![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Gender issues
Boredom drove me from Doctor Who premiere, which is just not working for me, with the possible exception of one brief sequence that contained a malevolent Xmas Tree. Rose is the only character that does not grate on my nerves. And I *really* miss Christopher Eccleston who left the role to take the lead in the new Prisoner. (Is it just me, or are the Brits suffering from the same malady as the Americans, being unable to come up with new ideas, so revisiting old ones? )Not that I blame Eccleston, found Doctor Who overall somewhat dull and repetitive, the dialogue, sigh, just well, it did not thrill me. In short, I've either seen one too many sci-fi tv analogy shows in my lifetime, or people just like to redo the same ideas over and over again. The only science fiction fantasy show that's blown me away since Farscape is well, BattleStar Galatica v.2. I'm thinking I'm either just burnt out on the genre or I never was truly into it to begin with? Or maybe I just find certain types of sci-fi unappealing? You can after all be a fan of a genre and not like everything in it.
So I tuned into 20/20 - which had a fascinating story on gender, the differences between the genders and the result of negative stereotyping. Two of the guests were particularly interesting:
1. Barbara - Benjamin. For 40 years Ben lived life as Barbara. In the 70's, as Barbara, Ben got top honors in mathematics at MIT or one of the top name schools. When she solved a complex mathematical formula no one else could - the prof refused to give her credit at first - stating that her boyfriend had to have solved it. Barbara was a tom boy, not into make-up or girly things. (Not that that means anything, quite a few women I know, including myself are not 'girly-girls', and are attracted to men and are feminine and have no interest to become men. So be careful of generalizations here. Just because you find skirts and heels uncomfortable does not automatically mean you are butch or a tom-boy. )At any rate, things were going swimmingly until Barbara got breast cancer and a masetochomy (breast removed). When asked if she wanted reconstructive surgery, she requested they both be removed and not to put them back on her. That's when with some counseling, she realized she was in truth a he. And not comfortable in her body, so changed it. Never was attracted to men, or women for that matter. Now as Ben, Barbara has become a staunch feminist, trumpeting the female cause. Stating that intelligence should not be based on gender. And to do so is arrogant.
Ben went on to point out that negative stereotyping - women being told they aren't as smart by professors or parents or what-have-you can lead to a self-fulling prophecy. They fufill what they've been told.
2. Jenny McCarthy talked about how women relate to sex differently than men. For women - the main sex organ is their brain. They have to be in the mood. Are easily distracted by other things - like wait, Leno is on in five minutes, can this be over now? They've got to feel secure in their bodies. (She mentioned how she does not want to be seen naked anymore - due to a scar on her belly, and how when she has sex, she has to keep her bra on because she can't stand feeling her breast slide below her arm pits without the support.) The woman unlike the man, has to be in the right context. While a guy can just look at a nipple and be turned on, a woman has to think about it. (Interesting - was told this a long time ago by a college psychologist - who stated that it had to do with the sex organ or muscel. One muscel pushes - or grows stiff then you push in. The other has to open, relax. To relax that muscel, you have to feel safe and to be turned on. It's the whole push/pull thing. Not sure how true this is, I've met men with low libidios.) They interviewed a couple who had been married for several years but had not had any real sex in 9 years. The woman stated she could more or less go without it forever. They had the woman tested and realized she had a low libidio.
Did you know that 30% of women have a low libidio? That this is due to the body's chemistry? Actually women tend to have lower libidio's than men. So remind again why pharmaceutical companies spent so much money on viagra and why men get it under their health care plans, while things like the pill and female viagra are harder to get covered? It sometimes sucks to be a woman in this society. Just saying.
Here's a site I found that goes into depth on the topic: http://www.womentowomen.com/sexualityandfertility/sexaftermenopause.asp?id=1&campaignno=lossofdesire&adgroup=adgroup2&keywords=low+libido
Also in asking this woman questions, they found out that part of the problem was - she's the dominant partner in the marriage, she earned the bigger paycheck, made the decisions, etc. So in the bedroom, she couldn't get turned on, because she fantazied and wanted someone else to be in control. To surrender to someone. Not to be in control or the stronger party.
**(Totally get this, it's why I'm not turned on by small men. I know intuitively that I can overpower them. I'm person who can easily intimidate someone. Very tough. Very strong.
Both physically and emotionally/mentally. So what I want is someone who can stand up to me.
Okay - warning - crazy BTVS Couple Ramble lies ahead.
This dichotomy was in a way explored in Buffy the Vampire Slayer - with Buffy and her boyfriends - Buffy liked men who were her physical equals, who could physically over-power her. It was also explored with Willow, who oddly prefered the opposite, Willow liked to be the one in control. While Xander - often prefered to be the surrendering party, which is why Xander could not be with Buffy - both people wanted their partner to be in control. Note who attracted Xander - demon women, Buffy, Cordelia, the Monster Teacher, Joyce, Faith and Anya. Xander did not find Willow interesting until he saw her as powerful in Season 3 - with the witchcraft and dating OZ. What Xander did not understand about Buffy - was she wanted to be the weaker party or at least an equal in sex.Riley and Buffy fell apart, when Riley was no longer as strong as Buffy, no longer part super-solider. To give Riley credit - he understood that. Because Riley like Willow, needed to be in control, to be the stronger party. Angel is much the same way - he wanted to be the one in control. Spike is interesting. I honestly think Spike could do either - he could be in the weaker role or the stronger role depending on the partner, which is why he literally had chemistry with everyone. Angel could not be with Buffy if he were human, she was stronger than he was. He ran into the same problem Riley did. Spike however might have been able to handle it, except I don't think Buffy could have - because Buffy wants to be normal girl in the sack. It's fascinating. And I don't think we are always aware of it. Often even ashamed of it. Sorry for the tangent on BTVS - just my way of figuring something out via an old obsession.)
What a lot of people assume is that everyone responds to sex the same way. No. That everyone wants the same thing from it. Also no. That everyone wants the same amount. I remember reading someone on line who said that she'd been with over 100 people and felt sorry for someone who hadn't been with anyone. Honestly what arrogance. How does she know what someone else desires? Some people desire sex all the time, they have over-active libidios. Others, on the other hand, may not. They may be like Benjamin, not into it at all. Then there's the group in between.
Jenny McCarthy stated that she would rather have an "emotional bond" than an "orgasm", that to her the emotional/spiritual bond was more important. And without it the sex was meaningless.
Once again, like in their episode on racial stereotyping - 20/20's commentators prove that you really can't generalize about human sexuality. Yes there are differences between the genders, but everyone is unique and has their own needs. The trick is not to project your needs on someone else or judge them based on what your needs or desires are. Tough to do I think.
Watch, once I get a job, my tv interests will probably change completely. Brain is bored right now it requires constant stimulation. When it gets overloaded, I'll probably go back to non-stimulating material. Course, I'll also stop posting so much in this lj.
So I tuned into 20/20 - which had a fascinating story on gender, the differences between the genders and the result of negative stereotyping. Two of the guests were particularly interesting:
1. Barbara - Benjamin. For 40 years Ben lived life as Barbara. In the 70's, as Barbara, Ben got top honors in mathematics at MIT or one of the top name schools. When she solved a complex mathematical formula no one else could - the prof refused to give her credit at first - stating that her boyfriend had to have solved it. Barbara was a tom boy, not into make-up or girly things. (Not that that means anything, quite a few women I know, including myself are not 'girly-girls', and are attracted to men and are feminine and have no interest to become men. So be careful of generalizations here. Just because you find skirts and heels uncomfortable does not automatically mean you are butch or a tom-boy. )At any rate, things were going swimmingly until Barbara got breast cancer and a masetochomy (breast removed). When asked if she wanted reconstructive surgery, she requested they both be removed and not to put them back on her. That's when with some counseling, she realized she was in truth a he. And not comfortable in her body, so changed it. Never was attracted to men, or women for that matter. Now as Ben, Barbara has become a staunch feminist, trumpeting the female cause. Stating that intelligence should not be based on gender. And to do so is arrogant.
Ben went on to point out that negative stereotyping - women being told they aren't as smart by professors or parents or what-have-you can lead to a self-fulling prophecy. They fufill what they've been told.
2. Jenny McCarthy talked about how women relate to sex differently than men. For women - the main sex organ is their brain. They have to be in the mood. Are easily distracted by other things - like wait, Leno is on in five minutes, can this be over now? They've got to feel secure in their bodies. (She mentioned how she does not want to be seen naked anymore - due to a scar on her belly, and how when she has sex, she has to keep her bra on because she can't stand feeling her breast slide below her arm pits without the support.) The woman unlike the man, has to be in the right context. While a guy can just look at a nipple and be turned on, a woman has to think about it. (Interesting - was told this a long time ago by a college psychologist - who stated that it had to do with the sex organ or muscel. One muscel pushes - or grows stiff then you push in. The other has to open, relax. To relax that muscel, you have to feel safe and to be turned on. It's the whole push/pull thing. Not sure how true this is, I've met men with low libidios.) They interviewed a couple who had been married for several years but had not had any real sex in 9 years. The woman stated she could more or less go without it forever. They had the woman tested and realized she had a low libidio.
Did you know that 30% of women have a low libidio? That this is due to the body's chemistry? Actually women tend to have lower libidio's than men. So remind again why pharmaceutical companies spent so much money on viagra and why men get it under their health care plans, while things like the pill and female viagra are harder to get covered? It sometimes sucks to be a woman in this society. Just saying.
Here's a site I found that goes into depth on the topic: http://www.womentowomen.com/sexualityandfertility/sexaftermenopause.asp?id=1&campaignno=lossofdesire&adgroup=adgroup2&keywords=low+libido
Also in asking this woman questions, they found out that part of the problem was - she's the dominant partner in the marriage, she earned the bigger paycheck, made the decisions, etc. So in the bedroom, she couldn't get turned on, because she fantazied and wanted someone else to be in control. To surrender to someone. Not to be in control or the stronger party.
**(Totally get this, it's why I'm not turned on by small men. I know intuitively that I can overpower them. I'm person who can easily intimidate someone. Very tough. Very strong.
Both physically and emotionally/mentally. So what I want is someone who can stand up to me.
Okay - warning - crazy BTVS Couple Ramble lies ahead.
This dichotomy was in a way explored in Buffy the Vampire Slayer - with Buffy and her boyfriends - Buffy liked men who were her physical equals, who could physically over-power her. It was also explored with Willow, who oddly prefered the opposite, Willow liked to be the one in control. While Xander - often prefered to be the surrendering party, which is why Xander could not be with Buffy - both people wanted their partner to be in control. Note who attracted Xander - demon women, Buffy, Cordelia, the Monster Teacher, Joyce, Faith and Anya. Xander did not find Willow interesting until he saw her as powerful in Season 3 - with the witchcraft and dating OZ. What Xander did not understand about Buffy - was she wanted to be the weaker party or at least an equal in sex.Riley and Buffy fell apart, when Riley was no longer as strong as Buffy, no longer part super-solider. To give Riley credit - he understood that. Because Riley like Willow, needed to be in control, to be the stronger party. Angel is much the same way - he wanted to be the one in control. Spike is interesting. I honestly think Spike could do either - he could be in the weaker role or the stronger role depending on the partner, which is why he literally had chemistry with everyone. Angel could not be with Buffy if he were human, she was stronger than he was. He ran into the same problem Riley did. Spike however might have been able to handle it, except I don't think Buffy could have - because Buffy wants to be normal girl in the sack. It's fascinating. And I don't think we are always aware of it. Often even ashamed of it. Sorry for the tangent on BTVS - just my way of figuring something out via an old obsession.)
What a lot of people assume is that everyone responds to sex the same way. No. That everyone wants the same thing from it. Also no. That everyone wants the same amount. I remember reading someone on line who said that she'd been with over 100 people and felt sorry for someone who hadn't been with anyone. Honestly what arrogance. How does she know what someone else desires? Some people desire sex all the time, they have over-active libidios. Others, on the other hand, may not. They may be like Benjamin, not into it at all. Then there's the group in between.
Jenny McCarthy stated that she would rather have an "emotional bond" than an "orgasm", that to her the emotional/spiritual bond was more important. And without it the sex was meaningless.
Once again, like in their episode on racial stereotyping - 20/20's commentators prove that you really can't generalize about human sexuality. Yes there are differences between the genders, but everyone is unique and has their own needs. The trick is not to project your needs on someone else or judge them based on what your needs or desires are. Tough to do I think.
Watch, once I get a job, my tv interests will probably change completely. Brain is bored right now it requires constant stimulation. When it gets overloaded, I'll probably go back to non-stimulating material. Course, I'll also stop posting so much in this lj.
no subject
no subject
I was also oddly surprised and impressed by McCarthy, who pointed out that orgasms, while great, with the wrong person, not the best deal, and certainly don't happen all the time. And how positive body image really does play a part in the situation.
What was also, fascinating to me, was that not all women or men for that matter want or need sex. They can live happily without it.
Not something you can admit in our society, because it would be like stating you have an eye in the middle of your head. We assume everyone cares, wants, or thinks about sex all the time, but in reality - not so much. It does not drive everyone.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I may try to catch the second episode of Doctor Who in repeats - it sounds a little more interesting, and I did enjoy the episode in season one with the Last Human Being.
no subject
I often wonder if this is based on the reality of most women's lives. If their relationships with men are based on inequality or worse, I would suspect that their unhappiness with that will kill their sex drives. Their sex drives biologically drop because reproducing with these men are in no ones best interest. The genetic component is in there, somewhere. Certainly interesting stuff.
no subject
The commentators in this episode, much like the one on racial profiling pointed out the difficulty of stating an objective standard. They also to give them credit mentioned that a good portion of the woman's decrease in sexual drive was due to the simple fact that she was not sexually attracted to her husband. He did not turn her on. And women need to be turned on mentally. Although, I think, we are also turned on visually. I've known women turned on by men based on what they look like. We are as shallow as men.
Another point they brought out - was that women's sexual drive decreases when they have children - that the focus goes to the child and they are receiving the endorphins from taking care of and feeding the child. However, I know from friends - this is not true of all women. Just as not all women have good pregnancies. My sister-in-law was sick throughout hers and had horrendous labor, she also struggled with feeding her child due to "thrush" - a yeast infection on her breast. Another friend almost died in labor, was bed-ridden throughout her pregnancy, and post pregnancy due to the fact she and her child almost died, suffered from anxiety and depression. A third could not feed her child herself and had to pump her milk and bottle feed. So I'm not sure we can generalize even though we wish to.
no subject
The only sense I can make of this is that 30% of women have a lower libido that they wish to have. Is that what they mean? Otherwise, one is saying that there is some objective standard for women's libido.
no subject
What I can tell you is that was what I heard the program state. I don't know for certain what they meant by that. It was never really explained as far as I can tell, although it is possible I misheard. Could not locate a transcript on the internet. The best I could do was locate the link that I provided above.
In retrospect, I'm not sure I agree with what was said in the show. But to give the show credit they counter that statistic with the statement that the woman being interviewed just is not physically attracted to her husband. She loves him, but he does not turn her on. So it is not purely chemical. More than one variable is involved.