Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why more women identify as sexually fluid than men

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 92 posts

Re: Why more women identify as sexually fluid than men

#51

Post by senectus1 »

enriquto wrote: post #2

I don't understand your meat noises Why is identity so important to folks? I'm attracted to some people, but I don't consider this fact any part of "my identity". Does this mean that I am lacking a basic human characteristic? Most of the language in this article sounds empty, when not foreign. It seems that I'm missing out something very important, but it really doesn't "click" for me. I guess I never moved past my c…

Completely agree.

I'm happy for people to attach their identity to their sexuality, but i dont get it either.

Re: Why more women identify as sexually fluid than men

#52

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

nicoburns wrote: post #38
rvanlaar wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there are male empowerment movements. Have a look at the documentary The Red Pill by Cassie Jaye. It's really disingenuous of the article to not look in the mirror and acknowledge what is happening. What happens when males are the default oppressor, masculinity deemed toxic and male empowerment movements are actively boycotted?

As a man, I certainly don't think masculinity is toxic (although of course it can be in extreme forms, like anything). Male empowerment movements on the other hand I have found to be incredibly toxic in practice. There are definitely pockets that aren't, but those seem to be few and far between.

What's frustrating is that the term "toxic masculinity" describes something very real. Unfocused masculine energy can drive very negative behavior, from hypersexuality to aggression to the desire of dominance and extreme novelty seeking. But describing it under the term "toxic masculinity" destroys conversation because of the implication that all masculinity is bad, which is just not the case.

It's much like talking about "neurotic feminity." There's something to it, but it's not a good way to frame it.

Re: Why more women identify as sexually fluid than men

#53

Post by dennis_jeeves »

czbond wrote: post #12
enriquto wrote: post #2

I don't understand your meat noises Why is identity so important to folks? I'm attracted to some people, but I don't consider this fact any part of "my identity". Does this mean that I am lacking a basic human characteristic? Most of the language in this article sounds empty, when not foreign. It seems that I'm missing out something very important, but it really doesn't "click" for me. I guess I never moved past my c…

>> RE: It seems that I'm missing out something very important, but it really doesn't "click" for me. edit: I'm addressing identity as a whole - not in the context of s3xual preferences. I am no psychologist - but an engineer. I've noticed us engineers aren't feelers. More often we run our interpretation of the world through logic and thinking first, rather than feelings first. Some people are heavy feelers and run ev…

>Neither is right nor wrong;

My friend, aren't you being a little too nice, here? How much do we bend backward to accommodate these 'feelers'. IMO option these 'feelers' are children who never grew up and continue to be parasites on the 'adults' around them. Granted that for many, their traits may be biologically innate, but the 'adults' have only so much of goodwill to spare...

Re: Why more women identify as sexually fluid than men

#54

Post by failwhaleshark »

It's good that more people, which includes women, can live how they want now.

I'm a straight, sapio+demisexual (women are pretty, but strangers don't do anything for me), polygynous man with an absurd, irrational sporting interest in piquing interest, foreplay, and seduction, but very rarely closing the bedroom door with an unknown woman or women. I am interested in smart, fun, young (AGR), beauties who tend to be bi or pan, since that's who is also interested in me. I have no qualms about a "steady" girl(s) hitting-on other girl(s), being with other girl(s), or bringing us or me more girl(s); they can go play all they want.

Lot of people hate me for this or that, either jealousy or lifestyle judgements. Fuck them. Live life as it works best for you as long as you're honest with others.

Re: Why more women identify as sexually fluid than men

#55

Post by krapp »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #52
nicoburns wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a man, I certainly don't think masculinity is toxic (although of course it can be in extreme forms, like anything). Male empowerment movements on the other hand I have found to be incredibly toxic in practice. There are definitely pockets that aren't, but those seem to be few and far between.

What's frustrating is that the term "toxic masculinity" describes something very real. Unfocused masculine energy can drive very negative behavior, from hypersexuality to aggression to the desire of dominance and extreme novelty seeking. But describing it under the term "toxic masculinity" destroys conversation because of the implication that all masculinity is bad, which is just not the case. It's much like talking…

> But describing it under the term "toxic masculinity" destroys conversation because of the implication that all masculinity is bad, which is just not the case.

Except "toxic masculinity" is a simple phrase that clearly and unambiguously describes a subset of masculinity as having the trait of toxicity, in the same way "red paint" doesn't refer to all paint, but a subset of paint that is red. If I describe a "toxic mushroom," do you think I'm claiming all mushrooms are toxic? No, it's obvious I'm making a distinction there between toxic and non-toxic mushrooms.

Yet even when the actual definition of toxic masculinity is pointed out to critics, they will often refuse to accept it and insist that it refers to all masculinity regardless of what anyone or any source says. They know what the real definition is, and they don't care.

The term or its framing isn't the problem, the problem is the consistent bad-faith interpretation of feminism and its arguments.

Re: Why more women identify as sexually fluid than men

#56

Post by username90 »

nicoburns wrote: post #36
krapp wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think this is a consequence of there being a female-focussed feminist movement, but not an equivalent movement focussed around male empowerment. There is an equivalent movement for males. Unfortunately it's been entirely co-opted by red-pillers and incels, and rejects feminism and its arguments categorically.

Yes. I guess I don't really consider those an equivalent, but something else entirely. While feminism is all about self-reflection and questioning traditional narratives, these movements seem to be mostly about doubling down on them.

The male movements certainly questions traditional narratives such as "men should die for the sake of society" or "men should do all the dangerous work and provide for women" or "men are dangerous and needs to be punished to behave" or "men aren't allowed to have feelings" etc.

Note that feminists mostly encourage many of those traditional gender roles, which is why male movements needs to go against feminism. For example when men opens up about problems women screams out about all the "emotional labour" they now have to do, they don't want men to open up they just say they do to look good and those women are the main reason men actually aren't opening up.

However, one thing here, many male movements has given up on actually fixing the problem and instead focusing on what the individual can do. So instead of trying to fix women, they just accept that women will never see them as humans and work around that. Which is why you get MGTOW, the incels, the dating players etc.

Edit: Also note where we put the blame here. When women creates groups encouraging each other to lose weight and become anorectic, do we blame that group? No, somehow we blame men who wants women to not be fat. However when men creates groups trying to adapt to the insane ideals women puts on them we call it toxic masculinity and blame men anyway.

Re: Why more women identify as sexually fluid than men

#57

Post by zozbot234 »

krapp wrote: post #55
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's frustrating is that the term "toxic masculinity" describes something very real. Unfocused masculine energy can drive very negative behavior, from hypersexuality to aggression to the desire of dominance and extreme novelty seeking. But describing it under the term "toxic masculinity" destroys conversation because of the implication that all masculinity is bad, which is just not the case. It's much like talking…

> But describing it under the term "toxic masculinity" destroys conversation because of the implication that all masculinity is bad, which is just not the case. Except "toxic masculinity" is a simple phrase that clearly and unambiguously describes a subset of masculinity as having the trait of toxicity, in the same way "red paint" doesn't refer to all paint, but a subset of paint that is red. If I describe a "toxic m…

> insist that it refers to all masculinity

That's how the phrase gets used in practice, though. You never see any feminists acknowledge masculinity at all, other than to immediately describe it as "toxic", in the very same sentence.

Re: Why more women identify as sexually fluid than men

#58

Post by whydoibother »

dennis_jeeves wrote: post #53
czbond wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> RE: It seems that I'm missing out something very important, but it really doesn't "click" for me. edit: I'm addressing identity as a whole - not in the context of s3xual preferences. I am no psychologist - but an engineer. I've noticed us engineers aren't feelers. More often we run our interpretation of the world through logic and thinking first, rather than feelings first. Some people are heavy feelers and run ev…

>Neither is right nor wrong; My friend, aren't you being a little too nice, here? How much do we bend backward to accommodate these 'feelers'. IMO option these 'feelers' are children who never grew up and continue to be parasites on the 'adults' around them. Granted that for many, their traits may be biologically innate, but the 'adults' have only so much of goodwill to spare...

And thinkers are automata with no empathy or compassion. Stop denigrating people for processing reality differently than you.

Re: Why more women identify as sexually fluid than men

#59

Post by mcphage »

czbond wrote: post #12
enriquto wrote: post #2

I don't understand your meat noises Why is identity so important to folks? I'm attracted to some people, but I don't consider this fact any part of "my identity". Does this mean that I am lacking a basic human characteristic? Most of the language in this article sounds empty, when not foreign. It seems that I'm missing out something very important, but it really doesn't "click" for me. I guess I never moved past my c…

>> RE: It seems that I'm missing out something very important, but it really doesn't "click" for me. edit: I'm addressing identity as a whole - not in the context of s3xual preferences. I am no psychologist - but an engineer. I've noticed us engineers aren't feelers. More often we run our interpretation of the world through logic and thinking first, rather than feelings first. Some people are heavy feelers and run ev…

> I've noticed us engineers aren't feelers. More often we run our interpretation of the world through logic and thinking first, rather than feelings first.

Engineers process things emotionally, too—we’re all human. Often they just refuse to recognize or admit those emotions, and get really resentful when faced with them, or forced to question their own feelings.

Re: Why more women identify as sexually fluid than men

#60

Post by krapp »

zozbot234 wrote: post #57
krapp wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But describing it under the term "toxic masculinity" destroys conversation because of the implication that all masculinity is bad, which is just not the case. Except "toxic masculinity" is a simple phrase that clearly and unambiguously describes a subset of masculinity as having the trait of toxicity, in the same way "red paint" doesn't refer to all paint, but a subset of paint that is red. If I describe a "toxic m…

> insist that it refers to all masculinity That's how the phrase gets used in practice, though. You never see any feminists acknowledge masculinity at all, other than to immediately describe it as "toxic", in the very same sentence.

>You never see any feminists acknowledge masculinity at all, other than to immediately describe it as "toxic", in the very same sentence.

In practice plenty of feminist dialogue uses the phrase properly, with far more nuance than your hyperbole allows. But when feminists do acknowledge positive masculinity, men just consider it an attempt to emasculate and control them.

No matter what feminists say or do, men will often lean into the worst possible interpretation. There's just no winning.

Post reply on HN