Reading: The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love (bell hooks) / Chapter 5: Male Sexual Being To contextualise: How Nonviolence Protects the State related tags: #HNvPtS
In actuality, men come to sex hoping that it will provide them with all the emotional satisfaction that would come from love. Most men think that sex will provide them with a sense of being alive, connected, that sex will offer closeness, intimacy, pleasure. And more often than not sex simply does not deliver the goods. This fact does not lead men to cease obsessing about sex; it intensifies their lust and their longing.
This feels true to me because it has been my own personal experience with men, but I also don't feel like she's going to explore this in a way that is accurate to what happens as a result and will find a way to blame women for men's failure and refusal to understand the world (because bell hooks doesn't think it's a refusal, even though it very much was by the point this book was published).
Coming in the wake of sexual liberation, women’s liberation seemed to promise heterosexual and bisexual men that women would begin to think the same way males do about sexuality, that female sexuality would become just as predatory, just as obsessive as male sexual desire.
... Where did they even get this impression? Who gave it to them? Why? It's nonsensical. I'm curious to know where they'd even have been told this because certainly one of the weird ass misogynists of the time would've said it. (So while I don't doubt that there were people talking about it, it'd still be nice to have EXAMPLES FOR DISCUSSION?)
Lots of men thought this was the promise of paradise. Finally they were going to be able to go for the sexual gusto without having to worry about commitment.
As if they weren't getting into sexual situations prior to “sexual liberation” that avoided commitment and needed a promise of women's ability to have sex without strings.
Discussions of sex are fundamentally easier to engage in because in patriarchal culture sex has been presented to us as a “natural” desire. Most folks believe we are hardwired biologically to long for sex but they do not believe we are hardwired to long for love.
This isn't wrong, but I'm already rolling my eyes at where it's going to go.
Feminist movement was able to challenge and change notions of female inequality on many fronts, particularly in such arenas as work, education, and religion. However, sexism continues to shape the ways most people think about sexual relations. No matter how many men in our nation are celibate or have only occasional sexual experiences, people still believe that sex is something men have to have. Underlying this assumption is the belief that if men are not sexually active, they will act out or go crazy. This is why male-on-male sexual violence is accepted in our nation’s prisons. This is why rape—whether date rape, marital rape, or stranger rape—is still not deemed a serious crime. This is why the rape of children, especially when conducted by mild-mannered, nice men, is allowed. If this were not so, celebrities accused of 5 Male Sexual Being Most men and women are not having satisfying and fulfilling sex. We have all heard the notion that men come to relationships looking for sex and not love and that women come to relationships looking for love and not sex. In actuality, men come to sex hoping that it will provide them with all the emotional satisfaction that would come from love. Most men think that sex will provide them with a sense of being alive, connected, that sex will offer closeness, intimacy, pleasure. And more often than not sex simply does not deliver the goods. This fact does not lead men to cease obsessing about sex; it intensifies their lust and their longing.
If women have been taught through sexist socialization that a journey through the difficult terrain of sex will lead us to our heart’s desire, men have been taught that their heart’s desire should be for sex and more sex. Coming in the wake of sexual liberation, women’s liberation seemed to promise heterosexual and bisexual men that women would begin to think the same way males do about sexuality, that female sexuality would become just as predatory, just as obsessive as male sexual desire. Lots of men thought this was the promise of paradise. Finally they were going to be able to go for the sexual gusto without having to worry about commitment. Sexist logic had convinced them and convinces them still that they can have connection and intimacy without commitment, that “Have dick will travel” meant that their needs could and would be met on command, at any time, anywhere.
In our culture these attitudes toward sexuality have been embraced by most men and many post–sexual liberation, postfeminist women. They are at the root of our cultural obsession with sex. When I first began to write books on love, to talk to lone individuals and then large audiences about the subject, I realized that it was practically impossible to have a serious discussion about love—that discussions of love, especially public conversations, are taboo in our society. Yet everyone talks about sex. We see all manner of sexual scenes on our television and movie screens. Talking about sex is acceptable. Talk shows engage audiences daily with explicit discussions of sexuality. Discussions of sex are fundamentally easier to engage in because in patriarchal culture sex has been presented to us as a “natural” desire. Most folks believe we are hardwired biologically to long for sex but they do not believe we are hardwired to long for love. Almost everyone believes that we can have sex without love; most folks do not believe that a couple can have love in a relationship if there is no sex.
Feminist movement was able to challenge and change notions of female inequality on many fronts, particularly in such arenas as work, education, and religion. However, sexism continues to shape the ways most people think about sexual relations. No matter how many men in our nation are celibate or have only occasional sexual experiences, people still believe that sex is something men have to have. Underlying this assumption is the belief that if men are not sexually active, they will act out or go crazy. This is why male-on-male sexual violence is accepted in our nation’s prisons. This is why rape—whether date rape, marital rape, or stranger rape—is still not deemed a serious crime. This is why the rape of children, especially when conducted by mild-mannered, nice men, is allowed. If this were not so, celebrities accused of sexually abusing children would no longer be cultural icons. The assumption that “he’s gotta have it” underlies much of our culture’s acceptance of male sexual violence. It is why many people continue to believe that anyone who is raped may have “asked for it” by “seductive” dress or behavior, no matter how many television programs have aired the facts about sexual violence.
This is probably one of the most accurate paragraphs in this entire book.
Children today learn more about sex from mass media than from any other source. Whether watching daytime soap operas, a porn channel, or X-rated movies, children in our nation are more aware of the body and of sexuality than ever before.
... How many families in 2003/2004 had readily available porn channels? And how many kids had easy access to X-rated movies?
I'm trying to think back to my own childhood, and while I can say that there are huge discussions of sex on daytime soap operas (less watched because they were on during school), there were far more portrayals of sex in regular movies (as long as it was focused on men's pleasure).
I think the only time I ever accidentally came across anything remotely pornographic was when the cable company gave us free trials of things like HBO and Showtime? And it was during times where I couldn't sleep and would be flipping channels... only to come across some sex documentary (often a weird and slightly culty sex documentary) on one of the pay channels. Porn channels were something you had to specifically order access to and required payment options most kids couldn't access.
Anyway, I don't think this is fully wrong, but it is weird as a framing and ignores the role that sex has played in every child's life even if they aren't seeking out representations.
Yet much of what they are learning about sexuality conforms to outmoded patriarchal scripts about the sexual nature of men and women, of masculine and feminine. They learn that in the world of sexual relations there is always a dominant party and a submissive party. They learn that males should dominate females, that strong men should dominate weaker men. They learn that whether he is homosexual or heterosexual, a man deprived of sexual access will ultimately be sexual with any body. If deprived long enough, even if he is straight he will have sex with another man; if he’s gay, deprivation will lead him to engage in desperate sexual acts with women.
... Did I miss those messages? While I was very much aware that gay men existed, no one ever told me that a man would have sex with anything that moves if he was “deprived” of sexual access.
It starts off recounting the lessons we learned and then hits me with things I've never heard before.
In his powerful essay “Who He Was,” Eric Guitierrez recounts how he told lies to cover up the reality that his father was gay: “About the same time I began lying about my father I began lying about myself. I didn’t offer my lies indiscriminately…. Rather than making up comforting details that would portray my flashing, gay father more like the hardworking, lawn-mowing dads that lined our street, I instead embellished his shortcomings, his weaknesses, his rages, into real perversity…. I enthralled my classmates with stories of how my father would tie us up or throw crystal goblets at my terrorized mother…. I was an accomplished liar, building false identities for my father and myself by overstating truth on its own trajectory.” Lying about sexuality is an accepted part of patriarchal masculinity.
Here were my initial thoughts on this section: ... We're just going to ignore the overt homophobia in the fact that this “accepted part” of patriarchal masculinity resulted in lying about a gay man and how he was sexually abusive? Because this passage is about a lot more than just lying about sex or sexuality. Also just throwing this passage of Eric's in without even properly contextualising it when it includes the phrase “flashing, gay father” (and is written by a man who openly acknowledged lying).
And then I went to look up what Eric actually wrote:
About the same time I began lying about my father I began lying about myself. I didn't offer my lies indiscriminately, like the almost pathological stream of whoppers told at recess by kids who had nothing to hide. I would lie only when cornered, or when the truth didn't seem like enough. Ugly and unathletic, I didn't lie to win friends but to make myself even more of an outcast. Rather than make up comforting details that would portray my flashy, gay father more like the hardworking, lawn-mowing dads that lined our street, I instead embellished his shortcomings, his weaknesses, his rage, into real perversity. Between the seventh and eighth grades, at a summer school for gifted children bursting with a happiness I did not share and so wanted to defeat, I enthralled my classmates with stories of how my father would tie us up or throw crystal goblets at my terrorized mother.
Jerry did throw and break things. But he never tied us up. We never owned crystal. Informed, quick, with a sideshow affection for freaks, I was an accomplished liar, building false identities for my father and myself by overstating truth on its own trajectory. I found myself lying when I intended to be honest and my lies began to get me into trouble.
This is VERY DIFFERENT from how she presents it, including the fact that in her copying she wrote “flashing” (about a gay man) instead of “flashy.” While this could be a mistake, it is a peculiar mistake for a passage that was altered and ends up reading as pure homophobia. In the original, it's clear why he's lying, even if those lies are still pretty bad.
They learn early that sexual desire should not be freely expressed and that females will try to control male sexuality. For boys this issue of control begins with the mother’s response to his penis; usually she does not like it and she does not know what to do with it. Her discomfort with his penis communicates that there is something inherently wrong with it. She does not communicate to the boy child that his penis is wonderful, special, marvelous.
WHAT THE HELL? What is even meant here? I have never known a mother to respond negatively to her son's penis. In fact, most moms do what they need to in order to take care of it (as they do with the REST OF THE CHILD).
“Does not know what to do with it?” What the fuck, honestly.
And why should we be communicating to any child that their genitals are wonderful, special or marvellous? Like, that is again placing sex as a core of importance of our lives despite the fact that we could do well to actually relegate sex to a far less important role of the world.
(Amusing note: I asked my partner to read this specific passage, and he thought it was from a manosphere book.)
In patriarchal culture everyone is encouraged to see the penis, even the penis of a small boy, as a potential weapon.
This is odd. Yes, it's part of patriarchy, but it's a very specific area of patriarchy because it is more often a thing that hits trans people with penises before it actually hits men.
It's also... contributing to viewing very real problems... without understanding them. For example, sexual violence done by women is perceived as less serious and less harmful. Why is that? Some people argue it's because of a perception about her not having a penis and therefore not having the tools to initiate sex. (Which is also tied to a failure to understand sex as a whole.)
Gay subcultures have historically articulated with greater honesty and boldness male compulsive sexual desire. And contrary to popular imagination, rather than being antipatriarchal, homosexual predatory sex is the ultimate embodiment of the patriarchal ideal.
Gay men are mostly used as an afterthought until the above paragraph gets going... and then it's just... sigh.
... and I gave up on notes after this. It's such a weird book with so many bizarre structures and half-finished thoughts.