The case for lechery.
Czelticgirl and I were discussing the inundation of babies in our workplace, and it sort of struck a chime in my head. Something I didn’t realize I had been contemplating suddenly enchanted my fingers and I ranted away IM-style. The following is a generalization, to be sure, but it is an observational one so please bear with me.
First, I do not understand the obsession with babies. I love children and I want to create and adopt some of my own, but I do not obsess over it. In most women, one can blame hormones. But some women go crazy over every baby they see. Evidence some self-control, you hens. Men have been harnessing their rampaging hormones since age 12. Men are sometimes just as ashamed of women’s fervent baby-cooing as women are of men’s ogling.
People don’t get up in arms when a woman has “baby fever,” but if a man accidentally loses control over his base instincts for a moment and glances down a co-worker’s shirt when she bends in front of him, it’s grounds for a harassment suit. Or if a woman is crabby during her menstrual period, hormones are an acceptable excuse for all kinds of behavior, but if a man loses discipline over his id and whips his head around to look at a woman on the street, he gets tarred with “pig” looks, if not actual confrontation.
Women have hormones that can act on their emotions. So do men. In different but equally understandable ways. Women are often disgusted by men when they catch them looking at their bodies, but why? It seem like a double standard; men must accept graciously that women are sometimes slaves to the biochemistry of their bodies, but men must continually be above that.
I get along with women better than men, but it disgusts me when they turn their nose up because I see a woman on screen or on the street and take even a brief cursory look at her body. I am a man* who ignores the sex of individuals when it comes to respect, but I cannot do so when it comes to bodily urges. I do think that men should control their eyes and minds to a point, but I also think that women should recognize that the man watching them exercise from across the gym (probably) doesn’t intend to do anything more than peruse, cogitate briefly, and move on. Luckily, the vast majority of my female friends, are strongly bisexual and simply drool agreement when my eyes turn without warning.
While I’m ranting, bisexual women and lesbians in my experience are far more lecherous than men. Somehow it is more acceptable when a woman objectifies another woman. Men have to hold their tongues, while the women openly express their admirations for the female form.
I do understand the argument that the adult entertainment industry portrays women as obedient playthings. And there are people who cannot see past these fantasies to realize that this is simply a mindless sexual thrill to appease men’s more unevolved appetites. But, it is the cultural emphasis on men being somehow beyond such “rutting,” that transforms it into a guilty pleasure, instead of simple entertainment. It makes men who want to be sensitive to their female partners nearly afraid of sex, because of its seemingly offensive stigma.
In short, let men see cheesecake! It is natural and healthy and any man worth his salt would rather be with you than with Laetitia Casta**. After all, what would they have to talk about?
* (who will fight for your honour)
** Even if the poor thing’s mouth gets all Pavlov’s dog at the mere mention of her name.
(multi-level comment field: ENGAGE!)
1) Feminine Baby Wilt.
(aka Coo, Coo, Katchoo)
A common occurrence. It doesn’t need to be like that! We as females need to ensure that the entire male population doesn’t think we drop 50 IQ points every time we catch a glimpse of a small human. Then again, “awwww, inn’t that cute” is a far preferable response to “KILL IT!”, so there must be a happy medium in there somewhere.
2) comparing baby fever to construction worker catcalls.
I don’t think lewd and lascivious thoughts when cooing over a baby. If anyone does, let me know who they are so I may kick their arse. Apples to oranges, on that count.
3)Ogling women on the street is fine, as long as wolf whistles and catcalling do not accompany the gaze. Or stalking, for that matter. I’ve rarely just been ogled, or if I have, it was subtle enough that I didn’t notice. Normally, I get the salacious rack comments, regardless of what I’m wearing. And hey, even if I’m wearing a frilly bra with no shirt out on the street*, that’s no reason to assume it’s there for you to spew out a running commentary on. Commentary-free ogling, however, is fine, and even sort of appreciated, in a weird self-esteem stroking sort of way.
Let them eat cheesecake**. Huzzah and well met.
*(odds of this occurring: approximately one billion to one)
**(Cellular Peptide cheesecake with mint frosting, even)
Comment by Samedhi — 4/8/2004 @ 1:21 pm
“2) comparing baby fever to construction worker catcalls.
I don’t think lewd and lascivious thoughts when cooing over a baby. If anyone does, let me know who they are so I may kick their arse. Apples to oranges, on that count.”
They are similar in that they are hormonal responses to visual stimuli. Men are anthropologically and biologically geared to mate excessively as it is their best bet of continuing their particular geneology; women are similarly geared toward maintaining the life of their current progeny as it is their best bet.
Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors is to this day the best and most important book I’ve ever read. Thanks, Melanie, if you ever read this.
Comment by steelbuddha — 4/8/2004 @ 1:30 pm
I think the “pig” glares are motivated by the awareness that sometimes men (and occasionally women) are driven by hormones, mental voices, or “other” to commit atrocities upon innocent, unsuspecting victims. Not that you yourself fall into this category. But the sins of a few lead to the suspicion of many.
Rarely does baby-ogling lead to atrocities. Unless you count the pastel decorating.
(if I ever decide I like pastels, shoot me. Please. Duct-tape my eyes open and make me watch Tim Burton films until my design aesthetic returns to Gothic Normal.)
Comment by Tazja Lovecraft — 4/8/2004 @ 1:47 pm
I understand that there is a limit to the amount of staring allowed, but I’ve gotten the “pig” look when it was exceedingly brief, completely incidental and immediately rectified.* Mostly from waitresses.
* – not like that.
Comment by steelbuddha — 4/8/2004 @ 1:50 pm
Oh, I know why that happened. His name is Kent.
He’s polarized waitresses the world over against all persons of the male persuasion.
He says “sorry”.
Comment by Samedhi — 4/8/2004 @ 1:53 pm
Did… did you… you didn’t…
Dear lord, you did.
http://www.amiright.com/misheard/artist/ceterapeter.shtml
Comment by Samantha Merryweather — 4/9/2004 @ 11:49 am