Benjamin Rosenbaum

Comments on "Wiscon schedule"

Is that the same Ian who was on the "Why Men Hate Sex" panel? He was good.

Posted by David Moles at May 10, 2007 02:57 AM

Ok, I'll bite. Why do men hate sex?


Posted by Matt Hulan at May 10, 2007 09:52 AM

Matt, here's David's liveblogging of same.

Short answer, quoting myself from the end of that panel:

"[W]omen can talk much more easily about whether and when and how they like or donít like sex. With men . . . if youíre not able to say no to something, youíre not really able to say yes either. Thereís so much at stake for men. Menís attention is often not so much on having sex as on having done her."

If you have very little cultural room to admit, to yourself and others, that you might not like something all the time, constantly, any way you can get it... then that might be a little clue that you don't like it as much as you think you do.

Posted by Benjamin Rosenbaum at May 10, 2007 10:41 AM

Hm. Okay, but does that mean that we hate it?

Ah, provocative panel title for the purposes of engendering (har!) discussion. I get it. Moving right along...


Posted by Matt Hulan at May 14, 2007 04:11 PM

FYI, here's the panel description from the program guide:

For Joe Weinberg, author of the book from which this panel takes its title, men hate and fear and receive less pleasure from any sex that they don’t define and control. The way each generation of adults teaches boys about sex teaches them to hate sex. All the hypocrisy from organized religion, coaches, parents, schools, the porn industry, their peers, etc. sets boys up for the kill. Child illegitimacy, "one night stands," modesty, chastity, fidelity and virginity as "virtues" to be forced upon females, female promiscuity a crime, monogamy: a way to control and police female sexuality, myth of Blue Balls, pornography as sex education texts, "sex tourism?" Grand Theft Auto, domestic violence, rape, "hate fuck," date rape drug, infidelity a norm, female genital mutilation, Hooters, prostitution, FDS, witch burnings, intercourse as the "main course," ignorance of female pleasure, "Best Friends With Benefits," are all feature of the predominant male–defined sexuality. For many males, sex is a way to avoid intimacy. The "sex" boys are taught avoids and denies emotional connection. Sex is taught as if it was dirty and, as a result, males are at best ambivalent about sex. The sex so many practice is counter–intuitive to having their innate drive met to connect on a cellular, heart level with another full human being.

Posted by Ted at May 14, 2007 09:29 PM

I'm willing to go with "Ah, provocative panel title for the purposes of engendering (har!) discussion. I get it." and move on, but if anyone actually wants to argue about this with me:

What does it mean to connect on a "celluar, heart level" with another human being?

I mean, love I get. I love my wife, I've loved others, I'm not saying that emotions don't happen. But they don't happen in my cells or in my heart, any more than they happen in Hallmark cards, that's just flowery (meaningless) rhetoric. Forgive me if the intellectual dishonesty of the last sentence makes me question the intellectual honesty of the rest of the argument, but I don't see it.

"Men hate sex" is just as silly a thing to say as "White folks can't dance." I've seen Rosenbaum dance, for instance, and I assure you some of them can.


Posted by Matt Hulan at May 15, 2007 04:03 PM

Please note that most of us who were on the panel rolled our eyes at the panel description.

If you were asking me "why men hate sex" my answer stands. If you were asking me "do men hate sex?" my answer is "sometimes". If you are asking about the panel description's evocative and passionately felt effusions of apparently unrelated concepts, you will have to ask Mr. Weinberg. I for one have not the faintest idea what a cellular, heart level is.

Posted by Benjamin Rosenbaum at May 15, 2007 04:08 PM

Ok, I'm fine with that. Moving right along...


Posted by Matt Hulan at May 15, 2007 04:31 PM

If I'd been there two years ago, I probably would have made some kind of fool of myself griping about how universalizing male sexuality is the same kind (if not the same degree) of dehumanization as universalizing female sexuality. As much as you and a bunch of other folks all tried your best to extract something useful from that poison pill, no sane conversation can start that way.

Anyways, old, pointless topic.

New! pointful topic: what else do you have your eye on for this year?

Posted by Dan at May 16, 2007 12:18 PM

To be fair to Joe Weinberg, I don't think it's clear from his screed there, but he was very much not talking about the toxic association of male sexuality with violence as an essentialized, universal biological artifact -- he was talking about it as common cultural programming, perfectly possible to fight against and overcome.

People were very irritated with his style of moderation and his insistence on his point of view, and that tended to overshadow the positive aspects of his work. Also the fact that the Wiscon crowd was the wrong audience -- we already knew everything he wanted to tell us, and wanted to move beyond it. I think, though, that if there was some value to his contribution, it was in his dogged insistence that things out there in the average american high schools and frat houses that he visits are as bad as he says they are.

This year -- sheesh, I haven't even looked yet. Way too swamped!

Posted by Benjamin Rosenbaum at May 16, 2007 12:24 PM

Is the Wiscon program schedule available for public viewing? I can't find it on the website.

Posted by Ted at May 16, 2007 02:24 PM

The schedule is up now.

Posted by Dan at May 17, 2007 05:15 PM

Post a comment

Please choose one:

Thank you.

Remember personal info?