Vibrators and Blow-Up Dolls
I think it's safe to say that mainstream media systematically ridicule men. Or can you, off the top of your head, tell me about a movie or TV show that portrays a woman as emotionally unstable, unreliable, or incompetent? Those traits are nowadays apparently the sole domain of men. Man-bashing of that kind is so common that you may not even notice it any more.
If you need a reminder, check out this video:
(That guy has created a series of over a dozen videos that collect and discuss depictions of misandry in the media. Check it out if you've got the time.)
Think of stereotypical masturbation devices for men and women for a second!
You probably associate "woman" with "vibrator" and "man" with "blow-up doll". Nowadays, the Flesh Light may be a more appropriate analogue, and blow up dolls evolved into Real Dolls, but those details are beside the point. What does matter, though, is that vibrators are commonly portrayed as tools for female empowerment, and quite possibly you've come across lists like, "Reasons why a Vibrator is Better than a Boyfriend" You won't find answer like "Because it doesn't care about the fact that no guy wants me" on there, though.
However, blow-up dolls serve the same purpose as vibrators. But instead of being tools for male empowerment, they are used to belittle guys. The message a guy gets regarding those sex toys is that he's a loser. Isn't this an absurd double standard? You're supposed to be a loser or a creep, and of course automatically an "incel" if you use a sex toy. A cursory search on the Internet will reveal plenty of posts by women who share this opinion. Yet, once the conversation switches to vibrators, they are all about independence, and their old empowerment shtick.
I know, logic isn't held in high regards in feminist circles. Still, I can't help but think that if it's supposed to be pathetic to use a Flesh Light, it's certainly equally pathetic to use a vibrator. Of course, if you're a woman and used to getting away with having double standards, you may hold a different view. This then leads to the conclusion that the negative portrayal of sex toys that are designed for men is yet another example of a questionable double standard. I'll discuss more of those in future posts.
What's your opinion? Let me know in the comments below!
I'm a guy but if I knew some chick was banging a blow up doll with a strap-on attached... or one of those machines... It's the fake relationship thing that might be weird. I would look at it a bit askance. fleshlights are more directly analagous.
3agle 3yes June 1, 2013 at 5:03 PM
The way I see it? It's not so much a double standard but more a guilt trip...
It's the same (but not to such an extent) with minorities (most of the guys in the ads were white), gays and so on.
It's also an unspoken truth, everybody knows deep down the only ones that get anything done are the men...this hardly needs to be portrayed in the media as it happens in real life hence the so called "comedy effect" of the adverts. Maybe a few generations ago they were funny...but now they've gone too far.
What really concerns me is the media portrayal of the relationship dynamic between men and women. When the guy chases the girl, gets shot down numerous times but keeps on going. There's no pathetic attempt at humor here, this shit is supposed to be taken seriously!!
Nobodies meant to be high-fiving each other because they're getting some pussy or because they have a girlfriend (this is partly what created the male-female power shift)...this is meant to be NORMAL...not some big achievement.
Big achievements are made in the ABSENCE of women.
Is it possible that womens shaming of men who use sex toys is due to the fact that were such shaming employed against them, it would be effective? If so, does womens insistence that female use of sex toys is "empowering" indirectly reveal that women believe a man who uses sex toys is "empowering" himself because he doesnt need a woman to get pleasure?
Aaron Sleazy June 2, 2013 at 2:11 AM
This is a very good point. It reminds me of the kind of "shaming" women attempted when I was not ready or willing to settle down yet. It's quite a trip to have a chick you've banged a few time push for a relationship and suddenly blurt out, "But why would you want to be alone?" or, in the less understanding cases, "You'll die old and alone." This tells more about the women than it does about men. I think a lot of men are quite happy if they can spend time on their own, and it's certainly not the worst thing in the world to be single. Women, on the other hand, view having a boyfriend as a very high, if not the highest, priority, and many clearly feel deficient if they don't have a partner.
Fifth Season June 2, 2013 at 12:38 PM
Maybe you haven't talked to a certain subset of women yet. There are plenty of women on the internet who are perfectly happy being single and staying that way for the rest of their foreseeable lives.
Aaron Sleazy June 2, 2013 at 2:15 PM
Would you mind sharing some links? I can't help but think that only women who aren't attractive enough chose being single. Of course, there isn't much of a choice involved in that case.
Fifth Season June 3, 2013 at 2:36 AM
Single women in First World countries seem to have a nice deal. The so-called "mancession" was named because it affected women less, and they can get on-demand orgasms from vibrators, and on-demand sex from those men they can pick up, even after the free drinks dry up (if there were any to begin with).
But here are some informative links:
http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-06-13/hitched-the-myth-of-the-happily-married-woman/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anna-david/single-women-happy_b_1571861.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-206070/Happily-single-fifty.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/apr/13/women.familyandrelationships3
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/single-and-loving-it
Aaron Sleazy June 3, 2013 at 12:50 PM
I now had a look at the links. It struck me that most are rather theoretical, or somewhat weak attempts to glorify some rather drab social realities. If you had given me links to the homepages of hot, single women who said, "I'm young, I'm hot, I've got ambitions, and I don't want a man or kids", then I would have been impressed. On the other hand, women past their prime --- one article spoke of women aged between 35 and 44 if I recall correctly --- aren't that desirable to begin with. This means that the step from not being desired to saying that you don't want to have a man anyway isn't so big. It may well be just a case of sour grapes.
Fifth Season June 3, 2013 at 7:53 PM
Okay, you can have what you're talking about too, if I'm correct in what you want is personal blog entries with attached pictures of the bloggers:
http://annshugar.blogspot.ca/2009/05/who-says-being-singles-sin.html
http://ashalah.com/2012/10/why-are-you-single-and-other-such-dating-nonsense/
http://abjlovingabujaliving.blogspot.ca/2013/03/just-my-two-kobo-beauty-of-singleness.html
http://500daysofmegan.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/dont-worry-be-happy/
http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-4394/STILL-Single-Why-I-Have-Chosen-to-Go-Solo.html
There's even a Facebook community:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Being-single-and-LOVING-it/287382781273999
Aaron Sleazy June 4, 2013 at 12:28 AM
Thanks for the links!
The first one is 20, and judging from her pictures, highly unattractive.
The second ends her rant with, "I decided to put myself back in the game about a month ago, code for I put my profile back up on one of the free dating sites I'm on. I haven't been on that many dates, to be honest, since I've been so busy with life but I wanted to get back out there."
The third confesses, "What it comes down to is that yes, I'm a serial dater. It was fun while in New York where it was the norm, but now that all my friends are paired up and I'm older and just over this whole game, it's exhausting."
I'm tempted to read "I'm older" as "it's harder and harder to keep a guy interested."
The fourth writes that she's not happy being single but trying to figure out how to: "How to be happy when shit sucks. How to be happy being single. How to be happy feeling uncomfortable. How to be happy when something doesn't go my way. How to be happy… always."
The fifth is getting older, too: "I had been in a relationship since kindergarten, always flowing from one long-term boyfriend into the next, a serial monogamist with a seven year relationship under my belt by the time I was in my mid-twenties, preceded by a four year relationship... you get the picture."
I had to laugh when I read her attempt at rationalizing her condition by referring to her zodiac sign: "I'm a through and through Sagittarius, independent and adventurous, eternally optimistic and excited, a deep thinker seeing opportunity for expansion where others feel a fear of the unknown that makes them want to shut down. I'm a nurturer yet I am currently and purposefully avoiding romantic relationships, even going as far as assuming I might not have the "baby gene" because I've never had a desire to have children (who knows, maybe someday)."
Still, she is the closest to what I was looking for. At 28 she's certainly not young anymore. It may be that she got "burnt" in the dating game. Why is it that those guys she had been dating for years didn't want to marry her?
The facebook group was interesting. Still, there is quite a bit of reinforcing going on. Forums for "happy bachelors" work quite differently. A prime example is: http://happybachelorsforum.com/
Yes, they do bash women, but it's supported by fact or anecdote. However, they go far beyond the "being single is fine too" chant of the girlies.
Fifth Season June 13, 2013 at 9:54 PM
You should make a future blog entry about this; about how despite what heterosexual women say to the contrary, they still care about finding the right man. It's easy to forget that in this day and age with all the influences I've already mentioned.
Aaron Sleazy June 14, 2013 at 5:07 AM
I've indeed been working on such an article, based on the links you provided, and the reply above. But give me some more time because I'm drowning in work at the moment.
Well, vibrators have been lauded as "empowering" for women because they let women learn about their sexual responses (female genitalia isn't as obvious as men's, so women stumble upon masturbation later or not at all until they learn of it from others or media). It's no one's fault either that most women can, once they learn enough about their bodies, orgasm with more frequency and greater intensity than men, since they don't have to deal with that pesky bit of "male privilege" called the refractory period, with or without a partner.
This serves to lower men's value as potential sexual partners for heterosexual women even further--nothing but experience will tell a heterosexual woman if a man will take the time to learn her body. So it's a gamble, if she decides to bed a man on an ongoing basis, whether or not he'll take the time to "learn the gropes" as it were, and thanks to the poor reputation men have as sexual beings in media and elsewhere, the odds certainly aren't in favour of a potential man (once again, because nothing but experience will tell for certain). A sufficiently-informed heterosexual woman can always go home alone after rejecting who-knows-how-many-men at the bar/nightclub/social gathering and enjoy all the trouble-free and risk-free orgasms at home with her vibrator--thus, taking a chance on a man is clearly not likely to be a winning proposition.
I believe male sex toys are derided because it's considered "manly" to be able to "pull chicks" whenever you want. Male sexuality is also widely considered one-dimensional, so a man discovered with a fleshlight might hear "Why waste your money when you've got two fully-functional hands?". Part of the "creep factor" associated with sex dolls is the "uncanny valley" nature of their appearances, and because since it looks vaguely human and can't give, withhold, or withdraw consent like a real woman, its use may give the impression that the user may prefer that consent with a real woman not be considered.
I'm still reminded of a quote from a book when I think about this: "What the hell, why should I be here at all? Go take your vibrator and have a good time." And a good time she will have--you can't make other people's choices for them, and if she's chosen to believe a man is going to be a "lousy lay," there's nothing you can do to change her mind.
It really does make one wonder if men are at all valued as sexual beings by women in a heterosexual context anymore (outside of established relationships that is).
P.S. A heterosexual woman might not say "because no men are interested in me" when giving a reason as to why she uses a vibrator instead of seeking out real men to form an ongoing sexual relationship with; she might instead just say "because all the men I've been with are pigs and can't compete with my little helper," and the women who hear this would most likely treat this as self-evident.
But couldn't anything you said about blow-up dolls also be said about vibrators? Some models are supposed to be more life-like, consent is not an issue, and they may quite certainly reinforce the notion of using men merely for sex. If there is an uncanny valley with a Real Doll, there is the same with a flesh-colored piece of plastic that resembles a cock.
I believe the "uncanny valley" is mainly reserved for things with faces, or depictions of things with faces. You can find plenty of depictions of hands with forearms in gift shops or art galleries anywhere, for instance. Real severed hands or forearms with hands would disturb many people, but forearms made of clay/plaster/stone/etc. don't, because the "oh, it's just an inanimate object" impression overrides the "this looks like a severed limb" impression for most people. For the same reason, the vast majority of people don't look twice at open boxes full of store mannequin limbs.
And who said dildos had to resemble actual penises? Improvised ones can be of any sufficiently long and rigid thing. There are also lists on the internet describing why "Cucumbers are better than men" too, for instance.
I'm used to people disagreeing with me (I'm an individual and my thoughts are purely my own), so I won't be surprised if there is disagreement here.
First of all, it's one thing using a blow up doll or flesh light and it's nothing thing TELLING women that you use them.
Second, men and women are not the same...saying "if women can get away with this, why can't men get away with that?" can't really be an argument because certain things are expected of men that aren't expected of women.
I expect little from a woman, but I expect alot from a man. I don't care what the consensus things.
Women can be weak, men CANNOT be. Women can be indecisive men CANNOT be. It's not surprising that women would ridicule a man for using a blow up doll because that is the behaviour of a wuss. Nothing disgusts a woman more than a man who is not wanted by a woman and nothing reinforces that thought more than a man using a blow-up doll or a "flesh light".
Imagine yourself on a very good day or imagine a man who is very good with women (I'm sure everyone knows of one or has come across one). Now imagine this man using a blow up doll? Even if he did, no woman would nor you would ever think so.
Some may not like it, but its evolutionary...women are attracted to men who are desired by other women. Women are attracted to men who are in control of their emotions (or their lusts). The less you NEED a woman the more likely you will get one.
This also applies to "equality". If men = 1 and women = 2 how can both have the same value?
Women are built to think and act differently from men, a man who fucks a lot of women will not put off other women (in fact, they like it regardless of what they say), but the same cannot be said of woman who sleeps around. Women were made to accompany men, women are always happier when they are supporting a man, I'm serious. Most women I know act bitchy because they want to be conquered.
Many women will disagree with my statement, for sure, but one of the most important things I have observed from women is what they SAY and what they RESPOND to are different.
The reason it's pathetic to use a fleshlight and fine to use a vibrator is because men don't give a shit if women want to use vibrators, while women do give a shit if men use fleshlights. Women understand perfectly well, even if they'd never admit it, that sex is their core natural powerbase, as such they experience a visceral dislike of anything that reduces men's reliance on them for sexual release, any alternative to putting up with a woman's bullshit and jumping through her hoops. It's the reason they dislike porn, it's the reason they dislike prostitution, it's the reason they dislike sex toys. Women apply a penalty to these things in the form of shame, there is almost nothing most men will not do to avoid being shamed by a woman, just look at the wild success of the white feather campaign. In a way it is similar to how men apply a penalty to promiscuity, since we want to know which children are ours, whereas women do not because there is no biological/evolutionary reason for them to care, the source of their neverending whining about the slut/stud double standard.,
Needless to say they have no problem exercising double standards in the promotion of their own sexual interests.
An Encouraging Message from a Reader
Feminist Power Fantasies
Do women really hold all sexual power?
Sex, Porn, and Voluntary Celibacy
So, how healthy is the PUA Scene?