AndrewV69 wrote:VAXherd wrote:
[hostile] No, the difference is that social sciences speak to things people think they already understand, and frequently say things they don't want to hear. It's like everyone's a biblical literalist and we're studying fossils. [/hostile]
Sounds like a lot of topics discussed in the Manosphere. Speaking of which here is something that seems to have upset Susan Walsh over at Hooking up Smart:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/08/1 ... the-penii/
[…] Anyway, after reading the article do you have any thoughts? I would be interested in what you have to say.
Now that you mention it, I have heard Karen Straughan / Girl Writes What say something like "feminism tells us what we thought we already knew."
About the article: Is it possible to have a recursive fractal headache?
There are several things I think are good points:
- People start having sexual interests much earlier
than we want to remember that we did thantheyusedto. Ten years old; fifth, sixth grade.
- I've seen things about pornography invading the general culture in other places too. It was always obvious to me that porn was "for entertainment purposes only," not relationship advice. Maybe Dan Savage knows what's up but I don't.
- It's very refreshing that in the study being cited "Steiner-Adair doesn’t see these boys as predators. Rather, she says, their emotional needs have been neglected." But the first correlation I would check for is fatherlessness. Perhaps the study did, but it's not mentioned.
There is, however, an elephant in the room. I see scarcely a word about why the girls are participating. Plenty about how awful the boys' behavior is, but nothing about the girls' motivation. They are depicted as devoid of agency. If that issue was left out of the original study that's an appalling oversight, and for Walsh to offer advice without understanding the full problem is doubtful.
You remember that recursive headache? Walsh writes this
salcious thing about wild teen nookie, and excuses it by saying how unpleasant it all is. With girls who are participating in unseemly ribaldry, and excusing it by saying how unpleasant it all is.
A few more items:
The girl described the conversation as “a stupid, disgusting exchange,†adding that it was “typical for the boys at our school.†Still, the girl became intrigued when the boy revealed in a subsequent note that he liked her.
Exchange?
Subsequent note?
“She said boys often expressed a desire for a deeper connection with girls, but felt confused about how to make it happen. They are yearning for intimacy that goes beyond biology. They just don’t know how to achieve it.â€
Old as time.
[A]pparently whipping out one’s johnson (figuratively and literally) is the new “Come here often?â€
That was filthy
and I don't believe it.
Kristy shared a story about a different kind of coercion. She had been making out with a guy at his house, not sure how far she wanted to go, when he stood up and told her, “Get down on your knees.â€
Sounds like someone's been reading grandma's romance novels.
I have never in my life watched a man pull out his own penis…
How old is this Susan Walsh? If she's out of college that's sad.
When a man grabs your hand and places it on his penis without your consent, he is committing sexual assault by compelling you to touch him. Full stop. […] Consent need not be verbal, by the way.
Ye gods! Misunderstanding mine field dead ahead! You might as well declare the whole planet a prison.
The only way men will learn that this behavior is inappropriate and illegal is if women demonstrate that this is not “goofing around†or “flirting,†much less courting.
Or if their fathers explain it to them when told "There's this girl I like, but I don't know how to talk to her."
