Unified Theory of Kink

UPDATE: On second thought, too simple and reductionist even with all the 'generally' and 'I think' etc. I still think it's an interesting trend, though.

Apologies to regular readers for going over old ground, I'm trying to make this post more accessible.

I've heard the theory, attributed to Dan Savage, that kinks come from people's fears (though I haven't found a reference). My theory starts with that and takes it a few steps farther. Here it is:

Men generally are taught by the culture to be afraid of being disgusting; men's kinks are mostly oriented around either overcoming that or owning it but saying it's OK.

Women generally are taught by the culture to be afraid of being victimized, and to be afraid of being considered a slut; women's kinks are mostly oriented around either overcoming those or owning them but saying it's OK.

Women and men, of course, both have more fears that impact their sexuality than I list here. These are the ones I see as primarily shaping kink, though.

Men are Gross

The idea that men are gross, disgusting, and unattractive is one we are trained to constantly from a very young age. "Sugar and spice and everything nice, that's what little girls are made of. Snips and snails and puppy dog tails, that's what little boys are made of." Do a Google search on "boys smell better than girls" and take a look at the results. I did it both ways to compare but since "boys smell better than girls" mostly returns "Why do girls smell better than boys?" that one pretty much makes my point by itself. Lots of those answers are to the effect of "girls care more", which is a self-fufilling prophecy insofar as it is true. Media mostly pictures guys as something girls put up with if and when they want something. I just recently wrote on the way men never show up on Kinky and Popular on Fetlife. Guy's genitalia is represented as being something horrifying that no one could want to see (e.g. Anthony Weiner), primarily due to the bizarre modern form of male homophobia. Seeing other people of the same gender naked was a normal part of life for all of history except in some of the past century, in locker rooms, bathrooms which weren't private unless you were rich, in barracks, in shared rooms at an inn. The obvious reaction of a straight man is indifference. Any man of an earlier time would consider the modern "eww" and avoidance to be unbelievably, suspiciously prissy and prima facie evidence of mental and sexual abnormality.

Really, I'm not sure how much I should bother to belabor this point, I think it's probably pretty obvious if you think about it. But the pervasiveness of it is probably difficult for women to imagine; easy to see though, if you start to look.

What's less obvious is how much this point is pushed by men rather than women. When I remember hearing "sugar and spice" I remember it in my father's voice. Men write most of the scripts and jokes in the mass media that imply women only put up with men when they want something. It is men who are so horrified by the idea of seeing a dick.

Men's kinks mostly seem to be based on the fear that we are gross. There are a few ways I think I see men reacting to that.

We can accept it but say it's OK. The style of submissive kinks I see in men can generally fit that mold. That's how my submissive side works. I may be disgusting, she may even tease about it, but if I serve her she will still touch me, still love me. I think when men go for helplessness, as in bondage, for example, the idea is that he can't do anything but she still wants to do something with him.

We can deny it, shout it down, by having our partner accept our sexuality in an exaggerated way. This is how my dominant side works. For this kind, it's essential that she be seen to be enjoying it. If she's happy about me cumming in her face, I can't really be that gross, can I? Or a play reluctance fantasy in which we agree beforehand that her role is someone who wants me but is ashamed to say because of social convention. Her enjoyment subverts the feelings of rejection. (Obviously the bad version of this is a guy trying to tell himself every woman wants him, or it.)

We can accept it but say it doesn't matter. That's another face of bondage, domination, and rape fantasy that I don't really get into. She may think I'm disgusting but she's tied up, she's my slave, I have the power. So it doesn't matter. I think there's also a revenge element in there. Oh, you think I'm gross, do you? I think this is the one that's active in actual rapists, but of course the kink doesn't make one a rapist. Also, I'd like to note again that the feeling of being gross is largely driven by other men; any revenge element is misplaced.

Women must be Pure

Women's kinks I don't know from the inside, I only know them from reading people's writing and guessing.

I guess if I were faced with slut-shaming aimed at me, one possibility would be to accept it but say it's OK. That seems to me to be what's going on with all the slut-shaming play some women like (the popularity of which was my biggest surprise, I think, in learning about kink.) If you, for example, write "SLUT" and "WHORE" and stuff on my naked body, and nothing bad comes of it, it disarms and conquers that threat.

Another possibility would be avoiding responsibility. If I'm tied up and he fucks me, it's not my fault. If I'm his slave, he's responsible. This one doesn't seem such a good match for the dominant men who want their 'disgusting' sexuality accepted (like my form of dominant), it goes better for the ones who want to feel that whether they're disgusting doesn't matter. I think the common desire for a strong man, who can "drive the bus" as I've heard it put, comes from this one.

I think perhaps women liking male orgasm denial may sometimes come from reversing this one; "I'm not the whore, you are." But orgasm denial in general is the popular kink I understand the least.

Women are Endangered

It seems to me that the main fear driving kink in women is fear of victimization, abuse, rape. Women are raised to be afraid of these things to an extent that is difficult for men, or at least me, to imagine. Women are taught the danger of being alone on a dark street, alone in a parking lot, alone with a strange man; when the danger, which has struck horrifyingly many women, is more from men they do know. Women have to be careful about people getting them a drink and putting rufies in it, for crying out loud. It's crazy that half of us have to live that way.

It seems to me that most women's kink is driven by that fear, in a way analogous to men's kink being fear of being disgusting. If I were a woman, I guess I'd have a similar set of options to the ones men have.

I could accept it but say it's survivable, conquerable, deal-with-able. That's how a large set of women's submissive kinks tend to look to me; all different ways and levels of putting themselves in a victim-like situation, from light bondage to highly realistic play rape. I am helpless, but it's OK because it's actually fun; I am helpless, but it's OK because he deeply loves me.

I could deny it, shout it down, by reversing it. Make him the victim by playing victimizer. That's what I tend most often to see in dominant women, in my very limited experience.

Update: Another factor is projection. A lot of times we imagine how good something that's our kink would feel to the other person. Or, I guess, perhaps the more empathetic among us do. So we basically treat our partner as if they had our kink, with varying results. When it doesn't work, at least it's among the most well-intentioned of failures. :)

Kinky And Popular

For a while now, I've been keeping an eye on the Kinky And Popular feature on FetLife. It's a list of pictures that some secret algorithm decides are popular, probably based on things like views, comments, people bookmarking it as "loved".

To get on there as a woman, you generally have to be slim, pretty, conventionally attractive, though not necessarily. I'm sure there's lots of diet, exercise, makeup, hairstyling generally involved. And you mostly have to be posing in a sexual way or doing something at least a little kinky; for your best chances, with another woman.

To get on there if you're a man, you have a few choices, listed from commonest to least common.

If there is a man involved in the action at all, you can be a faceless prop, attached to the cock being sucked, or the (invisible) face being peed on, by the woman who is the focus.

You can do all the stuff the women do, plus present as/identify as a woman and (usually) take female hormones to develop breasts.

Or, once, I've seen a cis man as the focus. A pair of cis men, actually. Shirtless men in jeans and striking ballerina poses (I do not believe that pose is typical of a ballerino) using the handrail in a dance studio. Clearly going for comedy by their expressions. Making a joke of themselves aspiring to the beauty or attractiveness the women can. (If you're on Fet, it's this one.) I do think it's good that we joke about it.

It's really difficult for a woman to be the focus; requires good genes, work, and more than anything else, luck. But a man can only do it by all that plus altering his body and gender identity to become a woman, or rarely, mocking his own inadequacy in a woman's domain.

Men don't usually talk about this kind of thing because we don't want to be seen as complaining. We're tough. But I think people should be aware of it because it underlies a lot of the differences in cis male and female behavior; this is just one example of a pervasive phenomenon. Can you name any female supermodels? Any male ones?

This is not the fault of women; it's because it's men doing most of the clicking and commenting. Men write most of the screenplays I see which have the same prejudice built in. Men write the commercials and jokes that mock men who try to be unapologetically sexy.

I've heard people on FetLife complain that so many doms are sociopaths, who care nothing for the feelings of others. Given an environment that says men can't be really sexy, how does one get the confidence to be a dom without being a sociopath, unless one is domming to compensate for feelings of insecurity and inadequacy?

I do not aspire to be on Kinky and Popular, I don't post kinky pics. But there are a lot of cis men who do, and I'd love to see one of them make it someday.

Cleaning theory for the worst of us

I've mentioned once or twice before that I am definitely one of the worst of us when it comes to cleaning. You've seen much worse if you've lived in a dorm, but still, not so good. This may be a useless idea for most of you that are more sensible than me, but perhaps you may find some area of life where it applies.

My problem is the one the famous Allie of Hyperbole and a Half expressed so well in This Is Why I'll Never Be An Adult:



When I started to clean, I've always picked a room and then tried to make it spotless. Note the room was always starting from a state of layers of greasy dog dander dust and dust & fur rhinos. Using a bagless vacuum I would end up emptying the cannister two or three times, in piles of dusty hair the size of a small cat each time. Starting from there and trying to end with all tchotchkies shining was usually impractical, especially with all the time I spent running around the house with objects trying to put them all in their proper place. So it was intimidating and depressing and left me thinking I'd failed whenever I cleaned.



Reflecting on Allie's "Why I'll Never Be An Adult," suddenly I connected this way of thinking with something Dennis Prager's wife says: "It's better than it was." Also, with "Perfect is the enemy of good enough."

I hit upon a new plan: Every night before I go to bed, I try to make the house cleaner than it was last night when I went to bed. This has been working well for a week, with a modification suggested by a friend: build days off into the schedule. E.g., Tomorrow night I want to go to a ballroom dance class that will leave me with no time for cleaning after work.

The big thing is, it leaves me feeling good about the cleaning I did instead of feeling bad about the cleaning I didn't do. And if I keep it up, someday, my house will be clean.

Tragedy of an Unwanted Sub

Longtime readers may remember how I was dating a woman, who I'm going to call N. here, then realized although I had imagined I was attracted to her because I could enjoy doing things for her (that were within my no-sex boundaries), yet I just didn't feel desire for her to do anything for me. Not having caught that from the beginning still feels like one of my worst mistakes. But, the way attraction works for me is the opposite of the way I'd imagined it. I was perfectly happy touching N.; but I felt no excitement at the idea of her touching me. I didn't fully understand it until I tried fantasizing about a possible married future. I am, for example, happy with the idea of giving cunnilingus to any woman, but I only get excited about the thought of fellatio from a woman I think is pretty.

Sometimes N. still texts me to say she misses me. (I always respond that I miss her too, which is true.) After I told her that the romantic relationship was over, we tried to remain friends. There were problems, but I thought it might be OK overall, until one evening when I friended another woman on FetLife, and N. flooded me with distraught text messages about it. I was at dinner with a third woman, who is a friend only, at the time; but I felt like I had to hide that, or hurt her more. So I told her I thought this was no good for her or me and we couldn't keep hanging out together.

The problem isn't that she wants me to love her; I do, like I love all my friends. It's that she wants me to love her romantically and exclusively. And I just am not offering that.

The tragedy, that really makes me want to cry about this, is that N. is a giving sort of sub, with such a good heart. She would have done anything I wanted, but I didn't want her to do anything. It doesn't seem fair, or right, that a person could offer so much and then not have it wanted. I feel that so much, I guess, because that's how my sub side works too; I want to increase my value by being willing to do anything, and when no one seems to want you even then, it cuts really deep.

For me this is OK now. I am wanted, though only for my dom side or vanilla side, so far never for my sub side. For N. and so many subs I see on FetLife making wistful posts about their future forever dom, it's really sad.

It's also sad for the lonely doms, who have to pretend to be iron and don't get to make wistful posts.

What to do on the spur of a bad moment?

This weekend was Wicked Faire; I had a great time like last year. More about that later, also someday there will be pictures of my costume, which turned out nice if I do say so as shouldn't.

But, there was an ugly incident I heard about. Some guy bit at least two women on the face (not hard enough to leave marks) without consent. The first one kind of froze, didn't know how to react. The second one was Sparkly Girl, who slapped him. He said "More" so she slapped him again harder. He started to grab a crop he was carrying and she held up a finger and said "No. You do not have permission." He backed down at that point.

I heard about it the next day. It was after a very short night after a string of short-sleep nights, and I was thinking really slowly. I voiced my disapproval of his actions, but since then it's gotten me thinking. The best way to make the right decision in a situation where thinking is difficult is to think it out as far as possible before hand. What should I have done?

The very unfortunate fact is from what I've heard, security and event organizers tend to try to cover these things up to protect the event rather than the attenders. I have no real reason to think this would be anything different; though I'd like to think better of the volunteer security guy I know by name, I don't REALLY know him. So if event security wouldn't want to do anything and the police wouldn't want to do anything, who does do something?

Should I have asked her to identify him to me, and challenged him to a fight outside? Should I have encouraged her to tell event security? If I were actually present, what should I do? Pretend I don't notice? Scold him? Take him down, put him in a pain compliance hold, and take him to security? (Pain compliance is super unreliable.) Given him a couple good, nauseating hits to remember? (wouldn't want to risk that it could be fun) Should I have asked Sparkly Girl if she would back me up by bringing sexual assault charges if he brought assault charges against me?

Forever.

I want forever in a marriage; well until death do us part. That isn't really forever, especially to someone who thinks he's got an immortal soul, but I think it's what is usually meant in romantic references such as songs. A lot of people think that wanting forever is the mark of a hopeless romantic yearning for the impossible. I'm going to be a little blunter than usual; they are wrong, there is plenty of clear evidence to the contrary. Marriage for life is still the norm in many parts of the world, was the norm in this part up until recently, and is still not all that uncommon here. And the people who engage in it, and the way married parents in those places/situations encourage their kids to marry, say they think it works pretty well.

Now, in some of the cases like marriage in India, where about 90% of marriages are arranged and there is almost no divorce, there are factors that help with that. One is clearly defined and socially enforced gender roles. A closely related one is limited expectations. The man does X, the woman does Y, and if both X and Y are kept up divorce is unthinkable; if they are not kept up the man or woman who doesn't keep them up is deeply shamed. X and Y are both quite doable and both viewed as sufficient. These two factors (enforced gender roles and limited expectations) obviously have their own cost; the cost of the first is basically the central point of many of the blogs I read.

One of the costs I guess at is a male-initiated sex life. In an Indian marriage, I suspect the man gets as much sex as he is willing to demand and argue for, and the woman gets as much sex as the man asks for. I have the impression that if she wants more she's basically expected to dress up and act sexy and try to get him to ask. I did agree to always be the one who initiated when my ex requested/demanded that after we were already married. But it's absolutely not something I would agree to from the beginning. It's a cost I'm not willing to pay, but I don't think it's required.

Another cost I guess at is that adultery is both fairly common and hypocritically vilified; winked at sometimes in private, loudly denounced in public. One of my coworkers apparently went to bars to pick up girls regularly while he was living here and his wife was living on the other side of the country. Cultural rules differ vastly on body language but another coworker, who spent the week near work without her husband and the weekend with her husband in another state, tended to look at me in a way that if she were American I would have considered an invitation to ask her out. (And boy, was she cute, so being eyed like that was kind of fun.) Another cost I wouldn't agree to from the outset, though not as bad as the "always-initiating" one in my mind.

I think there are things we can learn from other cultures, both in terms of what to do and what not to do. The thing I think we can particularly learn from in terms of what to do is limited expectations. There's a lot in forever that I would agree is impossible. It is impossible to keep the same kind of romantic feelings that sweep us off our feet in the first few years. Your spouse is only human; there will be mistakes and failures. And the main summary one is, your spouse will not, cannot, and is not responsible to, make you happy. Your spouse can and should be expected to do lots of predetermined things for you; but it's up to you to be happy with them.

I guess what I want is someone who will always love me the way I intend to always love her; love as an action, a decision. The earth from which all kinds of romantic emotion can spring. I have some record now of loving my exes despite poor treatment, and always trying to make it better. I want someone who will treat me the same way; who will always listen and try. Who I can be confident will keep trying to love me as I keep trying to love her, all our lives. And I don't think that's impossible; and I think that is love forever.

Self-Sabotaging Tastes

I have a (clean, safe for work) photo of a pretty young* blonde woman. She and a friend were selling pictures of themselves at the last Dorian's** to raise money for a cat charity. I think in conventional terms, probably prettier than this woman (NSFW), who happens to be a bit more to my taste because I like the black hair, somewhat darker skin, and the shape of her nose.

I chatted with both young ladies a while, they seemed happy to chat. They introduced themselves, and asked if they'd see me at other Dorian's. I asked the young lady to hold onto the photo, which is 8-1/2" x 11", until she was leaving, as I found it awkward to carry around. Later in the evening she came and found me as they were starting to pack their table, and said she wanted to be sure I got the pictures, and touched me on the arm and chest a few times while talking to me. She strongly gave me the impression that she considered me attractive, which as usual surprises me in such a pretty woman.

After admiring the picture of the black-haired girl (wishing she were more my age and that Mjukhet had more pictures near my age), I turned to get up, thinking there was no way someone who looked like that would be interested, and saw the picture of the blonde girl, and realized I was probably selling myself short again. And this would carry over into any social interaction. If I were to meet a woman my age who looked like the black-haired girl would, I would probably be especially reserved, eager not to show the hubris of thinking she might be interested, and I would come across as very cold and uninterested myself. I've noticed that I often encounter that kind of reserve in women I approach, and that the women who more approach me are much more attractive in conventional terms than the ones I approach; so I think I'm seeing the same phenomenon.

I know a couple that are a considerable mismatch in terms of looks; the husband, while by no means ugly, doesn't exactly stand out; the wife is quite beautiful (especially to my tastes, long black hair and olive skin). One time the subject of preferences came up, and I related mine, and she sighed and said to her husband (in a somewhat joking way), "I'm every man's dream except yours." I don't remember his tastes except that he likes blondes. I think that one of the reasons they ended up together was that he was the guy who was not intimidated by her looks, because they don't work so well for him.

So, I'm thinking not just league thinking but even our individual tastes sometimes sabotage us, entirely unnecessarily.


----


* My friends tell me I look about 32, not my actual age of 42. Women who approach me are usually in their early 20s; that's too much of an age gap for me, thinking of marriage. Not sure what to do about that.

** Yes that's where I get most of my blog fodder, also the highlight of my social life.

Self-righteousness and aversion fads

Over at NSWATM, there's an open thread regarding what people think is hot. I was struck by the number of comments saying things like "never a Republican" and "never a Christian". Those negative comments are pretty much always aimed at people like me; there are few negative comments aimed at looks (which is good that people are mostly sticking to the positive). But that kind of attitude is why I stay away from NSWATM most of the time despite being an Ozy fan.

I am turned off by the kind of self-righteousness and ignorant, prejudiced, insular groupthink it takes to make that kind of comment. One of the women I dated gave me a vibe of possibly being that way about people who are different in the sexual area, like LGBT/poly. So when I took her to Dorian's Parlor, I emailed some poly/bi friends and asked them specifically NOT to tone anything down around her or any other date I had. If she can't accept my friends, I'm not going to date her; and that goes for my friends with different politics or religion too.

I was thinking about commenting on this there, but I think it's probably a "never wrestle with a pig" situation.

Back to zero

Rook put in a good word for me about my New Year's Eve kiss thing with the pretty poly girl mentioned previously here and here. So that brings me back to zero cases in my life where a woman has done anything sexual in nature with me just based on my looks. Except maybe when a girl slapped my ass in passing in college. I am grateful that Rook did this because otherwise it just would have been the girl who rode with me, and since I was going for "anyone interested in the whole building" that would have been sad. But still, I'm feeling a bit like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football.

The zero number, really, is the fault of my behavior. I am so focused on being nice, nonthreatening, not a tease, that I come off as extremely reserved. Nobody's going to try anything at all, given my attitude. And I'll try to remember that, rather than focusing on zero.

My Line and perceptions of availability of sex

Last time I was single, between my first and second marriages, there were a number of women who expressed interest in me. (well, to be specific, ten). One time one of these women had expressed interest in what I'd look like naked. I mentioned that to my ex, at the time still just (I thought) a friend, and she exclaimed "Get in line!" After that we referred to the phenomenon as my line.

Now that I've been single for a while, that's forming again. A lot of it is women who are notably unattractive by conventional (also, unfortunately, by my) standards. (I wish I had better standards.) I think the attraction to me shows a bit of the often-noted phenomenon that women who are not conventionally attractive are invisible in a way.

I try to be nice to everybody, hot girl or not. Just a few days ago the Progressive Gun Fan noted that since his surgery I'd been one of his most frequent vistors, despite living over an hour away and being allergic to his cats. I'm interested in people, I like to listen. I'll give backrubs and massages to just about anybody. If you're a woman, I still rush to open doors for you, offer to carry things, etc, regardless of whether I want you or not. And I think a lot of women are not used to being treated that way, and they like it. Combined with the lack of pressure for sex, I suppose it makes me kind of look like a knight in shining armor.

But there's still something different in these 'invisible women' than 'invisible men'. Every woman who doesn't already know me has been on guard against sexual interest at first; their chief worry starts out that I want us to be friends with benefits or fuckbuddies. So while certainly women can have trouble getting sex when they want, generally they seem to perceive it differently.

I think there is probably a difference in expectations that shapes the difference in perception. Kissing the pretty poly girl New Year's Eve was a really big deal for me, and I've been trying to figure out why her rather than the other girls I've kissed. It wasn't just her looks. What I figured out is that that was the first time I've done anything sex-related where the woman had no conceivable motivation besides "he's hot". She doesn't know me, she'd only exchanged a few sentences with me before. It was enough to know that I am not some PUA who only wants sex from women. But, it can't have anything thing to do with me being nice or doing things for her or her feeling sorry for lonely me. I have been so steeped in the idea that sex is something women do because they want something else, like affection or security or marriage, that combined with my poor self-image it's always my assumption. The fact that I can't make this assumption is huge for me. As I wrote this I realized that I started out by explaining away "my line" in terms of that assumption; ironic, I'll leave it as is.

Women, I can tell, tend have their perceptions shaped by the inverse expectation. The women I meet normally suspect at first that I am nice because I want into their pants; ESPECIALLY where backrubs or massage are concerned. Not that I'm saying that's generally an unjustified assumption in cases other than mine. But I think probably there are a lot of women who think they have more sex available than they really do, and there is less kindness in the world than there really is, just because they are steeped in the idea that male kindness or politeness is a mask for desire.

Update: My friend Rook put in a good word for me with the pretty poly girl who kissed me, before the event. Which was very nice of her, she was trying to arrange more but most of her friends did not go that night. So, that brings me back from 1 to 0 cases of a woman doing anything sexual at all with me just based on looks.

Update: My rewrite of this was published at Role/Reboot!

Oh, dear

So, I finished my ex and the Saturnine Thespian's (the new guy's) shared blog Wednesday night, after my last post, something like 36,000 words. The parts where they were sharing things that I'm not into, I could rejoice with them the most. The parts where it was stuff I would have liked to do but she'd never open up with me? There was jealousy and anger. And there was some sadness from all of it.

At first, I was pretty distraught; I called up Determined Guy and Determined Girl and asked if I could come over for some company, not to be alone. They said yes, as I was sure they would, they're good people; we talked about it a bit. And I thought about things I had read the next day. How much love and devotion is in S.T.'s writing. How familiar my ex's love-and-devotion-promising responses sound, under the fet trappings. How her writing has tapered off much more than his since it started. How he apologizes for the lack of content, and she doesn't. How much he reveals of himself, his conventionally embarrassing kinks, his awkward adolescence; how she reveals nothing of her past but a vague reference to how she always had dark desires but was trapped by the vanilla world into hiding them. Her preposterously ironic (to me) musing on the beauty of devoted marriage that no one does in the modern world, delivered without the faintest hint of self-consciousness. His most recent post, talking about how his dreams are falling into place because of her.

And I thought, the poor guy.

And I thought about how most people have never heard her seriously admit a failure, and me only once. And how surprised she was at the idea that my family might be mad at her. And I thought how her memory seems to be run by the Ministry of Truth. And I thought about the times I've met him (S.T.) recently; I was extremely intent on showing that I was not a threat, not full of hate; but how from the very beginning he had none of the defensiveness that I would expect from someone meeting a distraught jilted ex-husband who is carrying a gun.

And I thought, how was all this presented to him?

And I thought, I probably owe her first husband an apology.

Discovery

A few weeks ago a couple of people contacted me on OKCupid and after I made certain they understood that I wasn't ready for a romantic relationship, I've been emailing back and forth. And that's taken up all my writing time. But, that's not the discovery.

This morning, sitting at home sick and fuzzy-headed from a cold, I decided on impulse to look up my ex's profile on FetLife. Wasn't hard. I use my face on my FetLife profile, so I imagine she's seen mine if she bothered to look. It's possible she could read this blog because until just now I used the same name on both places. But I strongly doubt it, I don't think she's that interested.

So, I learned a fair bit; her and the new guy write a lot together and post a lot of pictures. She's kinkier than me, though I always held back because she wouldn't open up; our sex life was much less kinky than either of us are. I always thought I was kinkier than her, because I was always the one suggesting things! I do wish she had told me, I would have done so much more for her. But, in the end, I think she'll be much happier with him. The main thing that makes me happy is that he sounds like he respects and values her greatly, which is a huge relief; so many in that kind of relationship come off as rather contemptuous in their writings. (And she him.) That makes me happy, though it's a happiness tinged with melancholy. Good luck to you two, and whatever others come into your life! (the relationship is somewhat open)

At least now I understand more of the why. And I guess being too vanilla is sort of another blow to my ego, but not really a bad one. Eh, it's what I like. It's better by far than for an unspecified reason. The dates on the writings start very soon after she left me, and before she initiated divorce proceedings. So, she left me partly for me, and partly for him. That's another relief to my ego. And now when people ask I can say she left me for another guy, which is much easier than "she couldn't really explain".

Some thoughts on the "sexual marketplace"

After reading the post and comments here, I was thinking about the perception of men wanting sex and women not wanting it. I think I can offer an unusual and illuminating perspective, because I was dating for a while and I will not have sex outside of marriage.

I did not get to know meet one woman who truly did not want sex in the sense of the "sexual marketplace" concept. I had one polite "if you ever change your mind", three attempts to argue me out of abstinence, one who slipped into a moment of "you're right but I don't care", one case of grabbing, and one who would not accept a massage because she thought it would be too tempting for her. (Going back over this in my head and writing it out has made it harder to hold on to certain of my bad self-image issues.)

Why was my experience so different than so many other men describe? First, to be fair to opponents of my thinking, I suppose a "Pick-Up Artist" would call me a natural alpha. I'm tall, I have a decent job, I've been told that I'm charming and handsome, and I come off as quite confident and alpha-type; people in the fetish community tend to assume I'm a dom from things like the way I carry myself and look people in the eye. But I don't think that is the main thing at all.

The main thing in my opinion that shapes my experience is that I am not looking for sex, I'm looking for friends. Inasmuch as I'm charming and confident, those are side effects. I'm charming because I actually want to hear about the woman I'm talking with. I'm confident because just not hitting it off with someone doesn't carry a giant sting of rejection. I'm not offering something so personal as sex and having that rejected; I think most people have reasonable ability not to be too hurt by finding out they don't have much in common with someone. All this I think would apply to anyone who wants to be friends more than they want a new sex partner.

But more than that, I don't think that many of us really want sex with a non-friend. There is an extremely strong cultural perception that that's obviously what men want, it's what a man has to do to be a normal man, but I think it's bullshit. Very few men who have the option of sleeping around pretty much whenever they want actutally choose that option. Famous male actors tend to get married, and have affairs, rather than just sleep around, and it's not like they can't just sleep around. Even in the cases where they do, there seems something psychologically fishy about it, like they're just doing what they've been told they're supposed to. Wilt Chamberlain, probably the king of sleeping around, talked about late in his life about how much he'd missed.

The culture tells men they have to want women's bodies if those bodies meet certain standards, regardless of the person attached; it tells women they have to view sex as nothing but a tool for manipulating men. I think the women I met were showing what is more natural for humans of all sexes; people want sex with people they like, first and foremost. Please note that I'm not going so far as to claim people are normally, naturally monogamous; I find that even more implausible than the "men just want sex" perspective. I'm sure not naturally monogamous. I'm just claiming that most of us primarily want sex with people we like.

Another factor is that by bringing up the issue of abstinence before marriage very early (like clearly stated in my online profiles and brought up within about the first hour of conversation with people met face-to-face), I take the defensive pressure off the woman who is used to the idea of people trying to get her into bed whether they care about her or not. I suppose a PUA would see this as the ultimate "neg".

I am a kindly reptile.

I was recently reading the Wikipedia entry on John Lee's classification of love styles. The short version is:

* Eros - a passionate physical and emotional love based on aesthetic enjoyment; stereotype of romantic love
* Ludus - a love that is played as a game or sport; conquest; may have multiple partners at once
* Storge - an affectionate love that slowly develops from friendship, based on similarity (kindred to Philia)
* Pragma - love that is driven by the head, not the heart; undemonstrative
* Mania - obsessive love; experience great emotional highs and lows; very possessive and often jealous lovers
* Agape - selfless altruistic love; spiritual

I was thinking how I exhibit Eros and Agape but most of all Storge. If not for my religious position, I could, I think, fairly easily suck a bisexual male friend's cock simply because it's not a big deal to me. That's Storge. I would not get off on it, or want the favor returned, because it wouldn't be a favor; it has no appeal. Men do not attract me, many women do; that's Eros.

Reading about it, I hit this bit: "disadvantages [of Storge] may include a lack of passion and potential boredom in the relationship." It hit me then that that was probably what my ex could never explain, and what she's probably looking for now with the consensual nonconsent. Passion; fire; abandon. I am so very polite and careful, almost all the time; I am warm and caring (though I became cooler as the relationship worsened) but never hot and passionate.

I wanted to be hotter and more passionate, but I didn't feel like I could with the lack of communication. What did she like? What was OK? What made her happy? I wanted to let myself go more, but I had no idea where I could go. I was more passionate about submission than anything else, because there I felt letting myself go was safe for both of us. But in general, the less I thought she appreciated me, the more diffident I became. Not hot, not passionate. Cold-blooded. A kindly reptile.

And I imagine that explaining it would have made it not count. If she has to say "take me", then she isn't exactly being taken right? She's still giving herself. If she wants reckless abandon, and she has to say "don't worry if you hurt me a little pinning my wrists, I'll like it," then there isn't really reckless abandon.

But to be perfectly honest, I do not see that the kink as in the above paragraph can be indulged without evil. "Taking", if it is for real, if there is no consent, is rape isn't it? And if it requires telepathy to distinguish it from rape, well, I don't believe in telepathy. I don't want to minimize the difficulty of coming out and saying what you want, and I can't imagine what impact it has on the fantasy. But as far as I can see it just has to be done. After all, when a Christian with my idea of chastity marries, we forsake all other possible future partners. That ain't how our fantasies run either.

I'm no longer sure how into consensual nonconsent my ex is. She has a now-proven tendency to adapt herself to a new guy. Seeing as her previous husband left her over the lack of sex, I think this might seem just perfect for someone who doesn't care about sex much beyond the new romance period but doesn't want to admit to herself that she doesn't. If so, it'll probably lead to a break-up in several years as consensual nonconsent turns gradually to apathetic nonconsent. I'm trying hard to hope it doesn't. To that end, I'm praying that it doesn't.

Terry Pratchett character

So, last week I was told my wife left me because I'm not rapey enough, and she was probably hurt by me not objectifying her enough.

This weekend, I struck up a conversation with a very nice woman at Dorian's*, and she explained to me why she saw abstinence as not being required of Christians and called me (smilingly) evil when I massaged her shoulders and wicked when I massaged her hands because of the abstinence thing.

Then, yesterday, a close female friend explained to me about how I was too focused and attentive when conversing with a woman and how my failure to look at passing asses robbed the woman I was talking to of the opportunity to check her teeth for spinach and wipe her nose.

So, it struck me this morning: I am a living Terry Pratchett character. My narrative purpose is to illustrate the chasm between what polite society says women want from male romantic interests, and the, er, more varied and colorful reality. I think I may change my name on FetLife to Carrot Ironfounderssen or something.

--------

* Every few months when I'm feeling down I do a sort of dry run at picking up women; partly because I just like talking to new people and tend to like them and find them interesting, and partly because it cheers me up a lot to check that I'm abstinent by choice rather than social incompetence. As you can tell I explain the abstinence thing very soon. [UPDATE] Oh, also I explained the not-mentally-ready-for-more-than-friends thing even sooner.

Desired Objectification

I think I've found one of the things that went wrong between my ex and I. I really want to understand what went wrong because I feel like that will help me with my feeling that something mysterious is wrong with me that will ruin any future relationships.

Recently I've seen a lot of women talking about fantasies involving objectification (esp. dollification), and read this post involving it: Sexual Harassment and Men. A particularly relevant paragraph, quoted in turn from Shakesville, is

It is a conversation I've had before with trans women, with fat cis women, women with noticeable physical disabilities, and with a women who has severe craniofacial deformities-the "I don't want to be treated like a piece of meat or an object or a possession, but because Visible Women are treated like pieces of meat and objects and possessions, the fact that I'm not makes me feel like I'm not even a woman" conversation...

Now, I've always considered myself extraordinarily good at not objectifying women. My recurring fantasies all focus on volition, which kind of rules out objectification. I'm also better than most at not staring, etc. But I'm just now realizing that this was probably one of the major sources of problems between my ex and I.

She used to say to me, "Do you mind if I look at you like a piece of meat?" I always said sure, while trying to hide the fact that the phrase made me kind of uncomfortable. I don't like the idea of being objectified. I think it would be flattering if someone wanted to dollify me, except that it would be insulting to my mind and will that the situation would be improved if they were left out. But the fact she was using that phrase indicates it wasn't an objectionable idea to her.

She told me once that she didn't feel attractive to me. This made no sense to me at the time, because I complimented her all the time. My pet names for her were things like Pretty, Beautiful, Gorgeous. There was the way I'd always run to her when she'd mention she was going to be naked, and tell her how gorgeous she was. And, of course, there was how much I always wanted sex with her.

But, I insisted on her mind and will being involved. Earlier, when I was less desperate, if she wasn't particularly into it, I'd suggest we save it up for later. I was always wanting her to do things involving her mind, like dressing up, playacting, telling me her ideas and fantasies. And it was to the almost total exclusion of wanting to use her body. And I think now that that was a constant insult to her looks. Men are expected to objectify, and lots of (most? nearly all?) women want it under the right circumstances, and I'm pretty sure she was one of them. So, I think always asking for her mind, and never just for her body, made her feel that her body was unattractive, which was of course one of the best possible ways to make sure she didn't want to have sex with me.

I think I'll probably write this up for her in an email and ask her about it; since she felt unattractive, maybe explaining it will help her now. That kind of thing doesn't go away with time all that quickly.

Being an Asshole through Inordinate Humility

Part of humility is not overrating the degree and quality of one's own talents and gifts; underrating them does not make one more humble. Another part is not overatting the importance or merit of those gifts, or oneself. I'm thinking in terms of people like Wagner, who think their gifts mean they deserve special treatment from the world around them.

Underrating one's gifts is not really humility and can be bad in many ways. For one thing, you may not use them to the fullest. But what I want to talk about is that you may not be sufficiently careful with them.

I know, even deep down, I'm very strong; stronger than I look. At Aikido once, we were practicing a throw that involved taking an opponent's (uke's) legs out from under them; it was a difficult fall we hadn't practiced much, and there were some bad backs and shoulders present, so we were supposed to help ease the uke's fall with the other arm. I simply picked them up, turned them sideways, and set them gently down on the mat. After I did this to my teacher, a muscular six-footer, he said "It's like he's holding a baby isn't it?" If I thought I was weak, if I wasn't careful, if I acted like certain small thin sedentary people of my acquaintance in college, I would really hurt people. I have to know that I'm stronger than they and must act differently.

Deep down, I don't really believe people are attracted to me. Sure, I know it on the surface, but not deep down. So I haven't been, and am not, as careful as I should have been. A small example that hit me recently was when I was at the last Dorian's Parlor, in my tux and tophat, with my hair down and flowing over my shoulders. (I have really nice hair; if I saw it on a woman I'd love it.) Sparkly Girl was saying how sexy I looked, which I took as mostly kindness. Playing along I said, how about if I do my Rudolph Valentino look (source), and demonstrated. The smile fled from her face, she looked down, and said, "Don't do that." And it wasn't because I did it wrong and looked like a serial killer focusing on an intended victim (which you totally do if you try this and miss.) She actually found me so attractive that it bothered her. And I find that very hard to assimilate. I know it, but I don't really believe it.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that this is not the fault of women in general or even my exes in specific. I've had this problem for a long time, and while it was reinforced by the way my marriages have gone wrong, it was not created that way. Lots of women have been very kind in terms of trying to help me over this; but it's not so easy. (Some other time I'll talk a bit about what I'm actually thinking when complimented, and why it doesn't convince me of what the more logical level of my brain thinks is true.)

It's not just attractiveness; I don't think that's even the biggest part. I also don't think anyone can love me once they get to know me well enough. The 'not attractive' issue is only part of it. This is such a standard component of bad self-image that I don't think it needs further discussion here.

I think this "no one can be attracted to me or love me" may be part of the reason that some PUA types can act like assholes without having started out as one. How can you possibly break a woman's heart if she can't possibly really care about what you think or do? I'm not a PUA type, and I certainly try to be careful not to hurt anyone, but my instincts are wrong in this. When I'm trying not to hurt anyone, I'm mostly trying to make sure they know me and my flaws so they won't build their hopes around an imaginary better me and have them dashed by getting to know me. Instead of thinking they might actually like me and build up hopes for a permanent attachment. Actually I encourage that kind of hurt in a bunch of unintentional ways, like by being full of compliments. But I've realized there isn't any possibility of a permanent attachment because to me, any love a woman shows me is just showing she doesn't understand me yet. How can I allow myself to fall in love with someone that I'm sure is going to reject me?

That is the current #1 reason that I am no longer and should not be dating.

--------

Here are four videos I've seen recently that show men as attractive and desirable, all by female artists.
Kate Ryan - Libertine
Nadia Ali - Fantasy (Album Edit) (Has a contortionist!)
Nadia Ali - Fantasy (Morgan Page Remix) (Nadia Ali carries more than her share with two videos for one song, and with her lyrics in general)
Jewel - What's Simple is True

Why do men like women who are jerks? Or, do they?

I happened to come across this video (Beatrice - Electroshock) while browsing the Internet. (OK, it was a link from a Caramell video). Now there's a number of things that I quite like about it, like the extensive focus on the singer's face, and her nice smile. But it brought up something I'd like to talk about here.

The chorus is

I'm like electro, electroshock
I'm cruel, I'm cold, I'm burning hot

My reaction is "You're cruel and cold? Well, thanks for your honesty, bye-bye!" I started wondering why that isn't the obvious and overwhelmingly common reaction to such a statement, and noticed this is the mirror of the hackneyed "Why do women like men who are jerks?" question. And I think that while "Why do men like jerks?" gets very little mention, women's insensitivity or cruelty is is shown far more openly than men's.

It's a chance, gonna move
gonna fuck up your ego
silly boy, gonna make you cry
Shiny Toy Guns - Le Disko*

So, it seems that at least some singers and/or producers think cruelty or callousness from women appeals to men. I think probably less frequently than they think. But, on the other hand, it's obviously not simple myth.

She'll promise you more than the Garden of Eden
Then she'll carelessly cut you and laugh while you're bleeding
...
blame it all on yourself 'cause she's always a woman to me
Billy Joel - She's Always A Woman**

I find that the idea that men like women who are jerks is, like a lot of sexist ideas, insulting to women and men both. It's insulting to men because we men aren't supposed to know any better, we're supposed to just accept it if a woman is a jerk to us; I guess because we're supposed to be so desperate for a warm hole that fits in a dress with a small size number. It's insulting to women because we men aren't supposed to care about their character at all, or even worse in the case of the Billy Joel song, the implication that lack of character is actually characteristic of being a woman.

I think that callousness or cruelty from women is shown much more openly because men are expected to be more dangerous. And when you think people are going to think you're dangerous, one reaction is to try and assure them you're not. Here you all see my most unhinged rants, in real life I'm extremely mild; and a big part of that is because I'm armed. My leather/punk/biker phase was before I started carrying a gun; now it's a 10mm under a wool cardigan that Mr. Rogers might wear. In cases like this, I think women do not feel like saying they are cruel and cold is all that threatening, and like me in the punk/biker phase, they want to be at least dangerous enough not to be pushed around. And I think that threatening words from women are given a bit more of a pass.

If I were you
I'd dare not speak
I'd run like hell
In hopes of seeing tomorrow
Dash Berlin with Cerf Mitiska & Jaren - Man On The Run***

I think that coming off as cruel, cold, or uncaring is a counterproductive action for this purpose however; if you are being dangerous by being cruel and cold, you are not encouraging people to be kind, you are encouraging them to be distant and uninvolved.

So why do some men like women that are jerks? I don't have an answer. I suppose sometimes it's a submissive thing, usually unacknowledged, though the jerk thing is repellent to my particular submissive thinking. Probably sometimes it's the fulfillment of the insulting implications I just listed. There really are men who would gloss over character the same way as I try (and sometimes fail) to gloss over looks.


--------


* My reaction to the Le Disko lyrics is much stronger, more like "Get the fuck away before I get a restraining order!" Also, I am so glad that I don't look as vulnerable as the boy in the video and attract women with such an attitude. Which should not be taken as a criticism of those of you who are attracted to such boys and genuinely like them and want to treat them well. Or taken as criticism of those who think this video is hot; in at least one case I can guess it and understand your reasons. :)

** I always hated this song for the sentiments expressed; and I think Billy Joel being as famous as he is, he'd stop singing this song if he hated it. Billy Joel (or, say, Madonna) can probably be held more responsible for what they sing than Beatrice or Shiny Toy Guns at this stage of their careers.

*** I thought it was interesting that the singer looks a lot like my ex; she looks even more like my ex in this one, though.

Real women and real men

A troll named Dudequest (no link due to no respect) over at Ozymandias's prompted me to consider my view of gender roles. I think there are a set of virtues that comprise being a "real man" and another set that comprise being a "real woman." However, none of them are mutually exclusive, opposed, nor contradictory, and none of them become vices when exemplified by the opposite gender. It possible for the same person to be at the same time more of a real man than most men and more of a real woman than most women, and the difficulty is only in living up to so many virtues at the same time. Not any kind of conflicting values/virtues issue. By reason of cultural conditioning or differing hormone makeup it tends to be easier for men to exemplify the "real man" virtues and women to exemplify the "real woman" virtues, but they are by no means exclusive.

Robert A. Heinlein famously said in "Time Enough for Love"

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

Virtue is like that; though many are more common in one gender than another, none are the exclusive province of one gender, and in my view as a Christian the lack of any virtue will not be excused by the idea that's the other gender's speciality.

So, for example, I think Lieutenant General Sir Robert Baden-Powell, for example, was more a real man than almost anyone ever, but at the same time more of a real woman than, say, Twisty Faster. And Elizabeth Moon, judging by her characters like Paksenarrion or Heris Serrano, is far more a real man than Dudequest as well as likewise more a real woman than Twisty.

Given that these virtues are not exclusive to one gender or the other, why identify them with gender? That can be embarrassing for a girl that has better-developed "real man" virtues or a boy that has better-developed "real woman" virtues. To go a little further, it can lead to people who, lacking any virtues at all, try to pretend their very lack of the opposite gender's traditional virtues is in itself a virtue. E.g., a man with no compassion who claims he's not a pussy or a woman with no courage who claims not to be poisoned with testosterone; that man probably has no courage and that woman probably has no compassion.

The reason not to get rid of the gender identification is that we just don't have a good alternative way of inspiring or teaching these virtues yet. And it's much better for society if the virtues are divided half-and-half than if no one has them. The perfect is the enemy of the good. If the branch you are sitting on needs pruning, move to another one BEFORE you saw it off. It's ridiculously easy to see the flaws in the old system, and damnably hard to create a new one that's actually better. Experiments with significantly different moral teachings on the large scale tend to result in more death and misery than anything else in history except maybe the Black Plague. Meanwhile, recognize and praise courage in women and compassion in men as well as the other way around, there's lots out there to see and that'll get you farther towards finding a better, less gendered way to inspire courage and compassion.

A different rebuttal

Still very short on posting time, and sleeping time. I hope to make some time to write because I've got a number of things I'd like to talk about. Right now I want to make a quick comment on something while it's still somewhat topical; Andrew Klavan's I Blame Women article in which he claims that women encourage mistreatment by lots of amorous attention for men who treat them poorly, and Anwyn's response, about how it's untrue of women in general.

I agree that it's untrue of women in general, though there seems to be a sufficient number of women who reward mistreatment to make it seem advisable. But I have a different comment to make on this. My comment is that I don't care if it works or not. The reason to treat women well is not that it makes women want to sleep with you. It doesn't even work when done with that motive; the motive is what makes women despise "nice guys." It's because it is the right thing to do.

Maybe done with the right motive it does work, certainly I've had some friends offer to have sex with me in plain English. Maybe on the other hand it's because I'm tall, or presentable, or unattainable. But that's not the point; you do right because it is right, not because it gets results.

****
P.S.

I recently found out from my Hindu coworkers that doing your work or duty because it is right, not because of the reward, is in fact the Hindu principle of Karma. It is in stark opposition to the "what comes around goes around" idea of Karma we have in the West. "If you expect fruits for your actions, you will have to come back into this world to enjoy such fruits. You will have to take birth again". Or, "Do all works without expectation of fruits." (source)