You have to give Lillie Yifu of Second Sex some credit for trying. Apparently figuring out the human behavior of men is as easy as watching the men who come through your virtual door and surmise a bunch of generalizations that you then turn into a blog entry, A Page From Men: The Missing Owner’s Manual — The Game of Sex (NSFW).
If you want to understand why men are unfaithful or visit prostitutes, you probably are better off either reviewing the psychological research literature on this topic, or at least begin not basing your observations on a single subset of the male population set is very, umm, how shall we say it, uniquely unique? People having virtual sex in a virtual environment that few people visit (and even fewer know of) isn’t exactly an unbiased sample.
According to Ms. Yifu,
The key is that we [women] often want to do things Together. Now a man thinks that doing a chore, Together, is a tax. It is two people doing something that one person can do. It means he is stuck listening to our criticisms and emotional moods, and he can’t be alone with his thoughts, which is one thing he values from working. Doing some chore together is points towards having sex together. Every time you do something Together, especially if that entire time is spent talking about things you want to talk about, if it does not lead to erotic encounter, then you’ve just trained him that Together is a bad thing.
Yes, that’s right. Men are just like Pavlovian dogs who are in need of some good training, that’s all. She appears to be implying that most men see spending any time with your mate that isn’t directly leading to sex (or sex itself) is simply time lost. Men won’t do chores unless they see it is positively correlated with sex, because, you know, most men are simply dirty slobs who sit around expecting to be waited on hand and foot by their partners!
It gets better…
Once trained that some particular thing, like clean dishes and a clean floor means having sex, he will see them and do them. Then move on to the next thing.
So first lesson from the missing owner’s manual. Men are wired to try and find and get sex, but what they are looking for is trainable. Train them to look for that time of the month when you’ve got the itch, and they will simply start serially slut searching, and pay attention to you, at best, when they think it matters. Train them to do things Together, and they will start to do those things automatically.
If this is the “missing owner’s manual” for men, I suggest you throw it away now. Delete your bookmark and move on. The only thing this manual will teach you is how to completely anger any typical man. Because no one — man or woman — wants to be treated like an object that needs “training.”
What actual, real research into relationships shows is another thing entirely. Infidelity occurs for numerous reasons, ranging from personality factors (Orzeck & Lung, 2005) to evolution-based theories about how extra-partner relationships are natural while monogamy is unnatural (Barash & Lipton, 2001). Other research shows that both men and women lie in relationships about infidelity, even though men reported more infidelity than women do (36% versus 21%, Stebleton & Rothenberger, 1993). And Corey (1989) suggests that sex is not the primary motivator for most affairs; a problematic relationship is. Adulterers cheat rather than face and resolve these problems. There is, of course, a lot more research in this area, but this gives you a sampling of the real reasons men (and women) cheat, and few of them have to do looking to play a “game of sex.”
A good, healthy relationship means understanding one another, including one’s sexual needs. In this way, men and women are not so different. Some women prefer romance, but guess what — so do some men. None of these types of generalizations are of any use until you understand the person (not the object) you are in a relationship with. That’s done through simple communication — sit down and talk about your sexual needs with your partner.
The sooner you do that, the sooner you’ll understand your partner’s sexual needs and be able to meet them.
That is at least one simple way you can help your partner avoid paying Ms. Yifu for sex in a virtual world.
References:
Barash, D.P. & Lipton, J.E. (2001). The myth of monogamy: Fidelity and infidelity in animals and people. New York, NY: W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co.
Corey, M.A. (1989). Why Men Cheat: Psychological Profiles of the Adulterous Male. Springfield, IL, England: Charles C Thomas.
Orzeck, T. & Lung, E. (2005). Big-Five Personality Differences of Cheaters and Non-Cheaters. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 24(4), 274-286.
Stebleton, M.J. & Rothenberger, J.H. (1993). Truth or consequences: Dishonesty in dating and HIV/AIDS-related issues in a college-age population. Journal of American College Health, 42(2), 51-54.
Another critique of Ms. Yifu’s blog entry
11 comments
i really appreciate this post, and i concentrated on gender studies and psychoanalytic theory during my english degree.
i’m against the objectification of any human, male or female.
well-said, John!
Why thank you for the link, and for proving my point. You call me a whore, a word which is an angry word, an insulting word. You also list references, but ones which are in no way supportive of your point.
If you wanted to prove that you treat women you disagree with with contempt, there is no better way to do it than this.
It’s almost as bad as Christian Carter’s ‘Catch Him and Keep Him – The Secret Psychology of All Men’ which he tries to flog to insecure, lonely women.
For some reason he never replies to my emails asking why his psychology of ALL men only applies to heterosexual men from western developed countries.
To Ms. Yifu: The dictionary doesn’t put emotional context on the definition of a word, and indeed Merriam-Webster has no problem with the word in noting it as a synonym for prostitute, or “a woman who engages in sexual acts for money.” As for references, well, at least I included some, no?
I believe in equal opportunity when it comes to contempt and pawning off one’s simplistic observations as some sort of “manual” or guide to understanding the opposite gender. I would be equally contemptuous if such drivel came from a man, talking about how to better understand a woman by learning to “train” them, as you suggest for men.
It’s interesting to note that Ms. Yifu is now trying to get me to censor my own blog entry:
http://sexsecond.blogspot.com/2008/04/rage-is-toxic.html
Not because she objects to my criticism of her unsophisticated take on male/female relationships, but because of a word I used to describe what she does in a virtual world. A term, by the way, that she has used to describe herself on at least more than one occasion (she apparently prefers the term, “pixel prostitute”). So, if I offended Ms. Yifu by use of this word, my apologies.
Fascinating take on another version of, ‘My wife doesn’t understand me.’ (I read Lillie Yifu’s blog, including the part about how women wind up being viewed as sluts.)
Two questions for Ms. Yifu:
— Does this suggest that maybe the reverse will work? That we are as emotionally vacant as the men described, able to be trained like Pavlov’s dogs to respond to the bell and work to be ‘rewarded’ with something they withhold until we perform?
— Do you have a counterpart in your industry – a male selling sex to women – who could add a prostitute’s take on ‘My husband doesn’t understand me”?
Well, okay, three questions – do you have any thoughts about why 64% of men stay home? Most certainly only a fragment of that group shows up at your site and others for virtual sex, have the rest been trained?
I can’t imagine a greater gift than being with a person who adds joy to life, one you (generic) respect and love being with … one who also loves being with you because you’re you, not because of what you are willing to do if he scrubs the pots and pans with you.
Let’s see – we have an ad hominem attack coupled with the inability to see that labels used within groups have different connotations that labels used from outside: there are people who can say “nigger,” and there are people who can say “whore.” Privileged white men are neither.
Then we have the astonishing notion that academic research is more reflective of reality than direct, lived experience. That’s coupled with holding a blogger to an academic’s standard, then refusing to be held to that standard onself when called on it.
Women’s sexual experiences have been denigrated and medicalized for over a century. While you may have little respect for sex workers, or for principles of logic, at least you respect some of the classics.
Next time a blogger compares your gender to that of a canine and suggests this is useful information, let me know what the “proper” reaction is supposed to be and I’ll make a note of it. (There was no personal attack; I used the same label she’s used to describe herself, and then apologized for doing so when she took umbrage at it.)
Sadly, no one has actually refuted the meat of the entry. Simply saying, “Sorry, those references don’t apply” isn’t a refutation. Peer-reviewed research, for better or worse, is what we use to understand human psychological behavior. While individual stories can be helpful to illustrate personal experiences, you can’t draw generalized conclusions from such information.
Dogs can be trained. To suggest men are basically the same as a dog is offensive and a simplistic reductio ad absurdum argument.
What a cop out to pretend that using the word “whore” does not have negative implications and furthermore rationalize doing so in. Do yourself a favor and train yourself to be less reactive. The references are painfully out of date.
He is entitled to his opinion. As for the words he used, it’s his explanation, not a “cop out”. It’s unfair to hold men to different standards. Sexism goes both ways, don’t forget!
& if you’re thinking of accusing me of the same, I am a female, a true feminist, & even a lesbian – so no, I do not hate women, either. If you weren’t thinking of that, then ignore this, & kudos for being so receptive. Much appreciated.
By the way, sorry this is so old. I just couldn’t help but reply. It was like an itch I could not bring myself to ignore. I think this is a wonderful article, OP! You have an interesting point of view on her post, & it gives me more to think about on the subject in general. Thank you for having the bravery to both post this in the first place, & defend it afterwards. Thought candy indeed. Hmm!
Let me get this straight, this women has no shame in prostituting herself, but call her a word that describes her behavior in an unflattering way, watch out! I believe “slut shamming” is incredibly useful because it discourages destructive behaviors. Our society is a mess when it comes to relationships and marriage (historically low marriage rate and high divorce rate) because there is too little social sanctions for sexually immoral behavior.