Yeah I don’t get how people can’t see the backhandedness. If you wanna say someone is a nice person, just say that, you don’t have to add that you’re not sexually attracted to them. It’s weird to add that you wouldn’t consider your partner as a potential hook-up, if you’re trying to complement them.
I’ve encountered a weird thing with some sexual partners where they seem to think it’s shallow to acknowledge that they find you physically attractive as well as emotionally attractive.
But like, it’s a sexual relationship, are bodies are part of it, it’d be weird if we were plutonic friends but enjoying each others bodies is part of our relationship here so I don’t see how it’s shallow for us to express our enjoyment of each others bodies to one another.
Yeah it’s odd. I think there’s also something going on here that a lot of people seem to be (willfully) obtuse about which is that it’s not looks, but sexual attraction that is being discussed.
I see some people arguing against the guys reaction because “attraction isn’t just looks”, and yeah everyone knows that, which is why it makes it so much more hurtful to say you wouldn’t consider your partner for a sexual relationship.
‘taking it slow’ is coded for more serious relationships culturally, even if that’s kind of silly and sex-negative. the ‘hookup’ is supposed to be ephemeral and shallow
i think this is very enmeshed in patriarchal norms with people trying to recreate a more old fashioned courtship for a potential spouse while consciously/subconsciously devaluing and shaming casual sex. don’t get me wrong i also see how it sounds like they’re saying the guy is not attractive, but he and other men gotta understand we still live under patriarchy and it makes people think differently (i mean wanting your partner to think you’re adonis is weird patriarchy too, deserve love even if they don’t roil loins in the stereotypical way)
You’re the second person quoting something that’s I don’t see present in the text and I feel like I’m missing something here.
the ‘hookup’ is supposed to be ephemeral and shallow.
I understand the concept of thinking a hook-up is shallow and, as I’ve said elsewhere, if that was what was said, then that would have been a compliment. What was said though wasn’t “I could never just have X with you, I’d need to have y!” <- that would have been a compliment.
think this is very enmeshed in patriarchal norms with people trying to recreate a more old fashioned courtship.
I gotta be honest, it strikes me as some toxic masculinity thing where we expect a lot of things of men wrt feelings and social interactions. then punish them when they dont fulfill it. Women are also capable of saying insensitive stuff and it seems to me like we’re pretending the interpretation of it being rude isn’t valid, because it’s a guy who has it and when men are sad they are wrong.
There’s plenty of people just in this thread chiming in with how they would interpret it the same way, so it’s not like it’s some far fetched thing.
i mean wanting your partner to think you’re adonis is weird patriarchy too.
But that’s also not what is being expressed as a wish. The guy is sad because his partner said she isn’t sexually attracted to him. It is very normal to want your partner to be attracted to you. Sexual attraction isn’t purely based on aesthetics, and I know a few people who would find constanza hot.
it took me long enough to type that up that i missed most of the discussion, lol sorry for addressing things other people brought up
however you’re being a bit too rigid in your interpretation of the text. we don’t have a quote, just an explanation from one party of what they said. we’re all just extrapolating on delivery/timing/vocabulary that was used so we can’t actually litigate this particular situation with accuracy. but it’s a vehicle to talk about relationships and patriarchy and we love to do that don’t we folks
it took me long enough to type that up that i missed most of the discussion, lol sorry for addressing things other people brought up.
No worries!
however you’re being a bit too rigid in your interpretation of the text. we don’t have a quote, just an explanation from one party of what they said.
I agree, but I do this on purpose because we only have the text and people keep adding things that aren’t in the text, which is why we end up misunderstanding each other.
My rigidity also comes from the feeling that my interpretation is treated as though it isn’t valid, which is very frustrating, especially when I do not disagree on the validity of the positive interpretation, just that it is not the only one. To me it is the people who insist on the positive interpretation that are being rigid, since I do not see them admitting the other way is possible, but instead just some man being silly.
but it’s a vehicle to talk about relationships and patriarchy and we love to do that don’t we folks.
Sure, but I think it’s best to have those discussions in a vehicle we all agree on, not one we all decide to add to
Yeah I don’t get how people can’t see the backhandedness. If you wanna say someone is a nice person, just say that, you don’t have to add that you’re not sexually attracted to them. It’s weird to add that you wouldn’t consider your partner as a potential hook-up, if you’re trying to complement them.
I’ve encountered a weird thing with some sexual partners where they seem to think it’s shallow to acknowledge that they find you physically attractive as well as emotionally attractive.
But like, it’s a sexual relationship, are bodies are part of it, it’d be weird if we were plutonic friends but enjoying each others bodies is part of our relationship here so I don’t see how it’s shallow for us to express our enjoyment of each others bodies to one another.
Yeah it’s odd. I think there’s also something going on here that a lot of people seem to be (willfully) obtuse about which is that it’s not looks, but sexual attraction that is being discussed.
I see some people arguing against the guys reaction because “attraction isn’t just looks”, and yeah everyone knows that, which is why it makes it so much more hurtful to say you wouldn’t consider your partner for a sexual relationship.
‘taking it slow’ is coded for more serious relationships culturally, even if that’s kind of silly and sex-negative. the ‘hookup’ is supposed to be ephemeral and shallow
i think this is very enmeshed in patriarchal norms with people trying to recreate a more old fashioned courtship for a potential spouse while consciously/subconsciously devaluing and shaming casual sex. don’t get me wrong i also see how it sounds like they’re saying the guy is not attractive, but he and other men gotta understand we still live under patriarchy and it makes people think differently (i mean wanting your partner to think you’re adonis is weird patriarchy too,
deserve love even if they don’t roil loins in the stereotypical way)
Thank you for your response.
You’re the second person quoting something that’s I don’t see present in the text and I feel like I’m missing something here.
I understand the concept of thinking a hook-up is shallow and, as I’ve said elsewhere, if that was what was said, then that would have been a compliment. What was said though wasn’t “I could never just have X with you, I’d need to have y!” <- that would have been a compliment.
I gotta be honest, it strikes me as some toxic masculinity thing where we expect a lot of things of men wrt feelings and social interactions. then punish them when they dont fulfill it. Women are also capable of saying insensitive stuff and it seems to me like we’re pretending the interpretation of it being rude isn’t valid, because it’s a guy who has it and when men are sad they are wrong.
There’s plenty of people just in this thread chiming in with how they would interpret it the same way, so it’s not like it’s some far fetched thing.
But that’s also not what is being expressed as a wish. The guy is sad because his partner said she isn’t sexually attracted to him. It is very normal to want your partner to be attracted to you. Sexual attraction isn’t purely based on aesthetics, and I know a few people who would find constanza hot.
it took me long enough to type that up that i missed most of the discussion, lol sorry for addressing things other people brought up
however you’re being a bit too rigid in your interpretation of the text. we don’t have a quote, just an explanation from one party of what they said. we’re all just extrapolating on delivery/timing/vocabulary that was used so we can’t actually litigate this particular situation with accuracy. but it’s a vehicle to talk about relationships and patriarchy and we love to do that don’t we folks
No worries!
I agree, but I do this on purpose because we only have the text and people keep adding things that aren’t in the text, which is why we end up misunderstanding each other.
My rigidity also comes from the feeling that my interpretation is treated as though it isn’t valid, which is very frustrating, especially when I do not disagree on the validity of the positive interpretation, just that it is not the only one. To me it is the people who insist on the positive interpretation that are being rigid, since I do not see them admitting the other way is possible, but instead just some man being silly.
Sure, but I think it’s best to have those discussions in a vehicle we all agree on, not one we all decide to add to
This