I ain't much on Casanova.
Me and Romeo ain't never been friends.

I wouldn't last long in a relationship if the sex wasn't casual.

Just a few thoughts.

Smiler cites the findings of the International Sexuality Description Project which found that when asked about what they'd like to have happen in the next month, 25% of young men wanted to have two or more sexual partners in that time frame...75% of young men, despite the cultural pressures towards heterosexual male promiscuity, wanted only one (or zero) partners in the upcoming month.

No, 25 percent of young men wanted to have 2 or more sexual partners AT THE SAME TIME during that time frame. They just misunderstood the question. The other 75 percent did not entertain such aspirations because they knew it was as likely as winning Powerball. You learn to appreciate what's realistic or you die unhappy.

something that only 5% of young women admitted to wanting.

WHORES.

In Challenging Casanova, Smiler notes that heterosexual young men tend to fall into three categories: a small percentage of "players" with a high number of sexual partners;

aka, studs

an equally small percentage of young (almost always devoutly religious) dudes who are determined to remain abstinent until marriage,

aka, Jesus freaks and closeted homosexuals

and a much larger third group whom he argues want to follow "a reasonably traditional, romantic approach to dating." Even when they're "hooking up" (a practice that is neither as novel nor as ubiquitous as wistful and censorious aging pundits imagine) these guys are engaging in the gateway behavior into what they hope will be a relationship.

No, these are the guys who are saying the things they believe they need to say to get a woman into bed.

These findings contradict most of our received wisdom about what young men really want.

No they don't.

"I'm constantly told that the 'boys are lying' to me about what they really want," Smiler says in a phone interview. "The Casanova myth is so deeply ingrained that people are convinced that boys who claim to want relationships rather than casual sex are either incredibly rare or full of crap." The small number of genuinely promiscuous boys is explained away by absence of opportunity rather than absence of desire; the myth that most young men would be Casanovas if they could is as tenacious as it is unfounded. There seem to be few other aspects of human sexual behavior where the disconnect between reality and perception is so vast.

So..."I don't believe A is true, but everybody else does. Therefore, A is a deeply ingrained myth that is not true."

Yet Millenial guys are genuinely different in their attitudes towards sex than their Gen X and Boomer elders.

No, they've just grown up with a generation of women who are much more willing to engage in casual sex.

A substantial part of that evolution can be explained by a much-more widespread acceptance of cross-sex friendship. "Today, most boys have at least one friend who happens to be female -- a 'girl friend' but not a 'girlfriend,'"

And what percentage of these are fark buddies?

Perhaps the biggest take-away from Smiler's work is that men's sexual choices are just that, choices. Physiology and evolution may influence desires, but they don't override any man's capacity to reflect before acting. The myth of male weakness and the Casanova Complex suggest that men are ultimately powerless in the face of their sexual impulses, and that it is the responsibility of those who are less horny -- women - to cover their bodies, set healthy boundaries, and generally prevent civilization from collapsing into orgiastic chaos.

Yes. Yes, this is why things General Petraeus is still head of the CIA.

Biology hasn't changed, but boys have, and for the better. May they teach their parents well.

Bullshiat. 

Other than that, great article.

Please don't greenlight Hugo Schwyzer links.

The guy tried to kill his girlfriend.
As a professor, the guy took a group of students on a weekend trip and slept with four of the girls.
As a professor, the guy regularly slept with his students.
He repeatedly had sex with a woman, and helped her deceive her husband into believing it was his when there was a very good chance it was Hugo's kid. He has tried to justify this continuing and ongoing deception by saying he wasn't ready to be a father.

That guy is a sociopath.

RoyBatty: As a professor, the guy took a group of students on a weekend trip and slept with four of the girls.

As a professor, the guy took a group of students on a weekend trip and slept with four of the girls, when he was the designated chaperone.

In light of the above, it seems ironic that Hugo would write this:

The myth of male weakness and the Casanova Complex suggest that men are ultimately powerless in the face of their sexual impulses, and that it is the responsibility of those who are less horny -- women - to cover their bodies, set healthy boundaries, and generally prevent civilization from collapsing into orgiastic chaos. Young men today don't have any less testosterone than did their dads, but when it comes to sex, they're thinking and acting differently. Biology hasn't changed, but boys have, and for the better. May they teach their parents well.

Of all the people that have claimed to be powerless in the face of their sexual impulses, Hugo by his own admitted behaviors has to be at the top of that list. 

Don't greenlight Hugo Schywzer, the guy is a sociopath.

Pocket Ninja: Smiler cites the findings of the International Sexuality Description Project which found that when asked about what they'd like to have happen in the next month, 25% of young men wanted to have two or more sexual partners in that time frame...75% of young men, despite the cultural pressures towards heterosexual male promiscuity, wanted only one (or zero) partners in the upcoming month.

No, 25 percent of young men wanted to have 2 or more sexual partners AT THE SAME TIME during that time frame. They just misunderstood the question. The other 75 percent did not entertain such aspirations because they knew it was as likely as winning Powerball. You learn to appreciate what's realistic or you die unhappy.

something that only 5% of young women admitted to wanting.

WHORES.

This got a rather loud lol from me. Not too many people in the office at this point, making it rather conspicuous.

Woohoo! Friend zone thread! I was looking for something to do tonight. Come on trainwreck!

This thread has potential!

RoyBatty: Please don't greenlight Hugo Schwyzer links.

The guy tried to kill his girlfriend.
As a professor, the guy took a group of students on a weekend trip and slept with four of the girls.
As a professor, the guy regularly slept with his students.
He repeatedly had sex with a woman, and helped her deceive her husband into believing it was his when there was a very good chance it was Hugo's kid. He has tried to justify this continuing and ongoing deception by saying he wasn't ready to be a father.

That guy is a sociopath.

I'm no expert on this guy, but hasn't he owned up to those things and explored them in his work?

Hug Me To Completion is my Teddy Ruxpin tribute band.

coco ebert: RoyBatty: Please don't greenlight Hugo Schwyzer links.

The guy tried to kill his girlfriend.
As a professor, the guy took a group of students on a weekend trip and slept with four of the girls.
As a professor, the guy regularly slept with his students.
He repeatedly had sex with a woman, and helped her deceive her husband into believing it was his when there was a very good chance it was Hugo's kid. He has tried to justify this continuing and ongoing deception by saying he wasn't ready to be a father.

That guy is a sociopath.

I'm no expert on this guy, but hasn't he owned up to those things and explored them in his work?

It depends on what you mean by "owned up" and "explored them in his work".

Everything I wrote is based on multiple blog postings he wrote. So if owned up means he wrote it, then yes, he owned up.

"Explored them in his work" means rationalized them, and blamed men, culture, and the Patriarchy for his personal behaviors.

So he has never owned up to any of it, if owned up admits taking full responsibility and/or admitting his behavior was wrong or needed changing. And he has since purged his blogs of many of his original postings.

Here he has purged his blog of the entire category of teacher-student-sexual-relationships.

Link (goes to 404)

So at Feministe he is asked about the chaperoning and he condemns it, but states how it has made him a better person and better able to see the faults of power in anyone sexual relationships. It's never "I was wrong, period", it's "I failed in the same way all (men) fail".

But Hugo has fallen so many many times and in such bizarre and clear ways while at the same time proclaiming himself to be the uber-feminist that I can't take his cry that he is just one of the guys seriously.

CT: You have a somewhat controversial sexual history. You've openly acknowledged doing things as intense as chaperoning a class trip on which you slept with four of the students. How does this influence your thinking about sexuality today?

HS: Hah, I love the ambiguity of the word "intense." In terms of my sexual history with my students (which for the sake of clarification ended abruptly when I got sober in '98), the key word is simply "unethical." Though my promiscuity was hardly confined to my own students, that behavior stands out as deeply and profoundly wrong. Even if it was consensual, and involved students who for the most part were my approximate chronological peers, it was still a boundary violation. In the broader sense, that aspect of my past has made me keenly sensitive to power imbalances in sexual relationships. It's made me mistrustful of the possibility of consent in those instances where one person has so much more experience and authority than the other.

And he doesn't write of how he tried to kill his girlfriend, he writes of how depressed he was, and what a terrible life he had been living and oh by the way, while trying to kill himself (by exploding the house IIRC), his girlfriend was in the other room.

And he doesn't write that the deception of the man was wrong, he writes he was correct to deceive the guy, because Hugo was not ready to be a father, and he writes that it is still correct to deceive the guy.

In most cases in his writing he takes some terrible behavior he has committed and if he does admit such behavior was wrong, he doesn't take personal responsibility for it, instead he places responsibility for it on all men, and on the Patriarchy.

This is why feminists loved him up until just about a year ago when the attempted murder of his girlfriend became more widely known. 

Sorry, I know this rambled.

The Friend Zone is like a black hole or submitter's mom's vagina. Once someone's in there, they never leave.

RoyBatty

I can't speak to anything he wrote about the incident with his girlfriend, but nothing in what you posted of what he's written strikes me as sociopathic. He's talking about power imbalances between professors and students and how he f*cked up. I have to read more of what he wrote instead of relying on your insight. Your blanket characterization of feminism (that feminists only like him because he blames all his faults on patriarchy) makes me a bit more skeptical of your interpretation of him.

coco ebert: RoyBatty

I can't speak to anything he wrote about the incident with his girlfriend, but nothing in what you posted of what he's written strikes me as sociopathic. He's talking about power imbalances between professors and students and how he f*cked up. I have to read more of what he wrote instead of relying on your insight. Your blanket characterization of feminism (that feminists only like him because he blames all his faults on patriarchy) makes me a bit more skeptical of your interpretation of him.

Shorter Coco Ebert:

I have read much of what he has written.
I would need to read more to know.

But I do know your characterizations of him are wrong and make me suspect you.

Whatever. It's all mostly googleable except for the parts he took down.

Do your homework, then come back and tell me how wrong I have it.

RoyBatty: coco ebert: RoyBatty

I can't speak to anything he wrote about the incident with his girlfriend, but nothing in what you posted of what he's written strikes me as sociopathic. He's talking about power imbalances between professors and students and how he f*cked up. I have to read more of what he wrote instead of relying on your insight. Your blanket characterization of feminism (that feminists only like him because he blames all his faults on patriarchy) makes me a bit more skeptical of your interpretation of him.

Shorter Coco Ebert:

I have NOT read much of what he has written.
I would need to read more to know.

But I do know your characterizations of him are wrong and make me suspect you.


FTFM with an important not.

Seriously, if you admit to not reading Hugo much, well maybe before coming in to defend the guy, you should take the time to read him and his critics.

Or, when you ask a question,

I'm no expert on this guy, but hasn't he owned up to those things and explored them in his work?

Save the time for everyone and admit you're making a statement and don't actually want an answer.

RoyBatty: coco ebert: RoyBatty

I can't speak to anything he wrote about the incident with his girlfriend, but nothing in what you posted of what he's written strikes me as sociopathic. He's talking about power imbalances between professors and students and how he f*cked up. I have to read more of what he wrote instead of relying on your insight. Your blanket characterization of feminism (that feminists only like him because he blames all his faults on patriarchy) makes me a bit more skeptical of your interpretation of him.

Shorter Coco Ebert:

I have read much of what he has written.
I would need to read more to know.

But I do know your characterizations of him are wrong and make me suspect you.

Whatever. It's all mostly googleable except for the parts he took down.

Do your homework, then come back and tell me how wrong I have it.

Fair enough. I certainly can google him and read more. I just thought it interesting to go so far as to call for someone's works to be blacklisted on a site like Fark.

coco ebert: Fair enough. I certainly can google him and read more. I just thought it interesting to go so far as to call for someone's works to be blacklisted on a site like Fark.

That's a very good point, but hey, I think the guy IS a sociopath:

The guy tried to kill his girlfriend.
As a professor, the guy took a group of students on a weekend trip and slept with four of the girls.
As a professor, the guy regularly slept with his students.
He repeatedly had sex with a woman, and helped her deceive her husband into believing it was his when there was a very good chance it was Hugo's kid. He has tried to justify this continuing and ongoing deception by saying he wasn't ready to be a father.


And so I see no reason to give him the hits or the aplomb, OR WORSE, up his hit count to the point that it makes it safe and "good" for Jezebel and others to publish this turd.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/physioprof/2011/12/19/male-feminist-hugo- s chwyzer/

If this lying sacke of shiatte really felt remorse and wanted to make amends for his unimaginably grotesque past violent behavior towards women, the way he'd do it would be to stay as far the farke away from any women as humanly possible. Schwyzer making amends for his woman-hating violent past by teaching feminsm to classrooms filled with young women is like a child molester making amends for his child-molesting past by teaching classrooms filled with little children how to protect their bodily integrity.

http://studentactivism.net/2012/01/04/paternalistic-feminism-hugo-sch w yzer/

"Herding Sluts: The Paternalistic Feminism of Hugo Schwyzer

In all his writing about this act he has never addressed its implications for his feminism - the feminism he professed when he committed the crime, or the feminism he professes today. And though he construes the story as the final dramatic act of his old life of addiction and irresponsibility, it's a story that resonates powerfully with his current public presence.

Here's how Schwyzer described his relationship to his students not long ago:

Go ahead, call me paternalistic. I'll wear that title with pride, thank you. I see my students not merely as independent, autonomous agents whom I need to empower, but as vulnerable young people whom I - and others around me - need to protect. And I still have the nerve to call myself a feminist.

This notion that feminism calls him to protect the weak - to save them from themselves, to guide them to the right path - recurs again and again in his writing. As the co-organizer of the LA Slutwalk earlier this year, he referred to his role as "Herding sluts. In the best and most responsible way." His students say he's an electrifying lecturer, but complain that he severely restricts class discussion. And he frequently conceptualizes moral behavior as a matter of denial and restriction. (He has, for instance, described feminism as a "cold pool" in which "none of us can fully immerse ourselves forever.")

I don't have any reason to believe that Hugo Schwyzer is likely to attempt another murder anytime soon. But the man who described his girlfriend as fragile and broken and in need of his sheltering strength as he plotted her death has not gone entirely away. The paternalistic impulse to save that young woman from herself - an impulse that came to him with "incredible clarity" then, one which he remembers "perfectly" today - is still in him, still driving him. It's an impulse he's redirected, but it remains unexamined, unchecked, and dangerous. (It particularly inflects and infects his writing about sexuality, about youth, and about people of color.)

Like Hugo Schwyzer, I'm a white male professor teaching history in an urban community college. Like Schwyzer, I consider myself a feminist. Like Schwyzer, I work with young people extensively outside of the classroom. And it's from that perspective that I offer him this piece of advice:

You're doing it wrong. You need to stop."

Pocket Ninja: Bullshiat. 

Other than that, great article.

I know everyone enjoys your playful trolling/mockery, but I actually like your serious posts more.

Rev. Skarekroe: I ain't much on Casanova.
Me and Romeo ain't never been friends.

Came here for this! Yay!

CygnusDarius: Guy: See, I really like you. Let's date, and see what happens

Girl: Sorry, but, I'd like us to remain friends

My advice in this situation?


Just walk away...

Elzar: A lot of these negative issues from casanova types could be greatly avoided if we simply had legalized state-regulated prostitution.

Wife/girlfriend doesn't want to have sex more then once a week/month/quarter/year but you still enjoy her companionship? Go book a pro and get your needs taken care of - winners all around.

Obviously not all guys are casnovas or inclined to that behavior, but most of us are or have been at some point in time.

I can think of few things worse than state regulated prostitution.

fta: The new research about young men and romance is hard to accept because the emerging trend of "caring, romantic boys" doesn't gibe with our experiences of an older generation of men. [link goes to stat about teen pregnancies being down]

There is no trend. Teen pregnancies are down because of the availability of contraception and accessibility of pornography, not because teen boys are caring and understanding. In fact, the reverse is true, and again, its because of pornography:

Online porn has effectively desensitized teenagers from understanding what true intimacy really is. It has made teenage girls more experimentative at a time when they probably shouldn't be and it has made boys a lot more misogynistic and demanding.

There has been a noted rise in teen girls seeking their first sexual gratification from their friends (the so-called lesbian phase) because all the boys in their schools are absolute monsters. Virgin teen girls are nervous and apprehensive and vulnerable when they become sexually active. They want their first experience to be with someone they trust, and teenage boys seem to be not that interested in intimacy or anything meaningful. They want to get off and move on, in the most demeaning way possible, just like the videos they watch every night.

By the time they get to college, girls are basically competing with Redtube and Bangbus. They must put out or the guys don't care. And they must be lascivious, nasty, filthy little cum dumpsters willing to deepthroat a full load or no guy will pay any attention to them. It's all very cruel and atavistic and probably would not be so extreme without such easy access to hardcore porn as part of one's sexual education.

Pocket Ninja: Bullshiat.

Other than that, great article.


Well, it is a Jezebel link, after all...