Move ro rec.arts.sf.misc? Re: CRIT: "The Day They Took Port Sharehold" opening

[Dan Goodman]

-- any heterosexual male, particularly a young one, is going to
have sexual thoughts about pretty well every remotely nubile
woman he sees, unless he's in pain, sick, in fear of his life, or
has some other powerful circumstance temporarily supressing it.

<cut>

This reaction is one of the things about which men consistently
lie to women, precisely because they always get angry about it.
You -cannot- be honest, even in fiction, without getting a
severely negative response.

I am neither so cynically depressive nor so misandristic as this.

Yeah, I'm plonking the thread now, lest I get depressed enough to
leave rasfc entirely. If there's any interesting content still
around can someone please start a new thread?
Zeborah

[Bill Swears]

What part of "It's not true that all males are like this" means "No
males are like this"?

And does it have anything to do with "There is no one reading that is
more correct than other readings" apparently having a part that means
"Anything I can imagine is a reading"?
Note to self: do not ever read anything by authors who think like this.

Dan has attempted to move this over to *.misc, and I think the breast
fixation portion ought to go. It's one of those situations where he
should have gotten half a dozen responses, and this thread should have
died with "thanks."

But it has taken on a rather divisive life of its own, and is ready to
be freed to fly into the more untamed lands of *misc, where it may yet
prosper.

Please.

Bill

[Dan Goodman]

Discounting possible lactation-related perviness, the simplest
explanation is that a man's instinctive reactions to a woman's
breasts are unlikely to change automatically in response to factors
that do not directly affect him.
On the other hand, one could draw an analogy to a woman who still
finds a man attractive after learning that he is a homosexual.
Isn't she committing much the same offence?

Okay, my two cents, and then I'm staying OUT of this one -
particularly since I don't have kids, have never had occasion to
breastfeed, and have no personal stake in the matter at all.
But as a generic woman responding to this entire thread, my response
has been an increasingly ramping-up response of "Oh, grow UP" directed
to generic men who can't seem to be able to keep their tongues hanging
out at the mention of any female body part whicih might conceivably be
used for sex play, even when it is NOT being used in such a manner.
It's the same damned principle as is applied to rationalise the dictum
that women should cover their hair, because the sight of uncovered or
loosened hair triggers a sexual response in poor, poor males who
really can't help themselves.
Well, if they can't help themselves they should be locked away in
solitary where the sight of another human being won't disturb their
inner peace ever again. Breasts, to return to the point of this
discussion, are by definition SECONDARY sexual characteristics. Yes,
they exist on women. Yes, they're fun. But their primary purpose as
part of the female human anatomy is basically to feed the next
generation. I think the idea of men being "grossed out" by this (in
the sense that some other alien entity has taken over control of
breasts that ought to by rights be otherwise, er, employed) or men
being holier-than-though and demanding that the woman be "decently"
covered while engaging in a perfectly natural process, or men who
think that a breast being exposed for ANY reason is licence for them
to entertain, or possibly enforce, some perverse sexual fantasy of
their own - well - it's just oogy.
Babies suckle. Women have anatomical appendages allowing babies to do
so. It's all part of being human. Get OVER it, the male half of the
human race.
And no, a woman finding a man attractive after learning that he is
homosexual is not the same thing at all.
A.

[Dan Goodman]

But as a generic woman responding to this entire thread, my response
has been an increasingly ramping-up response of "Oh, grow UP"
directed to generic men who can't seem to be able to keep their
tongues hanging out at the mention of any female body part whicih
might conceivably be used for sex play, even when it is NOT being
used in such a manner.

As a non-generic man responding to the thread, my response is "Oh,
grow up" directed at women who are offended by the simple facts of
human sexuality, one of which is that men react sexually to women's
bodies, with details of the reaction varying a good deal.

[Suzanne Blom]

Discounting possible lactation-related perviness, the simplest
explanation is that a man's instinctive reactions to a woman's breasts
are unlikely to change automatically in response to factors that do not
directly affect him.
On the other hand, one could draw an analogy to a woman who still finds
a man attractive after learning that he is a homosexual. Isn't she
committing much the same offence?

Okay, my two cents, and then I'm staying OUT of this one -
particularly since I don't have kids, have never had occasion to
breastfeed, and have no personal stake in the matter at all.
But as a generic woman responding to this entire thread, my response
has been an increasingly ramping-up response of "Oh, grow UP" directed
to generic men who can't seem to be able to keep their tongues hanging
out at the mention of any female body part whicih might conceivably be
used for sex play, even when it is NOT being used in such a manner.
It's the same damned principle as is applied to rationalise the dictum
that women should cover their hair, because the sight of uncovered or
loosened hair triggers a sexual response in poor, poor males who
really can't help themselves.
Well, if they can't help themselves they should be locked away in
solitary where the sight of another human being won't disturb their
inner peace ever again.

Why? We are used to having sexual responses we are unlikely to be able
to do much about; we can feel guilt about them or enjoy them according
to preference, but it seems unnecessary that we should be locked away on
the say so of those who would prefer we did not experience them!

Breasts, to return to the point of this
discussion, are by definition SECONDARY sexual characteristics. Yes,
they exist on women. Yes, they're fun. But their primary purpose as
part of the female human anatomy is basically to feed the next
generation.

I'd say they have more than one function. Sex would probably not be so
much fun if only the genitals were involved; yet everything else has a
different primary function.

I think the idea of men being "grossed out" by this (in
the sense that some other alien entity has taken over control of
breasts that ought to by rights be otherwise, er, employed) or men
being holier-than-though and demanding that the woman be "decently"
covered while engaging in a perfectly natural process, or men who
think that a breast being exposed for ANY reason is licence for them
to entertain, or possibly enforce, some perverse sexual fantasy of
their own - well - it's just oogy.

I didn't realise you had to have a licence to entertain fantasies,
perverse or otherwise! Where can I apply for one?

Babies suckle. Women have anatomical appendages allowing babies to do
so. It's all part of being human. Get OVER it, the male half of the
human race.
And no, a woman finding a man attractive after learning that he is
homosexual is not the same thing at all.

She is entertaining fantasies that she knows would be considered at best
irrelevant, and at worst disgusting, by their object. The difference is
not obvious to me.

Finding someone or something, for that matter, attractive is not at all the
same as "entertaining fantasies".