Sexism - Two steps forward, one step back
JustGB
Posted December 8, 2008 | 02:58 PM (EST)
The Huffington Post
Five Sexist Trends the Advertising World Just Can't Shake
Alex Leo
This was a big year for women: The first serious female presidential
candidate, the first predominately female state senate, the first
female Top Chef. Yet the advertising world has not caught up to the
advances of half our population and continues to use stereotypes and
violence to prey on our most vile desires. Here are the worst of them--
the trends that won't die despite our cultural outrage, and personal
boredom.
BONDAGE - This year Remy Martin debuted it's "things are getting
interesting" campaign that features a mediocre Website and a series of
billboards/magazine spreads depicting women in degrading bondage
positions. You may think, "hey this one shows two women, there aren't
even men involved, how can it be sexist?" But most of the ads (not
available online) have men between the two women in controlling
positions. And even without that, these women are obviously putting on
a show for an outsider, not having a passionate lesbian love affair
for themselves. These types of ads gain traction in cultural periods
of female advancement--capturing the fantasy of "putting us back where
we belong."
Remy Martin describes its followers as "influential, social, and
multicultural urban males, ages 25 to 35." Men of this ilk and age
range (read: over 16) should know better than to fall for this kind of
pandering. If we switch the view from this being sexy, to this being a
pathetic attempt to make an undersexed male feel powerful in the face
of female accomplishment, the image loses its appeal. I would like to
start a "things that are not interesting" campaign, which would
include men insecure enough about themselves that they can't talk to
women who aren't physically degraded. I would also include cognac.
RAPE -- The world of high fashion has been the worst offender in the
violence-as-art game. Cavalli had pirates, Chanel had a wife beater,
and now Dolce and Gabbana has this.
Let's get this out there now: It's not edgy, it's ridiculous. This is
a gang rape, and any woman that sees those shoes instead of that
message deserves those shoes. Any man who doesn't see that this is
rape is probably looking at one of the hard bodies in the background
and therefore not really a threat to women.
"SLUTS" -- Much like the Calvin Klein ads of the early 90s--you
remember the ones that made you feel like you were watching child
porn, cause you sorta were--this ad offers a young woman (with the
face of a small child) posed in a sexually suggestive manner. They are
offering you a virgin in looks and expression, and a slut in the
tagline: "You know you're not the first." She's been fucked before--
she knows what she's doing. She's been used so you can do whatever you
like to her. That's the implicit message of this ad. She's young and
nubile, but not prudish. She's the ultimate fantasy: a virgin who
won't say no to anything.
This combination of the Madonna and the whore is ultimately a fantasy
of degrading both body and mind. This girl is in no way a threat:
she's young and won't say no, no one has to offer her anything, she is
just there for your needs, just like a car.
GIRL ON GIRL ACTION -- Oh my god is this played out. We get it, some
men find the idea of two women together appealing. MTV has reality
shows devoted to it, casual and exploitative lesbianism is now a part
of our culture. But aren't companies like Nikon supposed to be better
than that? They bring us goofy Ashton Kutcher commercials (not that
those are okay either) and sponsor the Boston Red Sox (yeah, that's
pretty bad too). But they are a staple of the photography world and
should be held to a higher standard than Tila Tequila. There are many
meanings to the term corporate responsibility and one of them is not
to fetishize female sexuality.
CUM SHOTS -- Forgive me that lewd term, but I didn't know how else to
phrase it. I can't open a magazine anymore without seeing a thinly-
veiled coital moment posing as an advertisement for some sort of
beauty product. Jezebel tracked these for a while, rounding up the
worst offenders.
The images and tag lines reinforce the idea of women sex receptacle,
and therefore simply a receiver of sex, not one engaging in an equal
process. This ad reads "I Want You All Over Me," which is as subtle as
it is sexy. As Jezebel points out, women like orgasming too, sex is
not just about male pleasure, it's a two way road and all of these ads
find their own way around that truth.
The fact that these trends are so widespread is not the fault of the
advertising world--these people are paid to appeal to our ids, they
are often self-aware in their tendency to make the world harder for
women, that's the life they've chosen. It is mainstream companies like
BMW, Mitchum, Nikon, mainstream publications that host these images,
and mainstream readers who use these products despite their appalling
treatment of women that are truly to blame. The advertising world
reacts to client demands and consumer activity--we have control over
only one of those fields.
toramjero
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-leo/five-trends-the-advertisi_b_14...
Actually, this article is a not so subtle criticism of women. Half of
the pictured advertisements depicts products marketed for women. I
would therefore think that a sizable proportion of women responds
positively to these advertisements, that they are attracted to
fantasies which depict them as sexually submitted to men. Yet the
author cannot hide her contempt for these women: "any woman that sees
those shoes instead of that message deserves those shoes". But
obviously some customers of D&G WANT to wear those shoes and LIKE to
imagine themselves in that position of submission to a gang of half
naked, sweaty, muscular young males.
(And Tom will probably say "not enough" at this point. We all know
from his blog that he is working out very hard to become
muscular. ;) )
(The google captcha on this post is "spermi". I am not making this up.)
Tom Allen
> On Dec 11, 7:07 am, JustGB <gettingb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-leo/five-trends-the-advertisi_b_14...
>>
>> Posted December 8, 2008 | 02:58 PM (EST)
>> The Huffington Post
>> Five Sexist Trends the Advertising World Just Can't Shake
[snip blah blah]
>> The fact that these trends are so widespread is not the fault of the
>> advertising world--these people are paid to appeal to our ids, they
>> are often self-aware in their tendency to make the world harder for
>> women, that's the life they've chosen. It is mainstream companies like
>> BMW, Mitchum, Nikon, mainstream publications that host these images,
>> and mainstream readers who use these products despite their appalling
>> treatment of women that are truly to blame. The advertising world
>> reacts to client demands and consumer activity--we have control over
>> only one of those fields.
Fashion editor Hadley Freeman had an interesting take on this in her
short book "The Meaning of Sunglasses". We - that is, those of us on our
high horses complaining about such advertising - act on the assumption
that women are mindless idiots without enough sense to see the imagery
and determine that it's bad; that women are slaves to advertising and
marketing, and will buy anything with an edgy marketing gimmick.
It's not a very feminist perspective about other women, and it's most
assuredly not true.
Such ranting completely ignores that women have their own inner
fantasies and desires. The fact that BDSM images in advertising have
such a wide appeal suggests that *some* women are titillated and
attracted to it, just as placing a sports car or mostly naked women on
the page with anything else will appeal to men.
> Actually, this article is a not so subtle criticism of women. Half of
> the pictured advertisements depicts products marketed for women. I
> would therefore think that a sizable proportion of women responds
> positively to these advertisements, that they are attracted to
> fantasies which depict them as sexually submitted to men. Yet the
> author cannot hide her contempt for these women: "any woman that sees
> those shoes instead of that message deserves those shoes".
The advertising world reacts to consumer activity, but the consumers are
not sheep. Some women *do* have rape fantasies, some women *do* enjoy
bondage, some women *do* enjoy a bit of exhibitionism. And it's okay to
do so - having a rape *fantasy* (or indulging in one through a D&G ad)
is not the same as condoning rape.
> But
> obviously some customers of D&G WANT to wear those shoes and LIKE to
> imagine themselves in that position of submission to a gang of half
> naked, sweaty, muscular young males.
These ads would not have played well a generation ago, but now they
actually play off post-modern thinking; these kinds of ads (and women's
enjoyment of them) completely mock the old-school feminism.
> (And Tom will probably say "not enough" at this point. We all know
> from his blog that he is working out very hard to become
> muscular. ;) )
I told you - I'm looking to start a second career as a "mature" fetish
model for the aging boomer BDSM market. What 60 year old dominatrix
could resist imagery of a 50 year old beefcake in leather manacles?
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com/
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself. I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> This was a big year for women: The first serious female presidential
> candidate,
Wait a second. Assuming that we're talking strictly about the U.S.
here, which is the only interpretation that makes sense, did I miss
something? There was no female presidential candidate this year. There
was a woman in the primaries, but there have been women in the primaries
before.
Tom Allen
Well, from the media attention given to her instead of McCain, you'd
think that Palin actually *was* running for Prez.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> Irfon-Kim Ahmad wrote:
>> JustGB <getti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This was a big year for women: The first serious female presidential
>>> candidate,
>>
>> Wait a second. Assuming that we're talking strictly about the U.S.
>> here, which is the only interpretation that makes sense, did I miss
>> something? There was no female presidential candidate this year. There
>> was a woman in the primaries, but there have been women in the primaries
>> before.
>
> Well, from the media attention given to her instead of McCain, you'd
> think that Palin actually *was* running for Prez.
I suppose that's true, but she still wasn't *actually* running for
President. I'm curious if they'll run her next time, though. She
doesn't seem like she'd fare well vs. Obama in a debate.
Elizabeth
> Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Irfon-Kim Ahmad wrote:
>
> >>> This was a big year for women: The first serious female presidential
> >>> candidate,
>
> >> Wait a second. Assuming that we're talking strictly about the U.S.
> >> here, which is the only interpretation that makes sense, did I miss
> >> something? There was no female presidential candidate this year. There
> >> was a woman in the primaries, but there have been women in the primaries
> >> before.
>
> > Well, from the media attention given to her instead of McCain, you'd
> > think that Palin actually *was* running for Prez.
>
> I suppose that's true, but she still wasn't *actually* running for
> President. I'm curious if they'll run her next time, though. She
> doesn't seem like she'd fare well vs. Obama in a debate.
To those of us outside the US observing it all, Palin came across as
inept, arrogant, and lacking understanding of America's place in the
rest of the world (let alone knowing where the rest of the world is -
that debacle on Africa). But, hey, this has nothing to do with
sexuality.
Lusus Naturae
>To those of us outside the US observing it all, Palin came across as
>inept, arrogant, and lacking understanding of America's place in the
>rest of the world (let alone knowing where the rest of the world is -
>that debacle on Africa). But, hey, this has nothing to do with
>sexuality.
No, it certainly doesn't have anything to do with sexuality or gender.
After all, you've just described George W. Bush.
--
Lusus Naturae
Tom Allen
Which didn't stop you from making that comment, did it?
It came out a few weeks ago that many of the "dumb" comments supposedly
made by Palin were simply rumors, or actual comments taken out of
context and reported by McCain supporters, in order to blame Palin for
McCain's loss. So, I'm not sure how she came across outside of the US
when most of those "comments" were not even aired.
Bringing this back on topic - sort of - I was amazed and disappointed at
the reaction of various women to Palin's appointment. There was an
immediate movement to paint her as an incompetent bimbo, and quite a bit
of criticism focused on her religious faith, and the fact that she had a
Down's Syndrome child that was going to need a lot of care.
To me, it suggested that so-called Feminists were all about having
"choice" as long as it was a choice that agreed with their own
predilections. Apparently, a woman who chooses to be politically
conservative and to practice a more conservative faith is making the
"wrong" choice, and deserves to be torn down.
ObSex - this situation reminds of of how it's typically women themselves
who label other women "sluts" when it looks like they - the sluts - are
enjoying themselves too much.
--
Tom Allen
http://tom-allen.livejournal.com/
Bob Eld
"Tom Allen" <taoml...@MEsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:sSF0l.8040$W06....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
Palin painted herself as a bimbo, nobody did it for her.
Elizabeth
> Elizabeth wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 1:02 am, Irfon-Kim Ahmad <ir...@ambienautica.com> wrote:
> >>> Well, from the media attention given to her instead of McCain, you'd
> >>> think that Palin actually *was* running for Prez.
> >> I suppose that's true, but she still wasn't *actually* running for
> >> President. I'm curious if they'll run her next time, though. She
> >> doesn't seem like she'd fare well vs. Obama in a debate.
>
> > To those of us outside the US observing it all, Palin came across as
> > inept, arrogant, and lacking understanding of America's place in the
> > rest of the world (let alone knowing where the rest of the world is -
> > that debacle on Africa). But, hey, this has nothing to do with
> > sexuality.
>
> Which didn't stop you from making that comment, did it?
No. True.
>
> It came out a few weeks ago that many of the "dumb" comments supposedly
> made by Palin were simply rumors, or actual comments taken out of
> context and reported by McCain supporters, in order to blame Palin for
> McCain's loss. So, I'm not sure how she came across outside of the US
> when most of those "comments" were not even aired.
We heard about them. We Australians are very interested in our own and
overseas politics and tend to get probably more than our fair share of
political commentary.
>
> Bringing this back on topic - sort of - I was amazed and disappointed at
> the reaction of various women to Palin's appointment. There was an
> immediate movement to paint her as an incompetent bimbo, and quite a bit
> of criticism focused on her religious faith, and the fact that she had a
> Down's Syndrome child that was going to need a lot of care.
I was not interested in her religious faith, nor her Down's Syndrome
child requiring a lot of care, or any other off topic issues. I was
interested in her politics. Even though I tend towards left-wing
politics in contradiction to Palin's, I was struck by Palin's
ignorance about world events. This fact made me cringe. I cringe at
the ignorance of male politicians too. Bush was very cringeworthy, as
was Australia's former Prime Minister (John Howard). Palin's gender
was not the issue for me.
So please don't think that my comments arise from a peculiar rejection
of women and a strange backflip on feminist issues. My comments do not
have anything to do with this. Incompetence and ignorance are not
necessarily gender issues, after all.
>
> To me, it suggested that so-called Feminists were all about having
> "choice" as long as it was a choice that agreed with their own
> predilections.
See above.
>Apparently, a woman who chooses to be politically
> conservative and to practice a more conservative faith is making the
> "wrong" choice, and deserves to be torn down.
See above.
>
> ObSex - this situation reminds of of how it's typically women themselves
> who label other women "sluts" when it looks like they - the sluts - are
> enjoying themselves too much.
Agreed. But my comments arose from an interest in politics. I like
sex, I've been labelled a slut, but who cares.
toramjero
>
> Agreed. But my comments arose from an interest in politics. I like
> sex, I've been labelled a slut, but who cares.
Actually, most people care, I think.
Your last comment made me realise that I wanted to ask just that
question to the members of the group. I think that many people are not
that happy about their sexual life (men and women), have fantasies
that they keep to themselves and would like to be a little bit more
adventurous at least part of the time. The majority of them do not do
it and stay somewhat frustrated. The main reason that they do not do
anything is indeed because they care about the opinion of others.
Either the opinion of their significant other or the opinion of their
neighbours and familly in general.
For example, many men and women would like their partner to be more
adventurous, or are attracted to other people in addition to their
partner, but will not discuss it because they fear a strong reaction
from their partner. Yet, there are people who get their partner to
become more adventurous (e.g. play sexual games or fantasies) and
people who discuss their attraction for others with their partners and
even live it (e.g. polyamory).
The other case would be people who have, alone or together with a
partner, an attraction to a particular practice but will refrain to do
it, because they fear problems with their neighbors or at work. Yet
there are people who dress provocatively, go to sex clubs and make it
at least semi-public, take part in street animation in bondage attire
during Christopher street day, etc...
Why? In the first case, do they generally chose more tolerant
partners? Do they indeed care less about the opinion of their partner?
In the second case: do they chose their work and neighbors so that it
is not a problem? Do they simply have problems (like being considered
as a slut as in the original post) but just minor? Do they have bigger
problems (like losing one's job) but chose to fight? If they fight, is
this because they know they can get help (e.g. as homosexuals who have
relatively efficient organisations to fight discrimination)?
Matthew Vincent
I think "first serious female presidential candidate in the US" is a
fair description of Hillary Clinton. She's the first woman in US
history to win a primary, and she would have nailed John McCain on the
economy if she'd been the nominee for the Democrats. Between Clinton's
good work in 2007 and the successful election of the first black
president, we're now so much closer to having a first female
president. Heck, even the Republicans fielded a poorly qualified
female vice presidential candidate.
I respect Hillary Clinton a great deal, and I like what I've seen of
Michelle Obama so far, but I'm leaning towards thinking that it would
be best if the first female president were not married to a former
president. Hillary Clinton had been my #1 fav person to be president
for most of the past eight years, but I'm glad that Barack Obama's
going to be president now and I really respect his ability to inspire
people for positive change.
Far more important to me, though, is that the first female president
should be pro-choice on abortion and generally socially liberal. If
Sarah Palin somehow managed to become the first female president, then
I'd find that offensive and a slap in the face to women's rights. What
she did with the rape kits in Wasilla is beyond the pale for any
politician, but doubly so for someone aspiring to be the first female
president or VP.
Matthew
Elizabeth
> On Dec 13, 10:34 am, Elizabeth <eratedr...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Agreed. But my comments arose from an interest in politics. I like
> > sex, I've been labelled a slut, but who cares.
>
> Actually, most people care, I think.
>
> Your last comment made me realise that I wanted to ask just that
> question to the members of the group. I think that many people are not
> that happy about their sexual life (men and women), have fantasies
> that they keep to themselves and would like to be a little bit more
> adventurous at least part of the time. The majority of them do not do
> it and stay somewhat frustrated. The main reason that they do not do
> anything is indeed because they care about the opinion of others.
> Either the opinion of their significant other or the opinion of their
> neighbours and familly in general.
I gave up caring what other people think about me in the sexual realm
long ago. The people who judge me are not my friends; I really
couldn't give a damn about the opinions about me from people I've met
once or twice. Most people, anyway, are far more interested in
themselves than the affairs of others. When I realized this, I felt
enormously free. It really is wonderful not being burdened by what
you think others are thinking about yourself.
toramjero
Well, for once I do care about what my partner thinks about me... I
agree about neighbors, though: I don't care what they think because it
does not change anything for me. I would care about the people from
work, because I have to work with them. I would care about my family,
my parents too.
Those are typically the issues that, for example, homosexuals face
when "coming out of the closet". But to help them face these issues,
there is a whole network of support. There has been education of the
general public. There even are some laws against discrimination. (All
of which is a good thing, IMO).
But any people practicing a type of sexuality which is not mainstream
faces the same issues, yet I am not aware of any support network. As a
consequence, most of them chose to hide this side of their
personality, just as homosexuals chose to live in hiding not so long
ago. Some people however choose not to hide, either because it is a
requirement of their fantasy (e.g. people who enjoy being filmed or
photographed) or as a political act. I wonder if they were able to do
that because the risk was lower for them (that could be the difference
between living in a traditional community and a city like San
Francisco). I wonder what issues they really faced (for example some
porn actors have said that their family does not talk with them any
more).
And in all cases, there is the issue of the partner, unless your
particular fantasy is masturbation. So I also wondered how people deal
with that particular problem.
Sam Murai
"toramjero" <tora...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:4b5853cd-d0b3-43e0...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
-----------
I remembered in my Secondary School days, I used to have a friend who was
confused about his sexuality. He always made a display of being interested
in girls, but when he started associating with a schoolkid who was rather
effiminate and suspected of being gay, we were rather cruel and often made
fun of this friend.
When we caught up in later years, he had settled down his identity crisis
and decided that he was gay. For some strange reason, I had a newfound
respect for him and it was then I realised that I had made fun of him not
because of homophobia (although I can't say exactly the same for all the
other peers who made fun of him - there was always an element of homophobia
a couple of decades ago), but because of his lack of self-esteem and
(possibly) sense of shame.
Now that he was sure of himself and not ashamed to be gay, I even felt more
comfortable talking to him about his decision!
So the moral of the story is, if you are proud and certain of your beliefs,
preferences etc, then people will respect you more than if you feel ashamed
of it.
-Sam('s 2 cents)
Tom Allen
> When we caught up in later years, he had settled down his identity crisis
> and decided that he was gay. For some strange reason, I had a newfound
> respect for him and it was then I realised that I had made fun of him not
> because of homophobia (although I can't say exactly the same for all the
> other peers who made fun of him - there was always an element of homophobia
> a couple of decades ago), but because of his lack of self-esteem and
> (possibly) sense of shame.
Or maybe it was because of your own fears and insecurities about
yourself at the time?
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
toramjero
> So the moral of the story is, if you are proud and certain of your beliefs,
> preferences etc, then people will respect you more than if you feel ashamed
> of it.
>
> -Sam('s 2 cents)
That moral is probably worth a lot more than 2 cents.
Elizabeth
> On Dec 14, 2:10 am, Elizabeth <eratedr...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 8:25 pm, toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 13, 10:34 am, Elizabeth <eratedr...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > Agreed. But my comments arose from an interest in politics. I like
> > > > sex, I've been labelled a slut, but who cares.
>
> > > Actually, most people care, I think.
>
> > > Your last comment made me realise that I wanted to ask just that
> > > question to the members of the group. I think that many people are not
> > > that happy about their sexual life (men and women), have fantasies
> > > that they keep to themselves and would like to be a little bit more
> > > adventurous at least part of the time. The majority of them do not do
> > > it and stay somewhat frustrated. The main reason that they do not do
> > > anything is indeed because they care about the opinion of others.
> > > Either the opinion of their significant other or the opinion of their
> > > neighbours and familly in general.
>
> > I gave up caring what other people think about me in the sexual realm
> > long ago. The people who judge me are not my friends; I really
> > couldn't give a damn about the opinions about me from people I've met
> > once or twice. Most people, anyway, are far more interested in
> > themselves than the affairs of others. When I realized this, I felt
> > enormously free. It really is wonderful not being burdened by what
> > you think others are thinking about yourself.
>
>
> But any people practicing a type of sexuality which is not mainstream
> faces the same issues, yet I am not aware of any support network. As a
> consequence, most of them chose to hide this side of their
> personality, just as homosexuals chose to live in hiding not so long
> ago. Some people however choose not to hide, either because it is a
> requirement of their fantasy (e.g. people who enjoy being filmed or
> photographed) or as a political act. I wonder if they were able to do
> that because the risk was lower for them (that could be the difference
> between living in a traditional community and a city like San
> Francisco). ...
I think you are hoping I would say that my previous participation in
the swinging community would be an issue of secrecy for me. At the
time I didn't ever have to keep any secret. I was not married and my
sexuality was not (in fact never has been) a subject for discussion
with my family. My sexual life is my own, I do not hide it nor do I
discuss it - unless asked.
toramjero
No, I didn't hope that. I did not remember that you participated in
the swinging community. But this would be a good example of something
that is difficult to discuss with a partner. And I don't follow you
when you say that it could be an issue of secrecy. Isn't swinging
somethink that one is supposed to do as a couple?
Elizabeth
I participated with a male friend. I actually met my partner (de facto
husband) at the club, so he knows!!! You spoke of off-centre sexual
practices being a possible issue of secrecy; my response was in answer
to that. No secrecy, per se, but not an item of discussion among the
general population.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> Why? In the first case, do they generally chose more tolerant
> partners? Do they indeed care less about the opinion of their partner?
> In the second case: do they chose their work and neighbors so that it
> is not a problem? Do they simply have problems (like being considered
> as a slut as in the original post) but just minor? Do they have bigger
> problems (like losing one's job) but chose to fight? If they fight, is
> this because they know they can get help (e.g. as homosexuals who have
> relatively efficient organisations to fight discrimination)?
You posit initially that most people want to do these things and are
frustrated, and I just don't think that's true, or at least as widely
true as proposed. I think that a lot of people are perfectly happy with
their sex lives and don't do things with the sort of public display
aspect that you seemed to be referring to because they really don't want
to.
In other cases, people may not care that much. Everyone prioritizes
things differently. It may be that someone idly thinks that swinging
might be fun but isn't sure how their partner would react to the
suggestion and values the stability of their relationship more. They
might not be all that frustrated, and ultimately it might just not work
out to be worth the risk to them.
For people who *are* out in some public way about non-mainstream aspects
of their life, be it their sex lives or other things, I think that there
are a lot of reasons.
Many people find that ultimately people don't care -- that it's not as
big a deal as you fear it might be. For example, I'm polyamorous (which
I don't see as a strictly sexual thing, but you did mention it) and
fairly open about that. It's just never been that big a deal. I didn't
specifically select a social milieu that was more accepting, as you
mentioned at one place. It's just that honestly, most people don't care
a whole lot. Some of that is luck and geography and so on, I'm sure,
but a lot of it is the principle that if you don't make a big deal about
something or act like it's a big deal, then often other people won't
react as if it's a big deal.
Other things where people have been actively persecuted, often they just
fight for their rights out of the principle, and to help others who feel
the same way so that they won't have to go through the same thing in the
future.
I think there are a lot of reasons for why and why not people act the
way they do. The question is really kind of broad.
toramjero
> toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Why? In the first case, do they generally chose more tolerant
> > partners? Do they indeed care less about the opinion of their partner?
> > In the second case: do they chose their work and neighbors so that it
> > is not a problem? Do they simply have problems (like being considered
> > as a slut as in the original post) but just minor? Do they have bigger
> > problems (like losing one's job) but chose to fight? If they fight, is
> > this because they know they can get help (e.g. as homosexuals who have
> > relatively efficient organisations to fight discrimination)?
>
> You posit initially that most people want to do these things and are
> frustrated, and I just don't think that's true, or at least as widely
> true as proposed. I think that a lot of people are perfectly happy with
> their sex lives and don't do things with the sort of public display
> aspect that you seemed to be referring to because they really don't want
> to.
I was not referring to a single practice. Don't you think that many
people are not that happy about their sexual life (men and women),
have fantasies that they keep to themselves and would like to be a
little bit more adventurous at least part of the time? I agree that it
is probably not all people.
>
> In other cases, people may not care that much. Everyone prioritizes
> things differently. It may be that someone idly thinks that swinging
> might be fun but isn't sure how their partner would react to the
> suggestion and values the stability of their relationship more. They
> might not be all that frustrated, and ultimately it might just not work
> out to be worth the risk to them.
>
> For people who *are* out in some public way about non-mainstream aspects
> of their life, be it their sex lives or other things, I think that there
> are a lot of reasons.
>
> Many people find that ultimately people don't care -- that it's not as
> big a deal as you fear it might be. For example, I'm polyamorous (which
> I don't see as a strictly sexual thing, but you did mention it) and
> fairly open about that. It's just never been that big a deal. I didn't
> specifically select a social milieu that was more accepting, as you
> mentioned at one place. It's just that honestly, most people don't care
> a whole lot. Some of that is luck and geography and so on, I'm sure,
> but a lot of it is the principle that if you don't make a big deal about
> something or act like it's a big deal, then often other people won't
> react as if it's a big deal.
>
My experience has been different. A sizeable number of people react as
if it is a big deal when non vanilla sexual practices are mentionned,
even before they are actually done. They also freely criticise
neighbors if they get wind of anything, stories they see on TV or read
about, the partner of their distant friends when the friend leaves him
because of disagreement on sex, etc.
cmbright
All children are raised with a particular combination of how to view
the world, what practices are acceptable and what practices are not,
etc. depending on family, religion, political party (if applicable),
culture, etc.
What I believe changes from adult to adult is whether they have
consciously questioned the customs and moires they were raised with.
Someone raised with, for example, condom/contraceptive use being
socially wrong and who has never really thought for oneself whether it
is or not as well as if it is relative, wrong for oneself but others
may differ, is probably going to tell people that they are bad people
for even considering using a condom or other form of contraception.
Reading The Crucible during grade school created a bit of a question
in my mind. As a result, I have thought a lot about religion,
culture, customs, etc. throughout my life.
Some things are going to create a knee-jerk reaction in me, such as
incestuous erotic fiction, yet even there I can see potential for
fictional writing as long as potential negative elements such as sex
with children or potential genetic defects in offspring can be worked
around.
I remember several years ago my spouse suggested anal sex. I looked
at him, changed the subject, thought about it for a while, did some
private experimentation and decided it was enjoyable. Not something
I'd ever thought about, let alone fantasied about doing, but I was
willing to think about it and explore the possibility of someday
engaging in the activity.
Just some thoughts based on my experiences, my education formal as
well as informal, and the conclusions I've reached over the years.
And since it's just rattled off, somewhat randomly, based on other
comments here, neither complete nor set in stone.