Male sexuality more complex than thought
Nathan Caldwell
Editor-in-Chief
The marble statue of “Venus de Milo” and the painting “The Birth of Venus” are beautiful. Picturesque depictions of the female form immortalized, feats of art instantly recognizable even to the casual observer.
Yet some of their beauty is due to the simple fact that they are enshrined in a perpetual state of arousal, forever fixed in provocative poses. Nipples erect, head tilted, face flushed – curvy, voluptuous women in their sexual prime, all practically screaming, “Come and get me.”
Conversely, consider Michelangelo’s “
We live in a culture that caters to the pornographic imagination and not-so-latent sexuality of males, while simultaneously refusing to embrace that which it caters to.
In an admittedly phallocentric civilization, we haven’t gone far from the luscious depictions of Venus. There are beautiful women lounging about in ads for everything from shoes to lingerie – all artfully airbrushed and insinuating anything but celibacy. After all, sex sells.
Certainly, what some men want is to insert hard object Y into wet object X – but why reduce something as complex as sexuality to so simple an equation?
This archaic view of male sexuality has been perpetuated since antiquity and is, at best, outdated. And why wouldn’t it be?
Men had no sexual revolution. There was no men’s liberation movement. There have never been hoards of angry men ripping off their undergarments in protest of inequity.
Conversely, there is a long history of females fighting for equality and it has resulted in the acknowledgement of female sexuality as something that exists, is complex, and can be discussed in an intelligent and academic setting.
Meanwhile, male sexuality has remains ensconced in a pre-Victorian bubble that has devolved from an over-simplification to a social stigma.
Aside from a high-five and a vivid description of how hard he “smashed” that, there is absolutely no forum for males to have a calm, intelligent discussion on issues of sexuality without being ostracized.
Society loves to accommodate the idea of simple male sexuality. It’s uncomplicated, generally accepted and marketable. And while the idea may be all of these things, it is also detrimental.
Why? Is that all male sexuality is – an exercise in the redirection of blood flow?
Males aren’t expected to have sexual needs beyond the blood flow. Indeed, those who do are seen as needy and emasculated.
Emasculation. The word conjures its own unique blend of testosterone-fueled terror and acute homophobia. It’s been argued this is the most effeminate generation, that metrosexuals and gays are ruining what it means to be a “real” man.
Ironically, metrosexuals and gays are the only ones having any semblance of an open discussion on issues of sexuality and masculinity.
To be simultaneously male and vocalize an opinion on one’s own sexuality, one must declare one’s self a pariah. Men who discuss the issue openly are instantly branded as perverts, horndogs, gays or some combination of the three. Those who hazard such discussions without regard to the inevitable social castration, are in reality the most liberated.
Embracing “emasculation” is means to endure social stigmas in exchange for the ability to engage in scholarly discussions about what historically has been one of, if not the most, inviolable social issue.
There may not have been a male sexual revolution. There have been no violent protests, no peaceful sit-ins. Instead there is the infinitesimal movement towards the ability to discuss sexuality outside of the simplistic shadow of “bang bang bang, skeet skeet skeet.”
That movement happens to be through the realm of what has been branded emasculation and while it may have a negative stigma now, there is hope.
This generation is more tolerant of homosexuality than any before. Steps have been made in the right direction on everything from gay rights to healthcare. Perhaps with time, what is now considered emasculation will be recognized as the male sexual revolution, covert though it may be.
Editor-in-Chief
The marble statue of “Venus de Milo” and the painting “The Birth of Venus” are beautiful. Picturesque depictions of the female form immortalized, feats of art instantly recognizable even to the casual observer.
Yet some of their beauty is due to the simple fact that they are enshrined in a perpetual state of arousal, forever fixed in provocative poses. Nipples erect, head tilted, face flushed – curvy, voluptuous women in their sexual prime, all practically screaming, “Come and get me.”
Conversely, consider Michelangelo’s “
We live in a culture that caters to the pornographic imagination and not-so-latent sexuality of males, while simultaneously refusing to embrace that which it caters to.
In an admittedly phallocentric civilization, we haven’t gone far from the luscious depictions of Venus. There are beautiful women lounging about in ads for everything from shoes to lingerie – all artfully airbrushed and insinuating anything but celibacy. After all, sex sells.
Certainly, what some men want is to insert hard object Y into wet object X – but why reduce something as complex as sexuality to so simple an equation?
This archaic view of male sexuality has been perpetuated since antiquity and is, at best, outdated. And why wouldn’t it be?
Men had no sexual revolution. There was no men’s liberation movement. There have never been hoards of angry men ripping off their undergarments in protest of inequity.
Conversely, there is a long history of females fighting for equality and it has resulted in the acknowledgement of female sexuality as something that exists, is complex, and can be discussed in an intelligent and academic setting.
Meanwhile, male sexuality has remains ensconced in a pre-Victorian bubble that has devolved from an over-simplification to a social stigma.
Aside from a high-five and a vivid description of how hard he “smashed” that, there is absolutely no forum for males to have a calm, intelligent discussion on issues of sexuality without being ostracized.
Society loves to accommodate the idea of simple male sexuality. It’s uncomplicated, generally accepted and marketable. And while the idea may be all of these things, it is also detrimental.
Why? Is that all male sexuality is – an exercise in the redirection of blood flow?
Males aren’t expected to have sexual needs beyond the blood flow. Indeed, those who do are seen as needy and emasculated.
Emasculation. The word conjures its own unique blend of testosterone-fueled terror and acute homophobia. It’s been argued this is the most effeminate generation, that metrosexuals and gays are ruining what it means to be a “real” man.
Ironically, metrosexuals and gays are the only ones having any semblance of an open discussion on issues of sexuality and masculinity.
To be simultaneously male and vocalize an opinion on one’s own sexuality, one must declare one’s self a pariah. Men who discuss the issue openly are instantly branded as perverts, horndogs, gays or some combination of the three. Those who hazard such discussions without regard to the inevitable social castration, are in reality the most liberated.
Embracing “emasculation” is means to endure social stigmas in exchange for the ability to engage in scholarly discussions about what historically has been one of, if not the most, inviolable social issue.
There may not have been a male sexual revolution. There have been no violent protests, no peaceful sit-ins. Instead there is the infinitesimal movement towards the ability to discuss sexuality outside of the simplistic shadow of “bang bang bang, skeet skeet skeet.”
That movement happens to be through the realm of what has been branded emasculation and while it may have a negative stigma now, there is hope.
This generation is more tolerant of homosexuality than any before. Steps have been made in the right direction on everything from gay rights to healthcare. Perhaps with time, what is now considered emasculation will be recognized as the male sexual revolution, covert though it may be.
0 Response to "Male sexuality more complex than thought"
Post a Comment