- Male sexuality, and how to act like a man – in this great post that features one of my favorite sex ed class exercises: The Performance of Masculinity (Charlie Glickman)
- Fraud alert: Interviews with one convicted pedophile have UK researchers concluding that Internet porn makes monsters, while National Geographic sets to air a similarly dubious segment of their series “Taboo.” The Controversy Behind Internet Porn and Criminal Behavior (CBSi/ZDNet)
- UPDATE: For more on the “internet porn leads to sex offenses” research fallacy being currently reported in the UK, see also, ‘Porn link to sexual deviancy’: Why this criminologist is sceptical (iGeneration)
- UPDATE 2: Don’t miss this scientific breakdown of what happens when you watch porn – and just how the science of orgasm works on brain chemicals: Explaining Porn Watching With Science! (The Sexademic)
- As I’m an advisor on the Board of new legal organization Without My Consent, this story – about faked “ex-girlfriend revenge porn” – is of particular interest, and might be for you too: Man who faked porn of ex-girlfriend denied court diversion (BostonHerald.com)
- This isn’t brand new, but it’s fun to think about – and this would be true only when it’s done right: Social networking leads to sex faster (mobile.reuters.com, thanks Rich!)
- I’ve had the pleasure of working with gifted erotica author Saskia Walker for many years, and I’m thrilled to see this great review of her new book: eBook Review: Her Fantasy by Saskia Walker (seattlepi.com)
- Thanks to a 200-year-old law, female sex workers (mostly black) are getting convicted of being sex offenders: Sex Crimes In New Orleans, Separate And Unequal (Today’s News NJ, thanks Johnny! Sorry folks, I can’t link to HuffPo after what they’ve done to my friends and colleagues.)
Image from this Reality Kings gallery on CFNM Secret.
@windquestor Actually, I suspect that there is likely to be some biological contribution to these patterns. As you say, many of these behaviors can be seen in many cultures and at many times in history. The problem, though, is that they are presented as the only way that boys and men can be, rather than one of a range of possibilities. There have always been boys and men who don’t fit in the box and there have always been those who sometimes fit and sometimes don’t. After all, if you want to take the “it happens in nature” perspective, you need to acknowledge that diversity exists in all species. Until we make room for that diversity when it comes to gender expression, the Box will remain a prison.
Hi Violet
I must say I am a huge fan of the site and I read as much or more than I oogle.
I wanted coment/dicuss the charles Glickman Box concept. Not to start a rucus but to execise my intellect and get some feed back. I thought I’d put my post here too and hope that if you have a minute you might respond
” First of all I’m out of the box becuase I’m over 50 so the battle for permanent inclusion is over. I am currently enjoying a different box which is reflection. When I look at the contents of “the box” and I look at the cultural gender role of males back through time and across the continents I find a high degree of overlap. ( between different cultures) (Virility, aspiriation for power, strength, bravery, bravdo, promiscuity, physical endowment, social status, stoicism, stamina) this list of could be applied to many prehistoric cultures. Indigineous Americans ( N and S), Africans, Slavic and Noridc Cultures, many of the differnt asian cultures, and of course the fertile crescent all of these valued most of these attriubtes in their males. ( I don’t know about aboriginal Australians )
The contiunity of the contents of the box over time, and accross space, combined with the fact that I am a bio/chemist makes me wonder the degree to which the basic structure of gender is a fucntion of chemistry and modified secondarily by cultural rules. Please consider the position I have heard from many transgender and homosexual persons that their needs / desires are not of their own choosing but in someway a fact of their existence…
Obviosuly the chemistry of human behavior is highly plastic in its range of expression, ( and I don’t mean to suggest that a chemcial starting point offers an excuse for anti-social behavior it does not.) It seems to me though that if we were looking at a different species, instead of ourselves we would assign a more significnat role to the underlying biology of gender.
I think because we don’t care to imagine ourselves as products of anythnig other than our own creation, we start by looking at society as the root of things we don’t like in ourselves rather than exmaining the biological starting point more closely.
Our modern social constructs, are perhaps a generation old. (They may not even be all that original) Our biological construction on the other hand has been many millions of years in the making and the result of a great deal of selective pressure. The social order may be new but our biology is very old. The fact that our new social norms butt up against our biological heritage does not come as a suprise to me.
Let me close by saying I have no tolerance for violence and hatred, and the goals of equality and tolerance for all is the birth right of all people. I do think that this thread is a bit lopsided on the nature vs nurture debate and I wish to give nature her due
..
Exactly – any self-respecting (or otherwise) perv would have at least a 22″ LCD ;)
You’re right, though – we are probably more uptight about sex… although probably not quite as much as we think you think we are. I think we’re still getting over some pretty draconic laws that persisted into the 80s or later – subjective obscenity definitions, operation spanner, and the like.
I could not believe that photo! I mean, that could never happen in the press here, that image.
Glad you liked it. I think that the whole thing is being reported like that is astonishing. But I’m also learning just how anti-porn the UK is. It’s so repressed, and my understanding is that you think we’re the uptight ones about sex… As in the media here, anyway!
Great article on ZDNet… hopefully not preaching entirely to the converted about the fallacy of believing everything we read in the press. Particularly the Daily Mail, who would, of course, have a field day with it. It’s good to have a nudge reminding us to look out for phrases like ‘Their research is based around a series of interviews with a convicted paedophile’ which render the entire exercise pointless and sensationalist. At least the stock picture they used echoes their dated, backwards view of the internet.