Sexism and Men's Issues

@ Cat calling: How common is it outside the USA? Because here in Britain I think it's now seen as socially unacceptable and anti-social behaviour.

Me and my boyfriend have been catcalled quite often walking around the various suburbs of Sydney (mainly due to how we dress when we go out together and how he has a very feminine figure and gets confused for a woman from a distance). I used to get catcalled by truckies and lads while standing out for the bus outside my high-school, it's really fucking scary at that age.

edited 2nd Jul '15 12:46:39 AM by PippingFool

I'm not sure how frequent it happens in my country, say alone in the city I live. I can only remember one time I heard women complaining about catcalling, and I don't remember ever seeing it happen. Maybe it's because I don't have a close relationship to many women.

However, the one time I remember hearing about this issue happening, it was with students from my school (who I didn't know personally). Apparently, they were walking to school, on the same block the school is located, and some man started doing that. I don't remember if those students were high schoolers or middle schoolers. But I know some teacher lied saying those were his students, and that he'd call the police, and the harasser went away. That event resulted in some female students posting pictures of themselves in uniform with a sign that read "My uniform is not your fetish." It happened a few years ago, three or four if I'm not mistaken.

Not directly connected to that event, as far as I know, one of the groups running for Student Council (I assume that's the best translation I can give) held a talk about harassment in the courtyard last week. I only happened to know about it because I was walking by, but today I saw a sign about something similar, though I can't tell if it was about that event or another upcoming one. I think that's nice.

I have never see that but a friend of mine in argentina said he have been catcalling a few time, or a least some women whisper things to her friends.

Also in his work someone try to touch his ass....it didnt end well for the poor bastard

That would fit with stereotypes of both Argentine men (sleazy flirts) and women (hot) round here.

I've had my butt grabbed by male classmates before. Some of which even are homophobic, I think.

Crotch-pinching was actually a common teasing back in my shcool days. I shit you not.

In general, standards regarding male friendly intimacy are quite different here in the Balkans.

I've never done cat calling myself out of shyness but I have been a few times.

I found it to be awkward but I was glad someone noticed my existence. Most of my friends also don't cat call, mostly due to none of them being hormone filled teenagers and being a more educated than the average joes.

On the other hand the construction workers in my college let do that all the time with the passing female students.

Which reminds me off:

I've had a friend of mine do that to me, but most of the time it's classmates I don't talk to that much. In fact, uh... One of them has licked my ear twice ._.

Even more different in Korea, so I hear. They've got the skinship going on full-out. Dudes holding hands and putting their heads in each others' laps, and the like. I have also heard purely anecdotally that teenage immigrants from East Asia tend to be even more homophobic than is typical for that demographic, partially as a result.

Interesting to see how the standard of platonic affection between dudes differs between places. And time, as well.

edited 2nd Jul '15 8:31:05 PM by majoraoftime

I wouldn't specifically call it "platonic affection". I am a romantic asexual, and a serious Cuddle Bug, so that kind of affection can have both platonic, and romantic connotations to myself.

in the asexual community, there is a general understanding on divisions of attraction or desires, that I don't see in most other talks. the short version, for this discussion at least, the desire for physical, non-sexual contact, is usually called Sensual Attraction, and can have platonic, romantic, sexual, or even no connotations depending on the person.

of course, cultures themselves, also have their own connotations for what that kind of contact means. in places like Korea, or early 20th century America as talked about above, that kind of contact has platonic connotations^note  said connotations produces an interestingly different view of homosexuality, that the article talks a bit about. I would love to know what Korea's view is. more modern day America tends to have a mixed view, depending on where its occurring, and whose participating. and Japan, as found out, views that kind of contact as hilariously sexual.

speaking of Japan, a side discussion on the General Japanese Culture thread occurred, discussing the notion that female sexuality is somehow "more fluid" than male sexuality. and I wanted to get everyone's opinion on this here thread, as well as express my own opinion.

Personally, I think it's a load of bull-cocky, and here are my general thoughts why:

1. actual study of Male sexuality is Abysmal. seriously, for reference, check the The Other Wiki's pages on male and female sexuality. the female sexuality page, has several sections, discussing a variety of topics, form orgasms, to erogenous zones, to legislation and the like. the Male sexuality page on the other hand? a 2 sentence preface, before immediately jumping into sexual orientation (primarily homosexuality), and that section consisting of paraphrasing two different pages, and linking to them. in general, this comes from most culture putting next to no thought into male sexuality. it just is for some people. the current culture does not promote examining into it, allowing stereotypes to run rampant and self propagate, creating a vicious cycle of assumptions into what male sexuality is.

2. Actual study of sexuality Period is abysmal. as I said earlier, in the asexual community there is some understanding on types of attraction. this understanding did not come from any studies or anything, just people discussing. this is because studies on sexuality are hilariously behind the times in terms of actually understanding human sexuality. the concept of Asexuality broke most modern theories of human sexuality, because the people behind those theories could not comprehended the idea the someone wouldn't want sex. because of that, and some general other stuff, I don't put much faith in studies done on sexuality currently.

3. Everyone's sexuality is fluid to some degree. despite what some people in the LGBT community like to say, no one's really born gay. no one's really born straight either. now, there are some rather fascinating reasons why the LGBT movement promotes this idea, mostly dealing with the concept of agency, and how our culture handles it ^note  itself an interesting discussion, and relevant to this thread in fact, but this post is already MASSIVE, so moving on. people's sexuality is not determined from birth, nor is it entirely an outside influence thing. personally, I am of the belief that people are born with some level of range as to what their sexuality could be, and experience shape how that comes to form. of course, then where does the appearance of men having more definite tastes, while women are more fluid come from? well, that is because...

4. Culture and media can have a profound effect on one's sexuality. Most media is made for men. I think we can agree on this fact. well, rather, most media is made with the assumption that the audience is male, specifically a straight male. now, assume you are a straight (or straight leaning bisexual) male, growing up with all this media telling you, what you, as straight male, find attractive. This is of course, also while being in a culture that tells you not to self examine your own sexual desires and feelings. to me, the most likely occurrence of such an existence, is that you are going to come out, finding some variation of the Conventially Attractive Women(TM) attractive. Since women are not usually the assumed audience of most media, and the fact that the Conventially Attractive Man is also designed from a male perspective (again, it's own discussion), women are more likely to develop their own understanding of their own sexual desires and feelings. additionally, women are more likely to admit, to themselves and others, that they are some form of Bisexual, possible because, female bisexuality is the only type of Bisexuality media likes to show, again for the male audience (because HAUGHT or something, it makes no sense to me) but still. it does lead me to my last point...

5. more people are probably somewhere on the Bisexuality spectrum than they'd like to admit since Bisexuality is still also unheard of to an extent, and has a bunch of misconceptions around it for those who do know the term, there are likely a large amount of people who are bisexual, but do not identify as such. there is no external motivation for identifying as such, since you're likely to get harassed on both sides of the spectrum for identifying as such. plus, if You lean a certain way (gay or straight), its just easier to say you are gay or straight, than Gay leaning, or straight leaning Bisexual.

I could probably still go on, but this post is massive, and I'm a slow typer, so I've been here for awhile.

TL;DR Sensual attraction is a thing. I find "women are more fluid than men" to be bollocks. most sexual studies are crap. I believe culture as a large effect on this kinda stuff, and Hidden Bisexuals, EVERYWHERE!!!

I think that's about it. I'm Cave Johnson, We're done here.

edited 3rd Jul '15 12:42:07 PM by Jetyl

Girl on Girl Is Hot, yeah. So female bisexuality is tacitly encouraged (although "serious" bisexual females catch about as much flak as lesbians when they do pick the gay option for realsies rather than just for gratification of a male observer).

true, very true.

Bisexuality is still so under represented, that Girl on Girl Is Hot is the most common appearance it has. It definitely has problems, but at least they are allowed to exist in some fashion. it's kinda the best modern mass media has.

and that's sad.

edited 3rd Jul '15 12:55:41 PM by Jetyl

Lovely post!

Did you hear about the new Tom Hardy movie? Legend? Not only is he bisexual in reality, but they are including Kray being bisexual in the film. Lindsey Ellis did a great article on bisexuality in film, especially in regards to men, and how this is really awesome.

I'm thrilled about it as a bisexual myself. But ai am also thrilled because we have someone of an alternative orientation playing a character of that orientation as well. Plus, Tom Hardy, Bane, Tommy from Warrior, Mad freaking Max, is a great visual role model for men. You can be a gay powerlifter. You can be bisexual or asexual or whatever and still be a damn good man.

Then take into Polarstern's experience with men in the military and the new policies encouraging transgender acceptance (still a way to go), this is a good cultural growth for men and women alike, but men deserve this opening.

Makes me a happy bear.

Tom Hardy is bisexual? I didn't know that.

I wanna see Legend, Hardy has really become one of my favorite actors.

What about Kevin Spacey?

I need to Watch House of cards but I keep hearing he is awesome on that movie and even kissed another guy.

There have been some RL rumors regarding Kevin Spacey but that's mostly low-level gossip. Besides, it's not like it's anyone's business.

His character in House Of Cards is canonically bisexual, though.

edited 3rd Jul '15 1:32:12 PM by LogoP

Ronnie Kray's "bisexuality" consisted mainly of raping underworld rivals/hapless fellow prisoners. Forgive me for not jumping with joy at this new Hollywood portrayal.

edited 3rd Jul '15 3:40:25 PM by Achaemenid

Didn't one of these two psychos also molested underage immigrant boys?

There is good and bad to everything. You can't solve problems if you keep erasing them.

I rather a clear discussion about a legitimately bisexual bad guy then coding a comical fiction gay that inspires confusion and calling it done.

Some bacground info on the Kray twins for anyone not in the know

Pro: We need more diversity in media, moral standing be damned.

Con: We have a serious problem with non-cisgendered non-heterosexual characters (especially gay characters) being written as villains. Several gay, bisexual and asexual characters tend to be homicidal sociopaths, and that's not good from both a gender and mental health standpoint.

edited 3rd Jul '15 4:28:33 PM by Aprilla

On the other hand, we still have the problem with non-white and cis villian that it lool like steriotypes, I sill having problem finding good villian womans or black villians

A problem with villains of various minorities and "minorities" is that you're basically damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you don't, it's not diverse enough. If you do, people pull the "women are bad at math" thing, since a villain kind of by default is a moral deviant of some kind. If it's a white male, the deviancy is because he's a villain. If it's a gay character, the deviancy is because it's a gay character.

On the flip side, people could write that kind of villains better, such as making the gayness or whatever more obviously incidental to them being villains, rather than part of it.

And from everything I have read about Legend that is what they are doing. They aren't plastering it everywhere but they aren't white washing it away. Again, getting an actual bisexual in the role seems to be helping in this regard.

Now I may go to the theaters and have to eat all my words, but I am willing to give Hardy the benefit of the doubt for now.

Tom Hardy isn't actually bi. Daily Mail (barf) simply misquoted an old interview of his regarding what he has done during his career as an actor. Which includes gay scenes. I think the man himself came clean and rectified that misunderstanding.

Still a great actor, though. Very versatile.