There is one thing about men that both fascinates and amuses me.
Well, one of many actually :-)
And I suspect it is a deeply 'male locker-room' phenomenon (read: which means 'don't go there') but I am sufficiently curious about it that I might just venture to the threshold of this locker-room...
If I get thrown out unceremoniously, that's OK. I'll take it as one of those 'hand in the fire' lesssons you learn as a 4 year old.
If however the men indulge me, well, that would be super.
;-)
On several Manosphere blogs (or any other blog where mainly men congregate), how many times have I seen these lines?
"I love you man! (No homo)".
Or
"You rock my world, Sir (No homo)".
Or some variation thereof.
This amuses me no end.
As a woman, I have never felt the need to explain to another woman that I am not a lesbian, no matter how 'inappropriately' close I get to her, in words or physically.
I find it increadibly easy to tell a beautiful woman she is beautiful, or the wearer of a nice dress that it brings out her nice figure, or even (perhaps bordering on the limits of decency) that that she has nice breasts.
And yet I know I am not in the least gay. And more importantly, more often than not, I am very secure in the knowledge that I am not being perceived as gay by the recipient of my 'attention'.
And I daresay a lot of non-gay women might say the same.
(If I am wrong however, it is because I haven't ventured out of my head to do an 'on the road' spot questionnaire...yet!).
I realise that whilst it may be totally inappropriate for a (strange) woman to comment on another's breasts or other similarly intimate body part, it is less creepy than when a strange man does it. The creep factor only rises sharply if a woman is particularly 'lesbophobic', which most women simply are not.
Which begs the question:
Are we women 'closet lesbians'? But in a 'normal' kind of way? Whatever 'normal' means?
Women can get incredibly close to each other. I see how I am with my female friends and I instinctively know that men just aren't that way with their friends.
There is always a certain 'distance' between two men no matter how close they are mentally/socially/psychologically.
Women will breach each other's 'personal space' all the time without a moment's thought.
And what's even more interesting, this is cross-cultural. Even in the 'coldest' of cultures, women are still 'warm' to each other. I find this interesting.
I noticed this male phenomenon on Danny's blog a long time ago, and asked him about it. He gave me a very good explanation, which I found interesting in itself especially as it turns out to be even more deeply complex than I once imagined.
But I feel the need for a refresher course on this if the gentlemen here would like to give me their particular take on this.
Female bonding is characterised by a lot of tactile contact. We simply do not lose this tendency until we die.
As children, we are all touched a lot. I watch a mother and child and of course the first noticeable thing about them is that they are in physical contact for much of the time. It could be by virtue of the child being carried, being kissed on the head, being breastfed, being patted on the bottom if he's been naughty (or simply being lovingly acknowledged)...the possibilities of tactile contact are endless.
Children who lack this 'touch' thing get psychologically damaged somehow, I read in a lot of psychology/popular sociology journals or just articles we all get fed with our breakfast on the 'interwebz' as Danny would say.
Princess Diana once famously started a 'hug' campaign, because she felt that some children were lacking this in their lives. I think she was right - there are many children in Britain who are not touched enough. In this, the Europeans - especially Southern Europeans - far outrank the Brits.
Touch is 'healing'. Women understand this very well. And we will do whatever it takes to touch or be touched. Purely for the sensation of touch, nothing more. (Perhaps infuriating for a man who might want more than this? ;)
Is this an intrinsic part of femininity that even feminism cannot steal from womanhood?
I once read about an old woman who, though was not Catholic would go to Mass at her local Catholic Church everyday. I forget whether she was a never-married woman, a widow or a divorcée or whether or not she had had children.
The author of the article is a well-known writer for a Catholic newspaper. She had come across this old woman at Mass one day and got talking to her after Mass. She was surprised to learn that the old woman was not even Catholic and asked her why she came to Mass everyday.
The old woman replied that she came to Mass everyday because she had heard that at Mass, you get to shake someone's hand.
She came to Mass to touch and be touched by someone else, or other people depending on how many people she could manage to shake hands with during 'the rite of peace'.
That touch would be her only physical contact with another human being for that day.
To get her daily (tactile) fix, she had to make it to Mass. In times of bad weather or when she was too sick to get to Mass, she was denied this luxury.
The writer of the article (who was a married woman with several kids) was so touched (no pun) by this that from that day, she made it a point to either go herself to visit this old lady or send one of her older kids to go do chores for her or to just go say hello. They adopted her as 'granny'.
They do say that women have a greater fear of dying alone than men.
I wonder, is a big part of this to do with this lack of touch that 'aloneness' entails?
I mean, if I were to use myself as an example, I could talk the hind legs off a donkey even if there were no-one in the room with me. (The operative word is 'could'. The reality is that I am not actually that much of a talker in real life. I just write a lot lol).
I could quite happily make it through weeks or months without seeing anyone (um, theoretically I believe this would be feasible for me, yes).
I could certainly live a whole lifetime without smelling anyone (!)
Taste? Please, let's not go there :-)
But can I do without touch?
*sharp intake of breath*
Just ask my 'cuddle bunny' why he exists in my life :-)
I see a small child or a dog or a cat or some such small thing or person (that poses no potential harm to me) and the first thing I want to do is touch it. I have never come across a baby and not tried to persuade its carrier to let me hold him or her for a while.
If it's a living being (actually, this is not a strict requirement - see above comment re 'cuddle bunnies') and it is not dangerous, I am touching it, or having it touch me come what may :-)
Is this true for all human beings? Or just the XX variety...
Lack of touch is just one aspect of increasing loneliness as we all get older. My guess is, men suffer too from this lack of touch. Please confirm (or refute) gentlemen!
But when men are younger, it seems to me that their need for touch may be more... um, specific in some ways than for women?
Correct me if I am wrong!
The reason I have been made to think this (note I am alibi-ing for myself here - if I have got this wrong, it is because you are to blame for giving me the wrong impression lol) is that men are much more selective about who they will allow in their physical 'space' and it would typically include the women in their family (wife, mother, sister, girlfriend if she is worth it).
But somehow (and again this is my impression) they are much less selective about who they will have sex with! As The Kings of The Manosphere will confirm, a man with an SMV score of 8 will have no problem with getting friendly with a woman who is a 5 (but granted, he may not go much lower if he is self-respecting and has 'options').
It is the reverse with women, generally-speaking, although (again granted) there are increasing sightings of exceptions to this rule.
And certainly, women have this amazing ability to hug any other woman with no awkwardness whatsoever.
And I have never heard a woman say "I love you, girl! No lesbo".
I just haven't.
A woman might check that the other woman is not too creeped out, sure.
But she just won't worry that she will be thought of as a lesbian.
Yes I have received a few funny looks from women I have said 'You look really nice!' to.
But even if I thought they were mentally labelling me 'a lesbian' in their minds, this hasn't bothered me in the least.
Am I right to believe that I am very much an 'inlier' in this regard?
Fear of being labelled homosexual is just not a prevailing problem on Planet Woman.
But somehow, it is, on Planet Man.
Back to my original question: Are women intrinsically 'almost gay' and we just don't care about this?
In a crude bit of evidence in support of my hypothesis on this, one of the prevailing male fantasies out there is the idea of 'threesomes'. Um, Metak can concur, lol.
And in threesome activity, the two women um, focus on each other in a manner which Metak might define as his own version of 'Feminism' ala Ali G in the first video here. (The particularly relevant discussion about this starts at 1:55).
:-)
Will women simply do anything to please a man or is it a case of ...well, 'feminism' is already there and it doesn't take much to 'bring it out' sort of thing...?
Is there a tendency to 'masculinism' in non-gay men in a similar manner to 'feminism'?
I shouldn't have gone there, I know, I know, it's a Sunday and all....but blow me down with a feather I am having difficulty considering that this could be...gulp...um...err...remotely possible.
Hence the 'no homo' proviso...
And with that I make a very swift exit from this particular locker-room.
Almost as swift as these two...
See? It doesn't hurt, does it...
Why don't men do more of this?
Why does it have to take a world record for this to happen?
:-)
