« With Friends Like These... | Main | Incroyable! »

October 22, 2013

Double Standard? Or Strained Analogy?

VC asks. You decide.

Grim links to this graphic, and comments:

A friend of mine sent me this picture, which I found rather surprising. I don't think it's a double standard, so much as their just not being interested in the quality of boys' toys to the same degree. I had honestly never thought of their point at all. Of course I remember He-Man, who was just a cleaned-up kids version of Conan, a physically similar character.

doublestandard.jpg

The double standard analogy struck us as rather strained, unless of course one believes that little boys seriously imagine there's some kind of real world analog to a fantasy superhero with supernatural powers that come from a magical sword.

Perhaps we should not be so dismissive: who among us doth not continually fantasize about wielding a ginormous Magical Sword?

But let's suspend disbelief and consider the conceit for a moment. To do that, we should compare aspiring to be like Barbie when one grows up with aspiring to be like He-Man. To aid in the discussion, we took the liberty of concocting a side-by-side comparison matrix:

dblstandard.png

Hmmmm.... if this is your child (male or female) which role model seems most worthy of emulation?

barbie.JPG On a more frivolous note, our curiosity about best selling Barbies led us to find a picture of our one-and-only Barbie doll, received in 1964 upon the occasion of our 5th birthday.

Mom was not thrilled - she thought that Barbie dolls were not a fitting toy for a 5 year old. Honestly, we can't say we played with her a lot. She was boring because she didn't DO anything. Dressing her up didn't exactly fire the old imagination. This all got us thinking about how we spent most of our time when we were just a rosy cheeked little Editorial Staff.

We distinctly remember taking great pleasure in our collection of trolls. We spent many happy hours braiding their hair and teasing it into beehive hairdos:

trolls.jpg

We also liked pretending to be a Mommy:

babydoll.JPG

But then we also liked camping (yes, that's the Editorial Staff at about 10 - not exactly the most graceful age. We hadn't quite grown into our arms and legs yet):

camping.JPG

Riding bikes was a major pastime, as were playing tag on summer nights, practicing gymnastic stunts and walking on stilts, playing football and War, and re-enacting episodes of The Girl From UNCLE:

girl from uncle001.jpg

Oddly, we don't remember much pink, Barbies, or princess fantasizing. So, were we some sort of aberration, or is the fervent longing to possess a pink Dream House inextricably intertwined with having two X chromosomes?


Posted by Cassandra at October 22, 2013 07:24 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4807

Comments

That's a completely valid point, but one which would be more persuasive, to me, if the criticism of Barbie were that she was a shallow vapid twit.

But no, feminist only care about her looks :-)

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at October 22, 2013 09:42 PM

I was talking to a neighbor about my Barbie Doll Dream House just yesterday. I remember how my two sisters and I hounded our parents unmercifully about getting us one for Christmas. It took my parents and grandparents pooling their allotted funds for all of us for Christmas, but they did it.

I was on Cloud Nine as I assembled the dense cardboard furniture and put the whole thing together. Then I looked around for another one to assemble. There was only one.

Turns out I didn't like playing with it, because you are right, Barbie is boring, but it was great fun to build it!

This is why I am still on the High School robotics team, even though my youngest lad graduated in 2009.

Posted by: MathMom at October 22, 2013 09:48 PM

When I was looking through my pictures, the one I really wanted to post was one of Christmas in which I had my little brother's tool box in my hand and I was looking on as he played with his remote control tank :p

But it had my Mom and brother in it, and I didn't think I should post pictures of them (even from the early 60s) without their permission.

Honestly, I was never as obsessed with building as my little brother, but I did very much enjoy making pretty much anything, whether it was some kind of craft or Lego or construction set. The toys I most remember were the ones that required imagination or allowed me to learn a physical skill. I only remember one baby doll (Betsy-Wetsy, who I wanted terribly but who bored me once I got her - changing that wet diaper had a short half life).

My first bike - a grown-ups' bike that my Dad fixed up and repainted - got daily use and also resulting in many scraped knees, bruises, and bumps. I remember my Dad building us stilts - those were fantastic and I practiced constantly until I could put the blocks up to the highest level.

Posted by: Cass at October 22, 2013 10:03 PM

That's a completely valid point, but one which would be more persuasive, to me, if the criticism of Barbie were that she was a shallow vapid twit.

Honestly, I'm not exactly sure what the main criticism consisted of. I think I've written about feminists complaining about the lack of career dolls (scientists, etc), so I'm not sure it was only the unrealistic bodily proportions. But, I could be wrong!

I don't pay all that much attention to that stuff unless it gets so egregiously dumb that I have to mock it mercilessly :p

Posted by: Cass at October 22, 2013 10:06 PM

I'll take a slightly different point of view.

First off, a cheerful admission that childs' play and toys can and do have a formative effect, though the extent of that effect varies greatly by environment . . . positive reinforcement for using certain toys encourages that behavior.

(full disclosure, Mom taught me to fry eggs around 6, and as long as I cleaned up my own mess the kitchen was open after that . . . many batches of brownies followed)

By the same token, boys need to learn certain behaviours in order to become men. Any boy will grow into an adult male if he lives long enough; not all will become men. On my 21st birthday, about a year after I dropped out of college to enlist, my (now departed) father gave me a small book; Rudyards Kiplings' 'If'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If%E2%80%94

Boys need both positive role models (no, 'He-Man' does not qualify, yes Batman does) and encouragement to develop into men. So do girls, and I'll offer that neither Kendra nor the Kardashians qualify.

Best Regards,

Posted by: CAPT Mike at October 22, 2013 10:25 PM

I was never happier than when the lads and I were stuck inside during the 135 degree summer days in The Magic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It't too hot to go outside - even too hot to swim with young blonde boys who sunburn easily. So we stayed inside and built.

They built ports and boats and railroad trains and moon bases and fire stations and airports and roads and bridges with Lego kits, and I let them keep them assembled, strung from one end of the dining room to the other end of the living room, for the two months of Intersession.

A good time was had by all. But I loved helping build all that stuff, even at almost 40 years of age.

Posted by: MathMom at October 22, 2013 11:27 PM

First off, a cheerful admission that childs' play and toys can and do have a formative effect, though the extent of that effect varies greatly by environment . . . positive reinforcement for using certain toys encourages that behavior.

(full disclosure, Mom taught me to fry eggs around 6, and as long as I cleaned up my own mess the kitchen was open after that . . . many batches of brownies followed)

I couldn't agree more, Mike.

I can still remember being very annoyed, even as a very small girl (5-8) at the automatic assumption that the only toys I wanted were dolls. I would look at the toys my brother got, and they always seemed more interesting than most girl's toys. I don't think I got this feeling from Evil Feminists - during the 60s, as Tex or Elise noted on another thread, it was still very common for girls to be told, "You can't be an astronaut/explorer/whatever - those are things men do."

I vividly remember thinking that was just plain stupid, even as a child. It ties in with the Sowell thread about leaders telling blacks they can't do things without help - to a child, adults are leaders. They are the experts in how the world works, and when they tell you you can't do something, that carries some weight. Though I'll admit that my reaction as a child was still more of, "Why can't I do X? Who's going to stop me?"

My Dad wanted me to be a lawyer from a fairly young age, so that message wasn't coming from my parents. But I do remember having to argue with him as a young teen so he would let me mow the lawn. His first reaction was that that was boys'/mens' work, to which I replied that I was perfectly capable of pushing a lawn mower back and forth. The whole thing was even weirder because my mother mowed the lawn whenever he was at sea, so it's not as though this was some outlandish idea.

Eventually, he gave in and let me. I think he was motivated more by the old fashioned sense that that kind of work was something men ought to do for women rather than a sense that I wasn't capable of doing it - more a "we're bigger/stronger" type of thing.

One frequent complaint of feminists that I think has real merit is the lack of good role models for young girls. The thing is, though, that some of my role models as a child were male characters in books. It didn't particularly bother me that they were male - I thought they were admirable and wanted to be like them.

That can't be all that uncommon?

Posted by: Cassandra at October 23, 2013 08:32 AM

They built ports and boats and railroad trains and moon bases and fire stations and airports and roads and bridges with Lego kits, and I let them keep them assembled, strung from one end of the dining room to the other end of the living room, for the two months of Intersession.

Before they were old enough for Legos, my boys had great fun with Brio wooden trains and wooden blocks - their bedroom had train tracks strung all over it.

And I still have all their Legos, both the Duplo versions for little kids and the more sophisticated building sets for bigger boys. My grandsons are really into Legos now, but the bigger Duplo blocks are still easier for small hands.

One of the best toys my parents ever got my sons was a set called Omagles - it had plastic pipes and connectors and flat panels and even wheels. You could build a house or a car or a wagon big enough to play inside. You could build tunnels and frameworks and forts, and then cover them with blankets or sheets. The boys continued to use it until it was literally falling apart (at least 5 or 6 years, which is a long time for growing boys).

Posted by: Cassandra at October 23, 2013 08:39 AM

Both my brother and I loved legos. They were awesome.

I can't remember ever playing house or mommy when I was a kid and I thought most dolls were boring, though I had a couple Cabbage Patch kids (which I suppose identifies me as a child of the 80s). I had a few barbies, but mostly what I had was a huge herd of My Little Ponies, which I used to act out Shakespeare plays and sweeping fantasy epics.

Side note: I think Barbie gets a bad rap. She's not just a pretty face: Over the years she's been an astronaut, a scientist and President (according to her Wiki article, she also has a pilot's license). Honestly, compared to Bratz she's practically the cover girl for Ms. Magazine :P

Posted by: colagirl at October 23, 2013 09:55 AM

Colagirl:

I found the Amazon link to best selling Barbies fascinating. The Catniss character from Hunger Games was in the top 20, but the vast majority of the top 100 best sellers were the stereotypical frothy pink, vapid Barbies. I'm truly curious: how many of you recall seeing little girls play with professional Barbies?

I don't think I've ever seen one in real life, but I didn't have daughters so I may well be completely wrong on this one. Still, the professional versions don't seem to rank on the top sellers at Amazon, at least. They always struck me as concessions to feminists rather than a product of genuine consumer demand.

That makes sense in a way - if what a girl enjoys is dressing up a doll (and there's really nothing wrong with this - I did that with my trolls), making the doll an astronaut doesn't really fill the bill.

I agree that Bratz are weird and offputting, though :p

Posted by: Cass at October 23, 2013 10:04 AM

I don't pay all that much attention to that stuff.

Not being an avid consumer of little girls toys neither do I. Yagette (3) is much more interested in kicking balls around and playing chase with her brothers or brushing Momma's hair. Dolls, so far, are comfort items to keep away the bugs at bedtime.

But it does seem that every couple of years, the Barbie controversy seems to rear it's head again (Kinda like the Washington Redskins' name) and, at least to me, it seems to be mainly focused on body image. Even the Astronaut Barbie you posted on a while back had a complaint about the proportions the boots had to be because of her permanently pointed toes. Really, *that's* what they're worried about? Boot proportion? Whatever holy hell will they think of these characters whose heads and feet are 10 times too big?

I expect head and feet expansion surgery to be all the rage in 15 years. [/sarc]

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at October 23, 2013 10:07 AM

I don't remember playing house much either. It wasn't as exciting as playing War or tag or dodgeball or punchball. Or riding my bike. When I played imaginary games, I usually pretended to be a character from a book or TV who was having some sort of adventure. We loved Man from UNCLE because we could get our characters into all sorts of trouble and then figure out ways to get out of it. That game led to all sorts of shenanigans - rolling kids in throw rugs and dumping them out the window (I seem to remember one kid breaking his arm after a leap from a tree during a chase scene), backing the car out of the garage to get onto my roof because I had seen that on TV, etc.

My sons had female friends, and they would occasionally play house with them when they were still small (just as their female friends would play guns or build stuff - there was a natural back-and-forth).

Posted by: Cass at October 23, 2013 10:08 AM

I remember spending one summer after we moved pretending to be Eowyn from LOTR - I made spear after spear and practiced throwing them (never did get to be any good), and I swiped one of my Dad's hunting knives from his workshop and practiced throwing that at targets, too :p

I also used to pretend to be Angelique from Dark Shadows when I was smaller. I had a chiffon dress from our church thrift shop, and I would pull the top layer of the bouffant skirt over my head like a veil and flit about the marshes in the fog.

Vampire-like, I was :p Too funny!

Posted by: Cass at October 23, 2013 10:12 AM

it does seem that every couple of years, the Barbie controversy seems to rear it's head again (Kinda like the Washington Redskins' name) and, at least to me, it seems to be mainly focused on body image. Even the Astronaut Barbie you posted on a while back had a complaint about the proportions the boots had to be because of her permanently pointed toes. Really, *that's* what they're worried about? Boot proportion?

I expect that's one of those things that bothers women more than men. I do sympathize somewhat with the complaints because I don't see a lot of daylight between Barbie and airbrushed, already skeletal, surgically enhanced models.

Having been a young girl, I vividly remember how very badly I wanted to be beautiful. That's what people pay attention to, if you're female, and it really is pernicious Yu-Ain. So while I see the ridiculous aspect, I also think they do have a point.

I just don't see pressuring toy companies as a realistic solution. Parents need to teach their girls better values. They mostly don't, though.

Posted by: Cass at October 23, 2013 10:15 AM

I said what I had to say about this at the Hall, but for those who don't get over there:

He-Man is an essentially heroic character. Barbie isn't one. She is imagined variously as everything from a housewife to President, an Astronaut, or a nurse in the Civil War. This lack of an essential character is the criticism of her -- she ought always to be doing something impressive, and not just being beautiful -- but it also sends the message that she is free to do whatever she wants. And little girls are free to imagine her, and themselves, in whatever role they please.

In the case of He-Man, then, body and character are both fixed. A sufficiently imaginative child could choose to play an 'evil He-Man' scenario, but the character is always formally portrayed as being perfect in both body and soul (like Galahad, I suppose, although Galahad was more realistically proportioned).

Barbie is only asked to be perfect in body. She's allowed to be perfect in soul, but what she's really being given by Mattel is freedom -- freedom to be whatever she (or, more accurately, whatever little girls) want her to be. That's the real message we've chosen to send to girls over the last two generations.

If the actual purchasers of Barbie choose to prefer to imagine her only as owner of luxury goods and haver of good times, that says more about them than about Mattel. But maybe it ought also to call into question the value of freedom as an aspirational ideal for girls. Maybe they need a Galahad (which is just what Galadriel is).

Posted by: Grim at October 23, 2013 10:27 AM

If the actual purchasers of Barbie choose to prefer to imagine her only as owner of luxury goods and haver of good times, that says more about them than about Mattel. But maybe it ought also to call into question the value of freedom as an aspirational ideal for girls. Maybe they need a Galahad (which is just what Galadriel is).

Yes, yes, yes. Thank you for this.

I will say that I have seen parents who do actively seem to encourage the self absorbed, soft bigotry of low expectation mindset in their daughters: sort of a "you just worry about being decorative" thing. I had friends whose fathers in particular were this way.

In all fairness, I've seen the same low expectations from parents of boys who make excuses for everything their sons do. So I'm not sure the phenomenon itself is at all sexist so much as it is bad parenting. It's just that the same mind set manifests itself differently depending on whether they're dealing with sons or daughters.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 23, 2013 10:55 AM

I expect that's one of those things that bothers women more than men.

I wanted to be beautiful. That's what people pay attention to, if you're female, and it really is pernicious Yu-Ain.

I don't disagree with either of those. I just find it ironic that the same people who say it should be about women's character and not looks tend to focus on Barbie's looks and not her typically vacuous character.

It amuses me.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at October 23, 2013 11:43 AM

I just find it ironic that the same people who say it should be about women's character and not looks tend to focus on Barbie's looks and not her typically vacuous character.

I think that's an excellent point :p

I never really stopped to think about it all that much b/c Barbies never appealed to me as a child. I love what Grim said about girls needing better role models than Barbie. If they have them, then I don't see the problem with playing dress up or Barbie dream house.

I don't like to go nuts about Barbie as though she's the only toy out there - that sort of thing seems misguided to me. I also don't like the harping on companies to stop making certain toys - it's the job of parents to control what their kids play with, not corporations.

I spent a LOT of time with my boys fighting the GameBoy thing. I didn't object to games, but didn't agree that they should be spending several hours a day playing them. They were an occasional treat, not a diet staple. Playing outside or reading or engaging in activities that stretch the mind or imagination were things I wanted them to do.

They also played computer games - just in moderation. As a parent, I wasn't willing to put lots of my money into an activity that I viewed as fun, but less good for them than other activities. But that was my decision and reflected my values and aspirations for my sons. Other parents should be free to decide otherwise for their children, and not every child has the same needs.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 23, 2013 12:10 PM

Good example - my boys played Doom. Hardly the stuff of parental dreams :p

But in moderation, I didn't see the harm in it, though I'll admit I thought it was kind of dumb. I also made sure they played games that required them to think.

To me, it's more about balance and priorities.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 23, 2013 12:14 PM

'Scuse me, but you forgot a couple of Barbie types.
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at October 23, 2013 02:52 PM

Hi Cass,
I'm not too much concerned w/ Barbie's proportions being a body type / image issue for girls; hell, she is not only 'just' a doll, she's also obviously not realistic.

I'm *much* more concerned about the model skinny issue (started w/ Twiggy?), and even more so w/ actresses that are real, and are actively portrayed as both an ideal body type, and what every woman 'should' look like.


Best Regards,

Posted by: CAPT Mike at October 23, 2013 04:56 PM

I'm *much* more concerned about the model skinny issue (started w/ Twiggy?), and even more so w/ actresses that are real, and are actively portrayed as both an ideal body type, and what every woman 'should' look like.

Many years ago, a guy friend of mine was in a department store somewhere and a famous super model was making an appearance. Being a guy (no offense), he wandered over to see her. Over lunch the next day, he was in shock: "She was, well, kind of funny-looking."

"Don't tell me," I said. "She was way too thin; she had pretty much no breasts and no ass; her eyes and mouth were way too big; her nose was too small for her face; and her cheekbones looked like they were about to protrude through her skin."

When he looked at me in awe and said I'd nailed it, I explained that those kinds of features are what photograph well.

As for Barbie dolls, I had one. I enjoyed her and was ecstatic when my aunt gave me stacks of outfits for her as a Christmas present. Sadly, a friend and I playing something (maybe re-enacting Mothra or some other similar movie?) sacrificed her to a volcano (aka, suspended her over a table lamp on by putting her head and feet on the shade). She survived her terrible ordeal but she was never the same - her back melted. Luckily, none of the outfits my aunt sent me were backless. :+)

And, no, Cass, I don't think it's uncommon for a girl to have role models that are men (and boys) in books. When I was in elementary school, I loved reading some series I no longer remember the name of, about a boy my age or a little older who had all kinds of adventures, most involving some kind of science stuff. I loved the Black Stallion books. And I adored the Jungle Books. I thought what the boys in those books were doing sounded exciting and fun and hoped to do the same (preferably without encountering Shere Khan).

Posted by: Elise at October 23, 2013 05:16 PM

Indeed, it would have been difficult to find a female role model if we hadn't migrated beyond gender barriers.

Posted by: Texan99 at October 23, 2013 07:44 PM

Many years ago, a guy friend of mine was in a department store somewhere and a famous super model was making an appearance. Being a guy (no offense), he wandered over to see her. Over lunch the next day, he was in shock: "She was, well, kind of funny-looking."

During our misspent youth, we once worked at the Navy Exchange in Norfolk. One thing I'll never forget was when the Exchange hosted visiting Playboy bunnies and Penthouse Pets.

I was newly married and (I'll admit) more than a bit curious. Only a few weeks before, I had seen my first Playgirl (boy was that a disappointment :p)

All day long sailors were going through our lines buying the relevant issues so they could get then autographed. The women were unrecognizable. Not a single one of them looked anything like her centerfold. I never really figured that one out, but fortunately I didn't have to!

Posted by: Cassandra at October 23, 2013 07:54 PM

Reference Galahad and Galadriel.

Galahad is depicted as pure, perhaps purer than pure, with little of his struggle to attain and remain that way. He stays on the straight and narrow path for the maybe twenty winters of his life.

Galadriel has flaws, pursues vengeance, suffers the doom of Mandos for being present at the Kin Slaying and remains in exile for six thousand plus winters. She is a princess and "sorceress" who observes others having to lead and judge and who then has to lead and judge and send others out to do or die. She has to learn how to wield great Power.

So yes Galahad and Galadriel are good role models, though different. Galahad is more akin to Eowyn or Joan of Arc. Where Galadriel is more akin to Arthur or Saruman (or Margaret Thatcher).

(Thinking of which perhaps there should be some additions to BarbieĀ“s outfits to allow her to be Mrs Thatcher Barbie, etc, though we should probably leave matters be as there may already be a Mrs. Clinton Barbie... )(slightly melted Joan Barbie seems to already exist :P

Posted by: darkriders at October 24, 2013 03:52 PM

For a long time I didn't like the Galahad character, because I thought he was sacrilegious. He is depicted as enjoying a kind of natural perfection rivaling Jesus' -- perhaps even surpassing it, given that Jesus could really be tempted.

I think I understand him better now as an imagining, by men who were trying to be good, of what it would mean to live a perfected Christian life. They had, in Lancelot, already imagined a perfected knightly life -- but it was, they realized, still a sinful and worldly life. So what would it mean to be good, fully good, in the way that the Church suggested?

In a way that kind of thing better serves a boy than a man, because the man needs to recognize sinfulness in his heart and continue to strive against it. The Red Crosse Knight of The Faerie Queene may be a more suitable literary model for men. He often falls away, and needs to be brought back by faith and the help of beloved others.

But in the end, he becomes St. George.

Posted by: Grim at October 24, 2013 04:08 PM

It's funny - initially I really didn't like Eowyn much because she was always nattering on about glory and renown when being a leader often entails doing what is right for those you lead, even when no one will notice or care.

I liked Arwen better because she was wise and patient and took the long view.

It wasn't until I got older that I began to understand Eowyn's longing to go out and do great things. I still see her as a rather immature character, but one to be loved for her valor rather than judged for her youthful lack of wisdom.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 24, 2013 04:38 PM

Galahad is more akin to Eowyn or Joan of Arc. Where Galadriel is more akin to Arthur or Saruman (or Margaret Thatcher).

What a delightfully perceptive observation!

Sorry - don't mean to embarrass you by singling you out but it really made me think :)

Posted by: Cassandra at October 24, 2013 04:40 PM

Hi again Cass,
Playboy (and similar porn magazines) have a couple fundamental issues:
- the better quality publications all airbrush, and nowadays assume they also photoshop to get the desired 'look'
> I always preferred the Vargas's girl artwork; it was always deliberately not realistic
- the girls posing are usually attractive, but they have no interest in the readers, and are often blindingly shallow.

If you're an 'adult' about understanding these limitations, there's not much serious harm in looking at attractive women . . . but then again, there are lots and lots of attractive women walking around that might actually be both available and interested.

I'm at a loss to understand men (strike that; males) that spend much time or money on porn, either magazines or online (apparently a *huge* business). It's like going to a strip club; you spend a *ton* of money, get worked up, but there's no satisfaction available. Very sad.

Best Regards,

Posted by: CAPT Mike at October 24, 2013 08:53 PM

I'm at a loss to understand men (strike that; males) that spend much time or money on porn, either magazines or online (apparently a *huge* business). It's like going to a strip club; you spend a *ton* of money, get worked up, but there's no satisfaction available. Very sad.

I don't know a whole lot about this, and as a female any opinion I might have falls smack dab into the category of, "Who cares what you think?" :p

I long ago gave up ever trying to write about this subject, which is kind of sad when you think about it. It's a social phenomenon like anything else I've written about over the years, and it has definitely affected the culture, personal relationships, and our values. It's at least as big a threat to marriage as feminism, if not more.

But oddly, you'll almost never see conservative bloggers who rail about threats to marriage talk about porn. In fact, the reactions to *any* suggestion - no matter how carefully caveated - that there might possibly be some things to think about in this area provokes such a strong reaction (and one that tends to veer into defensive/attack mode) that I reluctantly allowed myself to be deterred from discussing it at all.

That makes this subject pretty much unique among the many I've written about over the years.

I've been somewhat heartened of late to see - finally - articles pointing out a lot of things that concerned me many years ago. I guess we had to get to the point where porn is not just allowed but protected in public libraries and intrudes into every facet of public life, including children's cartoons, family hour sitcoms, and news reporting and punditry for the clue bus to finally pull into the station.

I will say that I'm not sure I agree with your point about no satisfaction being available. As the MRA sites love to point out, a lot of men (including young single and married men) actually prefer online porn to real sex with real women. I can remember a conversation I had years ago privately with a very famous male blogger on the subject that depressed me immensely.

He attributed any criticism of porn at all to "women's insecurity" (being afraid you won't be able to compete with a 24/7 outlet where everything's on offer and nothing is off limits).

And yet I've read scores of articles lately where men are openly saying they've lost interest in real sex because it can never be as exciting or varied as porn. So much for women being insecure :p

Personally I've always believed that if men had to live in a world where their wives were constantly bombarded with titillating images of young, gorgeous men, they'd react exactly the same way many women do - they'd feel threatened. That's a healthy reaction (at least if you value your relationship) and it matches my experience of men.

I don't think I ever dated a guy (or was married to one) who wasn't possessive. Not pathologically so - just normally concerned with guarding the relationship. I've never understood the mental gymnastics so many men go through to pretend they are completely different from women in this regard.

They aren't. They just don't have to deal with the same things :p

Oh well, just my 2 cents.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 25, 2013 07:40 AM

Belated Howdy again Cassandra,
"I will say that I'm not sure I agree with your point about no satisfaction being available. As the MRA sites love to point out, a lot of men (including young single and married men) actually prefer online porn to real sex with real women."
> which is pathetic, but has the unintended consequence of 'improving the odds' for real men that want a real woman.

and BTW, a certain amount of 'possessiveness' (both my men & women) is entirely normal, rational and validated by several thousand generations of human behavior . . . :)

Very Best Regards,

Posted by: CAPT Mike at October 27, 2013 11:45 PM

Posted by: Grim at October 29, 2013 09:14 AM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)