I base the 'broadly speaking' on having been a therapist for nearly 15 years. Also on the fact that in my life I have rarely had a conversation with a woman about dick size or sexual technique but many about how they feel their partner doesn't respect them sexually or doesn't fulfil them sexually, with an emphasis on not feeling emotionally supported. I have, however, had many conversations with men individually and in groups that were very open about every aspect of sex. I think this is a great example of the individual differences I mentioned.
I'm not sure that romance novels are an expression of sexuality, really. They might be, I guess. But women read more of most genres. If women read more cookbooks, does that mean they feel differently about food? According to the information at http://mashable.com/2012/08/26/reading-stats-infographic/, men read more about religion than women - does that mean men express their religious natures differently? They also read more scifi - maybe we should stop worrying about women in STEM careers, because clearly women just don't care about science? I think it's all a bit of a stretch. And, of course, even if we can reliably establish that genre reading habits reflect real-world attitudes towards the subject underlying the genre, we would still have the nature/nurture issues to resolve or not be able to resolve. Assuming this thread was started as a writing question? Write the characters as individuals, not as members of a certain class or group. It makes this whole conversation unnecessary.
It doesn't annoy me. I can disagree with something without being annoyed by it. I guess it's a bit annoying if "the differences" are posted as fact, rather than as opinion, but it's a pretty small-scale aggravation, really. I think what I'm disagreeing with in this thread is the generalizations. I'm sure there are lots of women who talk about sex in a certain way, and lots of women who talk about sex in a different way. You and I, for example, clearly have different experiences with talking with friends about sex/relationships. But we're both women, so...
So, these conversations are taking place in a therapeutic environment? That's going to be a bit different than women casually flirting or talking to their friends about sex, right?
It seems to me to be fairly self-evident that how one speaks about sex and/or anything is a matter of subjectivity. As other members have said, it can't and shouldn't be so broadly defined in terms of gender. Write the dialogue in terms of the character. How would X describe the subject in relation to Y. Everyone's different, irrespective of what dangles (or otherwise) between their legs.
Yes. How could you even argue that? That doesn't mean there aren't men who enjoy cooking. From watching the Food Network, it appears more top chefs are men. But there are plenty of Julia Childs out there. But reality is, more women are cooking for the family than men. So they buy cookbooks. It doesn't mean no men are cooking. These are false analogies. Different doesn't tell us how they differ. And the whole point of promoting STEM careers among women is to try to change the status quo, so that's even further from a valid analogy. Gender genre reading habits say there is a difference. You seem to be assuming a particular difference while to actually determine that, one would need to investigate a whole slew of variables. With romance novels, clearly sexuality is connected. You can't say a novel like 50 Shades is all about romance but not at all about sex. Novels from a previous era notwithstanding, I can't recall a modern romance novel I've read that didn't include sex scenes. But to say reading Christian fiction, (assuming the link was referring to Christian religious material), correlated with religious beliefs, you'd need to know just what religious reading material people were reading, is it stuff like the Left Behind series or Dan Brown novels? Did they count anything in the philosophy genre or strictly religious? It's annoyance when you interpret a noted difference to being an absolute. I don't read any of the posts here as arguing for some absolute black and white 'generalization'. But who has said anything differently than this?
"I'd say Sex and the City offers an amplified window into the thoughts of women." - no qualifiers, no shades of grey. All women can be understood by watching Sex and the City. "So that is why women need context more to get themselves going, sexy for women is more in body language, or verbal language if you please" and "this is why I explained why they talk about situations more than body parts." - I admit, the syntax makes it a bit confusing, but I'm not reading qualifiers "...the fact the market for the standard romance novel is primarily women speaks very loudly for, we are different when it comes to sexuality." "If you are going to generalise remember women are from venus, men are from mars ... men joke about sex in an open graphic way whereas many women are more about feeling loved. Broadly speaking female conversations are more about how a man makes them feel emotionally rather than how good a fuck he is." - even with the qualifiers, I think this is an over-generalization. And the Mars/Venus nonsense has been widely debunked. So, yes, people are making generalizations in this thread. I disagree with the generalizations. That's all.
Addressing the last first, this is exactly what I'm referring to. Making a generalization is not the same as stating some absolute. Are you claiming there are no generalizations one can make about men or women? In my opinion, you appear to be looking to be offended and I think that is part of the problem @stevesh was referring to. It may not be true, but it is how it appears. Irony. So right there he goes on to very clearly state his comment about Sex and the City was not some blanket statement about all women. And it was a good source to see women talking casually about sex. This was a misconception that both you and I addressed. OK, so here's one comment where as a female I can say, no, just no. I assure you my body gets aroused without body language or more context. It does and we are. This is the part you left out: So what about the Mars/Venus metaphor: So he's not saying all women are X. And he mentioned some of the differences are socio-cultural. You can't say that isn't true. Re: the Mars men, Venus women, it is a controversial issue, not a black and white, proven wrong, settled matter. Opinions differ. Are there differences between men and women. Is there any crossover? Yes and yes. So what are the typical false assumptions? I think the biggest one is the false belief we don't enjoy sex for the sake of sex. But you can't deny many women are socialized out of that enjoyment. Or at a minimum they are socialized to downplay their sexuality.
I think the biggest one is the false belief we don't enjoy sex for the sake of sex. But you can't deny many women are socialized out of that enjoyment. Or at a minimum they are socialized to downplay their sexuality. This is true as well and I agree with it and what you said about your body getting aroused out of context. But you don´t specifically tell what is context. What I meant was that context is what bodies can do, not just the mere fact that they exist, somewhere, where you can see them.
Did you intend to echo what I said or quote me there? I added the quote code. Code: [quote][/quote] If you want to refer to the person you quoted: Code: [quote="name"][/quote] Don't know where you grew up or what gender you are, but I grew up in the free love generation and my experience doesn't seem to match yours.
I think there are some physical generalizations that can be made, with the understanding that there will be exceptions. In terms of behaviour? I think there are generalizations that can be made based on individual cultures or subcultures, again with the understanding that there will be exceptions. In terms of all women, everywhere? I can't think of any generalizations based on behaviour that I'd be willing to stand behind. Okay, so your goal for the thread was to appease @stevesh? That wasn't my goal. And it's not about being offended. I haven't been throwing accusations or getting worked up, I haven't called anyone names. I'm not offended; I just disagree. Why is it so important that you turn this into some sort of emotional response on my part?
Nice dodge. My issue is you nocked your arrow when there was no enemy in site. It isn't. I was merely pointing out that 3 people complained when these gender issues come up the discussion turns into a battle and before I was done saying, nuhuh, and agreeing with @Steerpike, you drew a battle line. It's not a big deal. And I think this sidetrack has run its course.
What on earth are you talking about? There are no ARROWS! Disagreeing with someone is not DRAWING A BATTLE LINE! I disagree with some of the posters on this thread. That's all. That's it. Enough with the martial analogies, enough of your attempt to create drama where there is none.
