Two Quick Links

School is eating my brain and I’m going to China in a week, so I’ve not been Mr. Blogger-pants of late. I did want to post two links I’ve read lately, though.

  1. I Don’t Respect You, by Emily Nagoski – This is Ms. Nagoski venting her spleen about religious folks who object to gay rights while simultaneously insisting that they be treated with courtesy and respect.
  2. Why Do We Demonize Men Who Are Honest About Their Sexual Needs? by sometime-Alas blogger Clarisse Thorn – This is Ms. Thorn discussing the ‘creepy’ label as it’s applied (and sometimes misapplied) to male sexuality.


This entry posted in BDSM issues, crossposted on TADA, Feminism, sexism, etc, Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans and Queer issues, Men and masculinity, Same-Sex Marriage, Sex, Sexism hurts men, Whatever. Bookmark the permalink. 

9 Responses to Two Quick Links

  1. 1
    Clarisse Thorn says:

    Thanks Myca! The reaction to that piece was interestingly intense. I’m hoping to write a followup.

    Here’s some hate mail I got from some dude:

    There was also some irritable coverage from a few feminists:

    And here’s an interesting post on the subject from my new favorite MRA-hating blog:

  2. 2
    Silenced is Foo says:

    I remember being in second year of university. I offered some new girls some advice about places to eat on campus, just trying to be friendly to the new people in my residence.

    My girlfriend quickly became friends with the new girls. In confidence, she said they were totally creeped out by me, and that they didn’t really relax until they met her and realized I had a nice normal girl I was dating and was therefore, not-creepy.

    To this day I still have no idea what I did wrong.

  3. 3
    RonF says:

    From the “I Don’t Respect You” essay:

    The magic of culture is that we move – slowly, messily, painfully, non-linearly, but inexorably – toward justice.

    I think that’s rather naive. I think it’s not true at all. Many cultures have moved towards creating and institutionalizing injustice and have only been brought away from that through violent action. There are still plenty of such cultures on the Earth today, and the victory of our culture over them is far from assured.

  4. 4
    Simple Truth says:

    I’m not sure if it’s male sexuality or male enthusiasm that gets labeled unjustly as “creep.” I know I had a guy in my first day of class who was very forwardly friendly and engaged in a long conversation with me. I thought he was either a really nice guy or creepy. (Turns out he was a nice guy.) I’m not trying to be blithe about it – there were some social cues going on that I don’t remember the specifics of, but it was genuinely hard to differentiate his enthusiasm as being appropriate or inappropriate, especially when it seemed directed at me. Without having any experience with who he was, it was a toss up. Silenced as Foo’s story seems to hit on that same dynamic.

  5. 5
    Barbara P says:

    In response to Emily’s post, there certainly is a consequence to disrespecting people with disagreeable religious beliefs. One example is the case of a Muslim girl who was bullied for wearing a head scarf to school. I doubt any of the bullies in that situation were really thinking about religion at the time, but where do their ideas come from that that is OK? The many people who express that Islam is a bad and violent religion sure aren’t helping.

    Without addressing the underlying reasons for violence and fear of those who are different, it’s too easy to imagine a majority atheist classroom picking on the few “religious” kids.

    The history of Mormonism should give some food for thought on this. They had abhorrent beliefs about plural marriage, and outsiders found justification to treat them violently. Then, of course, the Mormons found reasons to be violent right back. Typical tragic pattern of human behavior.

  6. 6
    bil says:

    I agree with the content of the second article, but it has one passage that always annoys me:

    “stud” is a complimentary word for a promiscuous man,

    No, it isn’t.

    I agree that men are encouraged to have lots of sex, and women are condemned for the same behavior, but has anyone used the word “stud” in a non-ironic fashion at any point in the last 30 years? I just did a Google Blog search, and in the first 10 pages I came up with references to poker, earrings, farm animals, home renovation, and a single sneering reference to Jersey Shore’s “The Situation.”

    It’s just not a word that gets used to describe men, except in a rolling-the-eyes sense. When I was in high school (20 years ago), we called promiscuous guys “male sluts.” Again, they weren’t shamed to the same degree that promiscuous girls were, but we would never use the use “stud” because it sounds like you’re referring to Burt Reynolds in 1972.

    Literally the only time I’ve heard “stud” used in the praising sense was in the formulation: “Men are called ‘studs’ and women are called ‘sluts.'”

    So can we discuss the double standard without claiming that people use the word “stud” to praise men? Because they don’t.

  7. 7
    Clarisse Thorn says:

    @bil, you’re not the first person to point that out to me, and I think I actually agree at this point. It’s a shame because the “stud/slut” differential is such nice shorthand for the problem!

    But the fact that “stud” is now ironic rather than outright complimentary says something about how male sexuality is perceived too, I think.

  8. 8
    lauren says:


    But she isn’t saying that she disrespects everyone who belongs to a certain religion. She is saying that she sees absolutely no reason to respect people who use religion as way to justify their bigoted, homophobic views and who think that “but it’s my religion” gives them a blanket excuse to hurt others. And especially thoe who think that “hate the sin, not the sinner” nonsense can take away their culpability in what GLBT people are forced to deal with every day.

    That is not the same as saying “all muslims are evil terrorists”, and claiming that it is contributes to the “oh, we are so persecuted (even though we are the powerfull majority) nonsense that people on the religious right love to spout”.

    She has conciously not singled out one religion, but a certain kind of behviour. And it is the behaviour of the people who are bullies, not those who are victims of bullying. Those people do not deserve to have their “position” respected.

  9. 9
    Robert says:

    Clarisse, how about “player”? That’s often, if not always, used admiringly. And even when people use it derogatorily, there is still a certain admiration implicit in the usage. “Don’t date him, he’s such a player” isn’t saying he’s an awful person so avoid him, it’s saying he’s very successful romantically and you won’t be his #1.