To say that "women have to deal with the objectification male sexuality produces" is not to say that women have to deal with it and men don't.
And, I never said anything to suggest that gay men are not men, quite the opposite. And, I never said that sexual behavior defines who is male and who is female, quite the opposite. And, I suggest to you that you read up more on gender distinctions in canine behavior before you use them as an example. And, I never said that men don't prefer being attractive to being unattractive. And, men certainly are exposed to testosterone outside of social relaitons, since they are exposed to it in the womb. And, I don't read a lot of what's written about gender because it's unscientific, illogical crap and I don't fetishize gender the way other people apparently do.
boddi
On 11/17/05, Rotating Bitch <info at pulpculture.org> wrote:
> ComRod Boddi sez:
>
> >On the other hand, women have to deal with the objectification male
> sexuality produces.
>
>
> There, I think that line says it all. Women have to deal....
>
> Ostensibly, women don't objectify men the way men objectify women. (This
> happens across all cultures and across all known history -- of course!)
> Thus, women have to "deal" with this objectification. Men, of course, don't
> have to "deal" with their lack of objectification. And all of this is tied
> to DNA! (But don't being up Fags, because they're gay and, i guess, not
> really men?)
>
> And that bit about how it all begins at adolescence -- sexuality? That's a
> laugh. And man, since we're like all the other animals, I'd like to know
> why the dogs we took care of a month ago or so were humping each other like
> crazy, the female dog humping the male dog, constantly. Sometimes, all of
> them would get into a regular ol' daisy chain. Female on female. But man,
> those bitches loved to hump.
>
> And don't even ask about my dog, which humps his bunny and then cuddles it
> afterward.
>
> http://blog.pulpculture.org/category/animal-porn-fridays/ (enjoy the easter
> eggs I stuck in there for ya!)
>
>
> ComRod Boddi:
> >I don't spend any time reinforcing the distinction between gay men and
> >straight. I don't care. But since this is a discussion about the sexual
> >attractiveness of penises, I think it's a germane distinction. I don't
> >find penises sexually attractive. I don't find them offensive in any way,
> >they just don't do anything for me. I have a very different reaction to
> >female bodies. I'm pretty sure you do also.
> >
> >peace
> >
> >boddi
>
> So, the ex-beau, who'd fuck me ten times a day if we'd had time (we managed
> daily and twice on Sunday), loved cock and loved pussy. What "gender" was
> he? Was he a male or female, man or woman?
>
> And what about people who believe they were born sadists or masochists.
> There have been and are several on this list? They insist that this is part
> of their sexuality from birth
>
> As John said, your comments about DNA are so wrong it's hard to know where
> to start. But more, you are talking about sex characteristics and DNA,
> gender and DNA, sexuality and DNA -- all in one big confused mishmash that
> indicates you've done so little reading in this territory it's
> unbelievable. And it's especially unbelievable because you say with this
> flat certainty that suggests you know what you're talking about.
>
> Jenny said something about reading. I agree. Why waste time repeating
> yourself. The archives are chock full of discussions about this same topic.
>
>
>
> ComRod Boddi
> >
> >I think Comrade R. B. may be talking about something different, so I'll
> >try to connect it. I think that the male experience of sexuality starts
> >with the formation of intense desire before we ourselves have any concept
> >we might be desired. I think it's clear that testosterone has very
> >powerful effects on the brain and the fact that we produce so much more
> >than women means our sexual desire is much more intense outside of actual
> >sexual activity. I would look to the descriptions of the feelings
> >testorsterone produces in "female-to-male" "transsexuals" as a guide to
> >the difference between the male and female sexual minds. In a sense, men
> >just don't much care whether they are desired because they are thinking
> >about girls.
>
> which isn't much of a guide since that testosterone isn't given to them
> outside of the social and their perceptions of what that T will do for
> them. Are their cross cultural studies about the effects? Truly cross
> cultural. And what does this have to do with Gender. If I'd like to fuck
> every five minutes, do I suddently become a man in your world? If a man has
> no interest in sex, is he a woman? What if I like to fuck goats? Only get
> off with 12 year olds?
>
>
> >On the other hand, women have to deal with the objectification male
> >sexuality produces. I think the experience of being desired is just not
> >what we think about. Therefore, we don't objectify our bodies in the same
> >way that women do because we ourselves are not objectified (and if we are,
> >we don't really care). So, indeed, "loving" our genitalia makes no more
> >sense than loving our fingers or toes. Obviously, feeling desired is
> >intensely erotic (and to be hoped for). I just think that it's not a big
> >part of sexuality for most men.
> >
>
> which seems to have little to do with what Seay has said in the past.
> you're claiming a biological basis for it -- as is seay. And yet, he's
> drawn different conclusions in the past. Such as when he speculated that
> "some people here" would make you read footnotes to have sex with them. so,
> in a discussion with Yoshie, she was sexualized and, thereby, put down as
> someone one wouldn't want to have sex with. He couldn't believe anyone
> would not want to make themselves attractive to others. You say it doesn't
> matter because it's in your DNA?
>
>
>
> http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:65n83lxj0jIJ:mailman.lbo-talk.org/2002/2002-October/024689.html+%22Yoshie,+I+think+you+said+a+WHOLE+lot+there,+and+I+%22&hl=en
>
>
>
> -- Yoshie Furuhashi
> <<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk>furuhashi.1 at
> osu.edu> wrote:
> > I'd venture to say that sexual dynamics is related
> > to underrepresentation of women. Men (whatever
> their
> > political
> > persuasions) tend to have problems with women who
> > assert political
> > and intellectual powers as most left-wing women do,
> > especially the
> > ones who don't give a damn about whether or not they
> > are sexually
> > attractive to men.
>
> Yoshie, I think you said a WHOLE lot there, and I
> admire your honesty. However, why would a
> heterosexual woman or man NOT give a damn about being
> sexually attractive to the opposite sex? Is it
> liberating to react to sexism and/or consumerism by
> making yourself ugly? Isn't doing that just as
> reactive to men as spending all of your time polishing
> your nails in order to impress them?
>
> I have a dear friend, Marina Minghelli, who is a
> somewhat well-known novelist in Italy and, in any
> case,
> perceptive as a novelist should be (she is also on the
> Left). After visiting the Bay Area and being invited
> to a number of feminist workshops etc here, she made
> the comment to me that these women were as focused on
> men as the most petty fashion-magazine reading female.
> She said that men were still at the center of these
> womens lives. They weren't seeking out their own way
> through life, they were too busy reacting to men.
> Now that is something worth pondering, isn't it?
>
>
> > "The females are most excited by, or prefer pairing
> > with, the more
> > ornamented males, or those which are the best
> > songsters, or play the
> > best antics
>
> I shall keep this advice in mind, should I ever visit
> Columbus, Ohio.
>
> -Thomas
>
>
>
> "You know how it is -- come for the animal porn,
> stay for the cultural analysis."
>
> Bitch | Lab
> http://blog.pulpculture.org
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>