Do you remember neuroscientist Ogi Ogas

[birggitt]

and his very sad and very short story on LJ with his... survey? on sexuality?

Well, look what he did! Fair warning, it could induce rage and an uncontrollable urge to hit something... someone...Why Feminism Is the Anti-ViagraI just... I don't even... *despairs

Comments

[sireesanwar]

I don't know what to say. I honestly don't think he's completely wrong but he's a little chauvinistic and disgusting at the same time.

I will freely admit I like a more rugged and dominate man but there is a line. I don't want a revert to when woman had no options, rights or say. But I believe it is true that some men what to feel like they are in control of a situation. It's a very male attitude.

I wouldn't condone a man thinking he can control you or bully you. See I think for the "dominate" men some lesson has been lost. You take care not steamroll.

I do think he has a point but the whole rape idea is disgusting.

I've seen with so many of my friends their natural tendency to let their husbands be the head of household while still being in on the decisions and what not. They seem completely fine with it. It isn't like they wouldn't stand up and say, "wait you can't tell me to do that." I just think people aren't seeing that men tend to be natural leaders. That isn't to say woman aren't. I tend to be but I want a guy I can't steamroll over because frankly, I will and if I do I can't see my interest staying with that guy.

[birggitt]

Well, I'd have nothing to say if he wasn't claiming that this is scientific research. Which is not.
For once, his thesis is that strong, independent women made men impotent. Whut?
He left out of discussion diversity in sexuality and gender in a study about oh, wait! SEX!
First, sexual fantasies are fantasies. And their meaning can be completely different accordingly to who is the one having them. Also... has he never hear about dominatrix? How they make fit in his thesis all those powerful men looking for a submissive role in sex? He just don't.
He also makes the equation penetration=submission. And, sorry, but again, no. It goes with personal interpretation, and I can choose feel it like a service that is done to me, or my way to posses my partner o whatever.
I can like an alpha man here and there, but only in bedroom. Outside, I want a partner, an equal.
What you say about women letting men to lead is cultural, same way feminism is a cultural answer to oppression.
It's okey to be submissive if that's your choice, your way. But it's not a dichotomy. You can switch, accordingly to your mood. I know I can, and most of my partners too.
People doesn't fit in neat little boxes, and that's what our friend Ogi did. He's study is simplistic, reductionist, and left out more that he took.
He bring us the example about position and female rats, so... why he didn't the same with studies about same sex rat's interaction?
I am not a big reader of published romance novels, but correct me if I'm wrong, aren't a lot of the male protagonists pool boys, stable boys, hell! pizza delivery boys? And the men with all the power and money the ones who are left behind?
Also, I've seen pics of Fabio, and he certainly can be a great fantasy, but in real life? No so much!
I love Rodney McKay with a love made of sarcasm and brilliance. But if I had to share my life with him? I'll kill him in less than a week. :P
And whoa boy! men are turned on by being dominant is “evidenced by the massive cross-cultural popularity of dominance-themed adult Web sites for men.”? That only means there is a market for that. And how he know who's visiting those websites? And, what about gay websites? Why those are accounted for?
I do agree with some points he does (mostly, the last paragraph) but I don't believe we arrive there using the same concepts, nor that it means the same for both of us.
His article is not science, is just a lot of stuff put together to arrive where he already knew he was going.
That's why it makes me angry.
I respect, love science, and this is just wrong.

[sireesanwar]

I agree with a lot of what you are saying.

Romance novels tend, at least the ones I've seen tend to be big powerful men who want someone to love and protect and a woman who wants them to love and protect her. Granted there are ones where it is less about being strong and powerful but rarely in my experience. I will admit I read few modern ones and more period pieces but the modern ones I have read are spies, business men, or really rugged men.

*raises hand* I hear ya on Rodney. I'm not sure I'd last a day.

Yes, he's not doing a lot of research, I just think he has a point. I also think so many woman are looking for that strong capable man but don't really know what they are looking for because of their independent natures they really clash with a man who wants to bring home the money and take care of everything.

It bugs me that woman see that as some kind of threat to their feminism. It isn't. I just think people in general are wired that way. We want to take care of those we love. We praise it in woman but fight the men and say woman are capable.

Women are capable but let the men feel capable too.

Whole other can of worms though.