Skip to main content

A reply to Bindel

What lesbians don't understand about straight men: http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=2962 
See what you think!
 

Comments

Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said…
I've often had the discussion with both male and female friends as to what straight men's apparent fascination with lesbians is, and have, the majority of the time, received one of the two answers that you and Bindel have discussed. However, what I find interesting is that some men can't explain the attraction. I think that the porn industry has increased this fascination, especially as when talking to a lot of men, the fantasy is just that, a fantasy. Most men that I know at least, find a certain appeal in lesbianism when it has been dressed up to fit what the male viewer wants, and possibly even expects, from a lesbian encounter; as opposed to a more realistic portrayal of a lesbian relationship.

I also find your reference explaining why some hetero men are disgusted by homosexuality in other males very interesting. I wonder if this can be transferred to a hetero woman's view towards lesbians. Again this is only from my experience, but I have found that women are more judgemental towards lesbians than they are gay men. Could this be because, as hetero women, to find another female attractive is unacceptable?
Rupert said…
Thanks Jodie!
On my hypothesis, yes, thoroughly-straight women would be more likely to be turned on by - or at least to find acceptable - male gay sex than lesbian sex. Because they dont/cant find themselves anywhere in lesbian sex. They would be less likely than straight men however to be deeply repelled by lesbian sex than such men are by male gay sex: because they wont be being penetrated. They would be more likely to be somewhat indifferent to it.
I think that these predictions of my model fit what you say, and the facts as I understand them, fairly well. :-)

Popular posts from this blog

Reasonable manners, in the blogosphere

Dear readers of Rupert's Read; One thing I am pleased about about this blog is that when we have had debates or disagreements here, they have virtually always been good-tempered. Because the norm out there in the blogosphere is often not like that. Take 'Comment is Free', for example, on the Guardian Unlimited site: the level of debate on CIF is pretty awful, frankly, in terms of civility. It is a very unpleasant place to take part in any debate, generally, unless perhaps (as most commenters do) one hides behind the veil of anonymity (which 'ain't allowed' here). And the truth is, in case any fellow commenters reading this don't realise it, that there are many many people who get put off even reading (let alone posting to) CIF because of the volume of plain nasty comments that they risk getting, when they do. I am slightly singling out CIF here, because I believe that this is actually one of the worst places on the blogosphere in terms of this kind of ...

Medialens under the lens, over Syria and Libya: Becoming the new Dave Sparts?

I have long been an active supporter of Medialens ( http://www.medialens.org/ ). Like many others, I have supported them with money, time, tips, and I have been proud to have done so. For they have done very important groundbreaking work over the years challenging the inanities and distortions of the 'mainstream' media. They have for example written important critiques of mainstream media coverage of dangerous climate change, of Iraq Body Count, of the corporate nature of most of our media, and much more besides. They have held the corporate media to account time and again. They ought to be saluted for all of that. It is therefore with a sense of deep regret (as well as of some foreboding) that I have finally to write to address the ways in which, lately, some of the wheels seem to be coming off their wagon. An early warning sign perhaps was their long-running spat with George Monbiot, over the Rwandan genocide and the terrible atr...