He asserts that the " woman in process"... "at her worst"... "While she may act sexually responsive and aroused, hers is a fragile interest in sex that can easily be made a low priority. Being loved, not being sexually desired, is her motive". (p54)
Of additional interest, he claims that women who consider themselves "in touch" via feministic qualities, are actually out-of-touch in many ways, one of them is particularly interesting; "She is out-of-touch with her sexism, which is every bit as intense as men's objectification of women. Men are attractive, sexy and desirable to her to the degree that they are powerful and successful. A man is a success object, who is attractive to the extent that he can be a rescuer, a protector, and a provider. None of these necessarily have any connection to his qualities as a person-the thing that most women believe is the major priority." (p48)
Anyone have an opinion?
He's only half right at best. Women want to pair-bond with men who signal protect/provide and are therefore frequently "willing" to have sex with them. Women actually "want" to have sex with men who signal "dominance". Also, women are frequently romantically attracted to men who are "pretty" or signal vulnerability. Thus the stereotypical scene in which our hero "protects" the girl by punching out the jerk who bothered her (and thereby signaling dominance) and then lets her tend his wounds (thereby signaling vulnerability).
I currently consider myself to be a post-feminist neo-primitive who is very much in touch with her inherent sexism. However, I think being self-aware is very helpful because it allows me to, for instance, choose the flavor of "dominance" I prefer or consider what level of "protection" makes me feel safe vs. suffocated. I should make it clear that I do date or consider having sex with men for reasons that just make them good people. However, I find that it is really hard to want to have sex with a man if he doesn't do SOMETHING to signal dominance. I do my part by trying to keep my monkey at the level of "cute" that is just below "annoying". I also decided that although I still feel it is morally reprehensible to "play a man from bunny", it is alright to "let a man play your bunny" which is probably why I get petted a lot lately. And, of course, I exhibit great empathy for basic male objectification needs by dressing to emphasize my bust-waist-hip ratios.
Eventually, I feel like I will figure out how to solve my dilemma which is due to the fact that my primary love language is Physical Touch but I want to be loved for my Pilgrim Soul which is not physically touchable or even made of the stuff that makes people want to touch you but it's all pretty tricky.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
