Men do think about matters of the heart, but writing about it publicly could be seen as undignified, says journalist Imogen West-Knights
Men do think about matters of the heart, but writing about it publicly could be seen as undignified, says journalist Imogen West-Knights
This is part of what I was saying in the first bit. There are absolutely differences in genders that should be recognized and respected. But context is key. Assuming women are the “underdogs in heterosexual dating” that does not translate to talk about dating. In the context of dating advice and online discussions about relationships, I very much disagree that women are underdogs. But the author is using this, presumably, to support the prior sentence’s argument that women can “fairly” denigrate men in print for this reason.
But also, we’re not talking about dating, we’re talking about sex, and women are the definite underdogs when it comes to sex, or at least casual sex. The stats on who gets to orgasm through casual sex are just abysmal for heterosexual women… Maybe we all would benefit from sex columns for men more than we’d like to admit.
The amount of false info around, " it’s just much harder for women to orgasm" and " a lot of women simply cannot orgasm no matter what" is pretty easily disproven by orgasm rates in homosexual female couples, which leads me to believe it’s the men in the equation that lead to women having trouble orgasming, not some inevitability.
And this is all women are clear underdogs in sex before you even touch on the difference in dangers to men v women with sex /sexual violence/ coersion
Are you suggesting that those are valid reasons that “women [should be] allowed to denigrate men in print”? Because that’s the thing I was talking about.
Why is that your sole data point here? What about amount of sex in general?
Men have less sex in general and do it less frequently, so by that metric men are the underdogs.
Great points about the orgasm gap.