Post by Susan RobinsonAll manner of ill-considered nonsense.
I see you're doing your best to start off on the
right foot with me...
Is this how you always respond to differing points
of view? With snottiness and put-downs?
[men are visually aroused; women, not so much]
Post by Susan RobinsonPatently untrue, many women are aroused by imagery,
just not imagery as crude and some men find appealing.
Then why is it that sexual material aimed at women is
typically literary in nature (and is known as "erotica"
-- or as I call it, "cliterature" -- in order to dist-
inguish it from photo- and videographic "pornography?"
Or that one sees precious few women in pornography
boutiques?
Yes, there are exceptions and degrees. There always
are; that goes without saying, or ought to. They no
more invalidate what I said about sexual arousal
than the odd, outlying Grace Jones- or Wally Cox-
type specimen invalidates the generality that men
are bigger and stronger than women.
: Susan, I've been online since 1989, and that's
: one of the most paranoid, neurotic, and outright
: bizarre things I've ever seen on Usenet.
Post by Susan RobinsonThen you must have led a very sheltered online
life.
Yeah...that must be why I was voted "Mr. alt.-
tasteless" two years in a row (1991 and '92).
(Maybe I was just being indulged, like the retarded
girl in that commercial who gets voted Homecoming
Queen. Ya think?)
Post by Susan RobinsonI have been online for much longer, my father
gave me my first computer complete with an
acoustic modem and an internet access account
when I was ten, that was in 1982.
I see that reading comprehension isn't among
your strong suits.
The point wasn't that I've been online longer
than you have. The point was that I've been
online for a hell of a long time, period, and
that what you said in your previous post is
one of the strangest and most wrongheaded
things I've seen on the Net during that
considerable interval.
(And by the way, n00b, I wrote my first computer
programs in 1974, using a keypunch machine and
Hollerith cards. Yes, I'm serious.)
Post by Susan RobinsonHave we finished with this little peeing contest?
*Now* we have. Buy the ticket, take the ride.
Post by Susan RobinsonYou also seem to lack understanding of some of
the terms you use; paranoid for one. Curiosity
about what would appear to be a type of deviant
behaviour that has been suppressed by much of
society is not paranoia.
If it's as common as you believe it is, then by
definition, it isn't deviant.
Maybe it hasn't been suppressed, as such. Maybe
it's simply taken for granted and kept in perspec-
tive because it isn't news to most people. (What
was that you were saying about a sheltered life?)
Perhaps it's not even news to you, and you're just
feigning shock and outrage like radical feminists
did a decade ago over the "discovery" than men
engage in sport fucking, because you harbor an
animus toward males in general and/or adolescent
males in particular. I kinda doubt that, but it
isn't beyond the realm of possibility.
More to the point, placing so much significance
on a normal and passing phase of *half the human
race's* psychosexual development that you feel
"creeped out" or in any way threatened *is*
paranoid.
Post by Susan RobinsonFeeling uncomfortable being in a domestic
relationship with a teenager who had sexual
interest in you is not paranoia.
There's sexual interest, and there's sexual
interest.
My stepfather and I were quite close. About a
year after my mom died and my stepfather remar-
ried, when I was barely 15, I rode my bike over
to see him and his new wife. A friend came with
me.
They'd been sitting out by the pool, and my former
stepfather's new wife, who was quite attractive,
answered the door in a bikini. I remember reflex-
ively glancing at her cleavage at the time. (It
*was* more or less at face level, but still...)
I had no sexual interest in her whatsoever; my
interest was purely aesthetic.
She didn't say anything or react in any visible
way, and yet she couldn't help but have noticed.
I probably wouldn't even remember it if my friend
hadn't admitted to doing the same thing at the
same moment and made an, er, appreciative comment
as we got on our bikes to leave a bit later.
Again, I had no sexual interest at all...and yet
I couldn't help myself. It's just the way young
males are wired. Adolescent girls are wired to
giggle and tell secrets; adolescent boys, to check
out the merchandise.
Well, that covers paranoia. So what's your position
on "neurotic" and "bizarre?"
Post by Susan RobinsonSubsequent to my post I have been involved in some
impromptu meetings with several other professionals
who found the survey results surprising, and have
followed up with those respondents who indicate
that they would accept such contact. The more
detailed accounts make it apparent that the
interest is not superficial interest in anatomy.
I note that these cases are a subset of respondents.
Post by Susan RobinsonSeveral have found their sons exhibiting far more
than cursory interest in their underwear, even
having removed some articles from a laundry hamper
and hiding it in their room.
Note: "several."
Post by Susan RobinsonMany have caught their sons out peeping or trying
for innocent seeming "touch-ups" and have been too
embarrassed to raise the issue with other family
members.
Sounds like a matter of overly permissive upbringing
more than anything else.
Post by Susan RobinsonSeveral have noticed their sons having erections
when catching then in underwear or when dressing.
One wonders why they were looking at their sons'
crotches to begin with, especially so closely
that they were even able to tell that they had
erections.
Why is a mother's checking out her teenage son's
dick tacitly acceptable, but boys' showing oppor-
tunistic interest in the female form is regarded
as shocking?
I detect more of that old feminist double standard
which regards any given female response as normative,
and the equivalent male one as deviant.
Post by Susan RobinsonIt is when mothers start closing doors.
You'd think they'd have started closing doors long
before their sons reached adolescence. Not to pre-
clude interest from their pubescent sons, but just
as a matter of elementary human modesty and parental
dignity.
That this never apparently occurred to the mothers
in question makes me wonder how representative these
families are, and whether there might be other
factors which future versions of this questionnaire
should probe.
(Why were these particular women given the thing
to begin with? That they were seeking treatment
of some sort (you never did specify) from pro-
fessionals in the first place raises questions
about what other problems they or their families
might have, and whether there might be a causative
relationshp among them.)
It seems possible that the parents of these boys
were remiss in failing to establish appropriate
boundaries early on when it came to the privacy
of family members. And not only in the sense of
respecting that of others, but in the sense of
the parents' having the presence of mind to
assert it for themselves.
Anyway, a female form is a female form. Guys
know how to keep that on an abstract level;
that's why we're accused of "objectifying"
women, as though that were a bad thing. In
this case, though, it certainly seems like
objectification is the healthy way to go.
Wouldn't you agree?
: Let's think about this. You figure that because
: some guys you know deny ever having masturbated,
: any other denials of a sexual nature from males
: are therefore suspect?
Post by Susan RobinsonYes. When a person denies one aspect of sexuality
for fear of embarrassment then there is a strong
likelihood that they would deny another form of
sexual interest that might create even more
embarrassment.
Well, yeah. Then again, it says nothing about how
more likely that other, more embarassing form of
sexual interest is to have actually been engaged
in at all.
Masturbation is a private activity to most people.
Lusting after one's own mother is not only sexual
and therefore private; it would also mean crossing
a certain mental threshold that most people instinc-
tively resist even approaching.
Post by Susan RobinsonAs for the term motherfucker being an insult, it
is even used affectionately. It is hardly an
insult in many societies - and it came from
somewhere.
What societies are those, pray tell?
Post by Susan RobinsonThe expressions "jerkoff", "cocksucker", etc.,
are as much of an insult, and they certainly
have a basis in fact. Why would motherfucker
be the one exception?
I don't accept your premise that "motherfucker"
is a term of affection, anywhere. There *are*
terms that were once (and still can be) insults
which are used affectionately, such as "nigger"
in the right crowd. But "motherfucker" isn't
one of them.
Geoff
--
"Would you bet your paycheck on a weather forecast
for tomorrow? If not, then why should this country
bet billions on global warming predictions that have
even less foundation?" -- Thomas Sowell