Re: Rogue Males by Lionel Tiger

From: Stephen Springette (
Date: Sun Jan 27 2002 - 05:31:29 GMT

  • Next message: Philip Jonkers: "Re: sex and the single meme"

    Received: by id AAA02028 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:27:55 GMT
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 
    Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 13:31:29 +0800
    From: Stephen Springette <>
    Subject: Re: Rogue Males by Lionel Tiger
    In-Reply-To: <p04320412b878e6e8e336@[]>
    References: <> <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
    Precedence: bulk

    At 06:19 26-01-02 -0500, Francesca wrote:
    >Now this is an area I do know a little bit about. I used to work with
    >sexually abused children. There is research which suggests that there is
    >a sort of critical period of sexual imprinting, much the same as the
    >critical period of parental imprinting for ducklings. All of your sensual
    >and erotic experiences during that period are thrown into the mix, and
    >form the basis of your erotic sexual life thereafter. This research comes
    >out of work with pedophiles which suggests that after a certain age (late
    >teens IIRC) there is little to no chance to reforming them - the window on
    >this is closed. This allows for a great deal of plasticity in our sexual
    >bonding/mate selection, and raises the question *why* would nature go to
    >so much trouble to generate that plasticity, especially since it can have
    >such disastrous results.
    >Whatever unfortunate experiences Anais Nin may have had which influenced
    >her sexuality in this way, it is wrong to infer that it is universal to
    >all women.

    Very true. Anais Nin had a less-than-wholesome sexual relationship with her
    father. However.... as I have written in an article some time ago, I do not
    regard hers as an aberration of feminine sexuality but rather, a primal
    expression of it.

    If the longing to be violated is some kind of primal dimension of female
    sexuality, then by its very nature, in all its complexities and
    implications, it is going to be a very tough nut to crack.

    In the course of working on my article, I have interviewed numerous sex
    workers (strippers and prostitutes) in order to get to the essence of what
    motivates them. First and foremost, let us dispel a popular myth. Contrary
    to the dominant feminist agenda, women are rarely (none, from among the
    interviews that I held) forced into this type of activity against their
    will. So what is their primary motivation? The prostitutes I've interviewed
    seem to be motivated almost solely by money, though I suspect that for
    some, there is an element of excitement in the ritual. The strippers I've
    interviewed, however, seemed overwhelmingly to enjoy their work. Check out
    Alysabeth's stripper site:

    Female sexuality is complex in that even women don't seem to understand it.
    With the principle logic of women based in sustaining the known (for
    example, the preoccupation with being provided for), the opportunity to
    discover their sexuality in all its dimensions rarely even presents itself
    for most of them. And so we have a broad swathe of reasons, some that I've
    had to infer through the smoke-screens of hidden meanings and deceptions.
    Thus there is a reason that one does not ask a woman directly what she
    likes - no matter how chatty and willing to talk they seem. The reason?
    Because you'll never get a straight answer.

    Ask one of these sex workers what other women like, and the answers are
    equally revealing, unpredictable and different. It seems as if they each
    hold a particular view of what makes them feel sexy, but their reluctance
    to give a straight answer means that they keep their private
    interpretations to themselves. They allow this subjectivity to mould what
    they become and any feedback they might receive from other women will be
    equally unreliable, in all their deceptions. If culture and human
    consciousness evolve through language, then what do we make of female
    sexuality that restrains the language with which to express it? Do we not
    now have some kind of insight as to why women do not understand each other?
    How could this be that feminists have this perception of sex-workers being
    taken advantage of against their will, when, behind the closed doors of
    strip joints, many women are having the time of their lives?

    Sexuality happens TO women (unlike in men with the sexual urge to make it
    happen). They discover what they like when it happens to them. Their
    discoveries are often surprises, contradicting what they had previously
    believed about their known worlds. And since their discoveries are
    sometimes sordidly private, the most vital clues can never make it into the
    open. They can never get to discover that other women might have similar
    experiences. And so female sexuality remains secret, by its very nature.
    The world of the forbidden and eroticism are inextricably linked.

    Female sexuality has to be inferred. It cannot be gotten directly through
    questioning or any other means, irrespective of whether the questioner is a
    man or a woman. Ask a woman what she likes, and her answers could mean just
    about anything. But the common denominator, the most primal reason that I
    could distill is this relationship between the cultural known and the
    forbidden. And the longing to be violated, mostly submerged and hidden, is
    a fundamental expression of this relationship.

    Incidentally, as a male exploring an alien, uncharted territory, I always
    welcome feed-back.

    >Just as it is wrong to infer that because Jeffrey Dahmer chopped up his
    >lovers and put them in the refrigerator, that is something all men want to do.

    True. But Jeffrey Dahmer's crime is characteristically male. It is a primal
    expression of the unknown, and the challenging of the known. Destruction is
    logically consistent with creation. Thus his warped behavior was one
    dimension of that primal essence in Man relating to the unknown.

    Newton's Laws of Emotion:
    There can be no complexity without simplicity.

    Applied simplicity:

    Stephen Springette

    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 02:23:56 GMT