Body vs. Mind debate is pointless --- my long thesis

I believe the whole dynamic between men and women is being discussed on this forum based on the false assumption of a duality between body and mind. E.g., men only want sex/women want to be valued for their personality.

None of the above affirmations are true. Actually men want more than sex, but being initiators, are put in a predatorial position. Actually, women also want meaningless sex, but are put in the position of the predated, which precludes enjoyment of sex for sex's sake.

If a woman wants to be valued for her personality --- she has to forsake the comforts and advantages of passivity.

Conversely, men who wished to feel sexually desired are going to have to allow room to women --- that is, seduce them, but passively wait for them to make the move.

A SUBJECT acts --- (men's socio-biological role)

Disadvantages: risk of failure/emotional risks; responsibility for one's actions; feeling undesired, nothing falls out of the sky;

Advantages: a subject is generative and constructs his/her own experience;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

An OBJECT reacts --- (women's socio-biological role)

Disadvantages: objectification; lack of initiative; impotence in constructing one's experience, victimization, etc.

Advantages: feeling desired; being taken out, given gifts, given rides, have doors opened, special favors, free drinks/dinner, less risks, no responsibility in relationships, etc.

So which is it boys and girls???

 

This is a very thought-provoking post, and I will be watching to see how this thread develops. I've always been fascinated by the true nature of the gender dynamic in regards to sexuality.

 

females also initiate, but in more subtle ways, such as giving the guy a look, flicking the hair, spinnnig the foot, wagging the leg. Of course, sometimes they do say "hi" or something more x-rated. Then the guy becomes the reactor.

Females also have tremendous emotional risk in getting into a relationship as they have emotional breakdowns if there is a disaster, but so do guys.

female also feel obligated and pressured to put out sexually, even if the guy is not pressuring her, in order to validate the relationship.

 

I am making a distinction between initiation and seduction. It's pretty clear that women go through great pains to seduce suitable males; but, even today, they initiate inifinitely less than males.

By initiation I mean an unambiguous sign of availability (as opposed to mere fondness) toward another.

I'm not concerned with risks within relationships for purposes of this thread. It is true that women take on a lot of risks once in a relationship.

But they also take infinitely less risks than males in the getting-to-know process. That's the process that concerns me here because it is extremely gendered.

 

an unambiguos sign of availability is eye contact towards the guy which happens quite often when women want the guy. It happens to my friends quite often when we go out... now that I am almost 40 I don't go out with single guys anymore since they are mostly married but this was the case several years ago when we used to hang out.

Females do initiate a lot and this has increased tremendously since the women's liberation movement.

I'm curious, when you are sitting at the cafe and you see a new female, do you approach or does she look at you first? Or perhaps you look and there is the uninterrupted eye contact where neither breaks it - thus indicating mutual interest.

Also, how to differentiate seduction vs. initiation when they are really quite similar? When a female gives signals, she is initiating the seduction process. When a male initiates by approaching her, he is also initiating the seduction process. Males and females initiate in different manners (most of the time) but we cannot say that males initiate so much more than females initiate.

 

If a woman wants to be valued for her personality --- she has to forsake the comforts and advantages of passivity.

what does this mean?

 

As I see it, it means:
If a woman wants to be valued for her personality, she has to take the initiative and make advances herself to avoid being overwhelmed by a male who feels he must be aggressive and overpowering.

As interesting as this theory is, I find the dichotomy you present pretty weak. What I have found normally, and far more ideally, happens is a compromise. There is an initiation by one party that is something small and relatively inconsequential, and after this the other party reciprocates with another gesture that affirms the validity of the initial one. This way instead of one party receiving and the other giving, there is give/take on the part of both parties, which really is what a relationship is supposed to be in the first place. Generally this back and forth can escalate and allow the passive/aggressive dynamic you set forth to be eschewed in lieu of a more balanced courtship ritual.

 

That is exactly what I mean: seduction is signals --- signals are easily and frequently retracted. Also easily misunderstood. They are also frequently a tease bearing no real intention toward another.

Initiation is an approach --- either physical or verbal; it's an irretractable "move" --- once you made that move there is no way to claim misinterpretation.

To answer your question, I get looked at quite frequently by women and that's hardly enough for me to approach her. I think the only thing that will make me approach a woman is physical proximity. In which case I might wink, hold her hand for a split second, call her endearing names or do something more aggressive depending on what my intuition says.

Essentially I'm signaling availability while still making clear I respect her personal space and boundaries.

P.S. My days of going across the bar to a girl that's been looking at me and embarassing myself are over. As far as I'm concerned, I'm only interested in women willing to share the load.

 

Thank you for a very thoughtful post.

I think women put themselves in the position of objects of desire when they lay the responsibility for initiation with males. Asking males to thereafter not regard them as objects is like asking water to burn and fire to cool.

And I'm not claiming men should be entirely passive, no. What I'm saying is that if women want true mutuality --- that is, no one is an object to another's aggression --- they'll have to share the load.

Simply saying you want to be appreciated "for your mind", that is, as a SUBJECT, while being passive won't do. No matter how loudly off the top of their lungs women want to scream it.

But the truth is there are advantages to being a passive object. And women are usually not willing to let go of those advantages, even if they are bothered by objectification.

It may simply be biological phenomena. I don't know.

 

Here's an example:


I knew a girl in college. Track girl with a beautiful phisique. Every guy was into her. However, she spent her college years alone and crying because she would end up with football jocks who fucked her and left. Later I found out all she really wanted was a boyfriend.

In parties, there were routinely fights around her...usually some guy touched her and she raised up a storm --- fistfights would develop; the police would be called.

-----------------------

Now enter another girl I knew in the same college around the same time: she was equally beautiful and desired by all the guys I knew. She would go to the same parties. And yet...NEVER have I seen guys treat her with disrespect. Over the two years I've seen her she went on several dates with guys that I know to be intelligent and chilvarous. Why? What is the mystery here???

Well, the only difference I can see between track girl and the other girl is in their behavior toward men. Track girl would show up (usually with provocative clothes) and eschew men. She would dance, tease, etc. But never a "hi" never a "hello." In fact she treated men like non-entities.

The other girl would come into a party and radiate life into it. "Hi, how are YOU!?" "Is this your friend, nice meeting you!" SHE would take the initiative to TOUCH and hug guys. Yet in a respectable manner.

The end-result: guys were INTIMIDATED by her. Not because of her looks. But because here breathed and lived a woman who was not a passive object...but a living, desiring, active, agent of her own experience.

 

initiation is not always an approach. A girl can initiate by the methods I've stated, looks , body movements or just saying hi. When you wink and when a woman winks at you is the same initiation, both are irretractable. When a girl flicks her hair and a guy does not approach her, she also feels embarrased as she has initiated and been rejected.

Females do initiate a lot more than the posted theory would suggest. If you think that women also want lots of meaningless sex and have been liberated by society to pursue this, there are free to initiate, maybe not as much as men but they are catching up.

Also, getting looked at by women is 90% of the battle. Once they find you physically attractive, the game is on and the conversation and other things are formalites, especially for good looking physically fit guys who make for a good sexual experience for females. now a good looking guy can break the deal by being an idiot but basically all he has to do now is listen to the female and she will initiate the sexual act.

 

I've stated my disagreement with you in other posts so I'll be short:

1) To me, eye-contact is 0.5% and the rest is attaining a level of comfort with the other person. Which is a long, complex, and protracted game;

2) I think women of my generation are less "liberated" than the youth of the 60s/70s. There is a huge post-HIV conservative movement going on. And sex statistics support that;

3) As for the definition of initiation, you can cut it the way you want it. I'm saying that for purposes of MY posts, I'm defining initiation as APPROACH.

 

you know these 2 girls and we don't ,but I have seen lots of women who are "social leaders" and many of them use their looks to gain attention and then power. I'm very attracted to these types of women because they are friends with everyone and will talk to you and not reject you and for a guy like me who is rejected constantly for a lifetime, it is refreshing. I feel like I won't get rejected by a "bitch" and will at least get to interact with a female.

Basically, she is respecting guys and guys give her the respect back. I see this with strippers a lot, there will be some really popular strippers who will just be very nice to all customers and men will be very nice to them and not touch her pussy or other things that will get them kicked out or arrested. These strippers command respect because they give respect.

They don't necessarily have to go about the club and say hi to every guy but if a guy talks to them, she will treat him nicely, this builds loyalty and respect.

Everybody loves Oprah because she treats people nicely. Oprah does not have to initiate anything, but if you approach her, she will make you feel like you are the superstar not her.

 

Exactly! I don't know about "social leaders", but I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that this kind of woman treats men with RESPECT.

Women have to realize that ignoring people in your sorroundings is not ok at all. Men are not walls. Men are not viruses to be avoided. They are human beings.

A woman who avoids men is actually much more likely to have her personal boundaries trespassed. Even though putitatively, avoiding men has the opposite intention: to keep men at bay.

P.S. I hate Oprah. There is nothing genuine about that woman. Or much anyone on TV for that matter. For systemic reasons, of course. It's not purely her fault.