moderation) is considered a slut. I don’t think that is in any way good for society, but apparently you do.] It is a style of living which promotes the most daft, senseless, meaningless existence despite whatever level of education is acquired. [You know, I don’t think there’s anything daft and senseless about wanting to be treated as a human being. But I guess you’re too busy raging against the “feminists are man-haters who want to live in a world without males” stereotype to actually realize that being treated like an actual human being is all we’re really after. You’re too busy degrading women and reducing them in your mind to something that is inherently inferior to make any kind of emotional connection with women. And believe me, we can see right through you. It’s off-putting, to say the least.]

    [And now for some personal attacks!]

    Consider for once it is your demeanor that makes you utterly unattractive [What makes you assume that I am unattractive?]; it is your lack of investment in yourself [Or that I lack investment in myself?] that “asexual” men find distasteful. Consider it is your resolute belief in substituting the real for a materialistic substitute [I assure you, I hold no such belief. Also, props on that redundancy, there.]; that your body is your clothing [Lol, what?], your face enhanced by some colored paint [I hardly ever wear make-up… or face paint, for that matter.], your personality enhanced by teeth whitener [I couldn’t even use teeth whitener if I wanted to, my teeth are pretty sensitive], your demeanor enhanced by a purse full of money [Ha.] and your status enhanced by children [Oh no way. Kids are disgusting and demanding, and I want nothing to do with them.]; that make men such as myself appraise you as utterly disgusting. [I think it’s quite clear by now why you can’t make emotional connections with women.]

    If I could find a women [Woman = singular. Women = plural.] I could actually talk to and the conversations were me being interested in what she was saying, not me explaining everything in the world to her and being amazing [That’s some serious narcissism you’ve got, there.], then I might feel otherwise. If I could find one that’d make me laugh I’d be in heaven but unfortunately, in all the time I have been alive, I have not. [Doesn’t seem like you’ve given them the chance.] Like many women, I have developed subtle vetting system most people do not notice I use on them. [Oh, I’m sure they notice. You’re not as subtle as you think you are.] I don’t care about being better than others; I do not care for entitlement. I simply wish for the same emotional engagement others possess. [Well then, gee, maybe you should stop being so arrogant and actually try to make a connection with someone?]

    I asked on a forum once “how’d you meet your wife/boyfriend/girlfriend/hubby?”; everyone gave a different answer but the constant was, when they were not looking. I’ve seen men who’s lives have passed them by; perhaps sometimes the circumstances under which soul-mates meet are not advantageous. Perhaps some people were born without one. [Honestly, I think the idea of soul mates is stupid. Nobody has a soul mate. There’s no reason to believe that anybody has a soul in the first place. That’s just a human invention.]

    I’d rather be a serial killer and give to society what it gave me [Uhh. I don’t think society has killed you. You certainly aren’t typing this from the grave. I bet you’re going to say that it’s killing your soul, though. Seriously, though, this romanticization of serial killers is pathetic and stupid.]; The most effective means of doing so is to join the French Foreign Legion which, if I am not in a meaningful relationship by 29 [you know you have to try to make an emotional connection with someone in order to get into a meaningful relationship, right? Seriously, in all your attempts to get into a relationship (if you have even made any), the common denominator is YOU. You really might want to consider whether it is your own behavior that is off-putting.], will be doing on my birthday as a gift to myself. I need nothing more than a wallet of cash and a passport; I become a missing persons statistic. [So nice of you to care about whether other people would miss you.]

    I have already begun the rigorous physical training required for success in this endeavor.

    Pain, if severe enough, becomes numbness [*CRAWWWWLING IN MY SKIIIN, THESE WOUNDS, THEY WILL NOT HEAL*]; numbness grows until other faculties like sense of self or common decency go out the door; some men try to get out of that dark place and they do so by following the only thing they know of capable of doing so; that women, money or power becomes the light in their darkness they must acquire at all costs thus they seek to possess that object. But because what they are chasing can never be acquired, their desire becomes twisted, their minds confused, and they increasingly confused, violent, self-destructive creatures pulling the world around them into it. [Remember, it’s “down the road,” not “across the street!” Make it count!]

    Some men are stronger than that. [I’m sure you’re implying that you’re one of those men, but your whiny-ass diatribe hints otherwise.] They find and adhere to a code of conduct that requires their absolute, resolute obedience. The cost of learning this code is so great none want anything of the reward when it is offered [Right. If you say so, dude. What does any of this have to do with my post, again?]; they do not view anything as being of value to them, even themselves. They would rather give it away to the covetous and deceitful; to accelerate their demise and anyone unwise enough to commune with them. [Well, then. Have fun! :D]

    After reading all of that, I suspect you’re somewhat… unhinged. You probably ought to see a therapist, or at least try to get the fuck over yourself.

    Like

    • This man made his opinion, and you tried to destroy it not by attacking his logic, but his grammar and the use of a wrong word? I think someone is butthurt that a guy called girls a bunch of makeup-whoring shits. He also spoke of hoping to have that random encounter to get a girl, so obviously it’s only a mass majority of girls he dislikes. If you truly want to fight this one out, than please try and attack the argument, not the person who is giving his opinion.

      Like

      • Wait, seriously? The guy showed up to spew an off-topic misogynistic rant. He claimed he impresses every woman he meets with how amazing he is, and that claim was false, because he did not impress me. When someone is being that narcissistic, grammar becomes proof that they are not so great. Besides, I didn’t only attack his grammar, I attacked his other claims as well. If he seriously wants to meet a woman and engage with her on an equal level, then he has to approach women from an equal level, without all this misogynistic bullshit. Women can tell when people think they’re stupid and they aren’t interested in engaging with people like that; the only women who would continue to engage with him are women who buy into that sort of sexist nonsense. You can’t have it both ways.

        Honestly, I shouldn’t even have bothered to engage with him. The entire comment was so off-topic it would have been more reasonable to just delete it, but I thought maybe someone, somewhere, could benefit from reading it.

        Like

  8. You say that when you searched for asexual guys “there were the usual posts about people seeking to date asexual guys” but I just get loads of stuff from Aven or questions about boys at school.

    Where were these posts? :p

    Like

    • Oh, I was mostly referring to stuff from AVEN. It’s been about a year since I posted that, so the search result’s landscape has changed a lot. There’s one here, though if you’re not in Chicago, don’t know if it will help. Otherwise… try AVEN or an asexual dating site?

      Like

  9. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but according to the guy’s logic: a heterosexual men will fall in love with every single woman he meets?

    Heehee. Very funny.

    Like

  10. Interesting that I come across this post about Rabbi Boteach right after I was reissued my library card long enough to read a book Schmuley wrote on Michael Jackson, who I believe is Asexual.

    Like

  11. As a bisexual, I don’t get this thing about my perceived proclivity towards boning everyone, a stereotype which sometimes transcends species. It’s offensive enough to have to ward off people who think that my bucket list would, if it were ever to be adapted into a film, have to be heavily bowdlerized to achieve an X-rated and that my weekends are spent at wild orgies which break out in my vicinity.

    Even worse are people like this rabbi, who expects me to swallow my pride (among other things) in order to achieve a gold star “true bisexual” rating, that everyone in the world has to give me an erection rivaling an obelisk or I’m probably lying. I’d say the better part- and I mean this in both senses of the word- of heterosexual men don’t jump anything without a Y chromosome, and I don’t think that’s because of a tragic pattern of overexposure, as questionable as the porn industry’s lighting choices can be.

    People tend to speak of porn as an addiction with most of its viewers in its vise (ha, ha), a notion best dispersed by looking outside the window. Unless you live on a lesbian separatist commune or in the middle of buttfuck nowhere (or both), the odds are good that there are men out there, men either don’t seem to be suffering from withdrawal syndrome when faced with something other than Busty Vixens numbers three through five, or at the very least can gather the resolve to venture to the nearest sex shop in search of the sequel.

    Porn has become the new masturbation in terms of fear of its potential effects- extreme or even fictitious accounts become representative of all of its users, even if this demographic can also be summed up as “everyone”.

    I think that as a man who grew up in earlier times, his experiences may have endowed girls with a mystical quality (other than the one of their chest) , and viewed them as collectively possessing an allure, especially if he was raised in a conservative Jewish household where unrelated boys and girls were forbidden to mingle. (Excuse me if I seem ignorant of Jewish traditions and culture- if it’s any consolation, I’m not misrepresenting myself.)

    Maybe when faced with youth of today, whose access to the Internet has made it much easier to find out exactly what a girl has under her top without stealing of a copy of Playboy or National Geographic, the man feels a nostalgia which is only bolstered by the fact that this is something, that, unlike masturbation, he doesn’t have to scour from his memory, because I doubt he grew up in a setting with much access to porn, National Geographic or no.

    I am wondering, however, exactly who this guy sees as the paragon of heterosexual masculinity. I’d say David, but I’m not sure “eight wives” falls under “capacity to fuck every woman in sight” or “overexposure”, and don’t get me started on that whole Jonathan thing.

    I understand his worries about sexual morality in modern times, if only in the way I remember being menaced by a crocodile-shaped tree outside my window at the age of five- it doesn’t often breach the borders of my mind without an attendant “That was stupid,” or, more appropriately, “Silly rabbi, proof is for booze!”

    (I think I may very well be double-posting if this site is screened for comments. If it’s not showing up because I didn’t provide a name, then this should do the trick. If not, oh well. If I was concerned about despoiling your thought-provoking post, I wouldn’t have clicked “Post Comment” in the first place.)

    Like

  12. The title of this post calls guys creepy while pondering the roots of misogyny, and the author is probably unaware of the irony. This kind of judgment is exactly why men retreat into porn. One could discuss the phenomenon of porn-induced asexuality without resorting to name-calling, but attaching such a harsh rejection is the kind of subtle psychological sadism that leads some men to resent women.

    Like

Comments are closed.