Wait, Did You Mean "Feminist" or Did You Mean "Sexist Pig"?

It's not lost on me that there's an apparent irony in having "feminist" in my blog header but spending my first three posts talking about women I've recently checked out in public. I would, however, defend myself from charges of hypocrisy on several fronts.

First, the header also says I'm a writer of weird erotica, and none of my entries to date has contained any weird erotica, or even discussed it, so maybe some patience is just in order.

Second, I would hope that readers can tell the difference between internal and external behavior, since any clear-eyed reading of this blog so far ought to reveal my philosophical dedication to treating people well regardless of what might be going on in my head.

And third -- and most important -- feminism is about freedom and decency, and men and women will never be truly free around each other if they don't understand one another. I could maintain the fiction that it is inappropriate for men to perceive women sexually or to think of women sexually outside the confines of romantic relationships. But in doing so, I would be attempting to deceive everyone about a fundamental aspect of my own sexuality, and I would be colluding in a societal conspiracy to (1) mislead women about the workings of the male mind, and (2) manipulate men into denying the validity of their own sexuality. None of that could possibly contribute to a true freedom of interaction between the sexes. Rather, it would constitute a deliberate miseducation of women and repression of men.

Men want to look at women.

Men want to have sex with women -- not with a woman who is their spouse/soulmate, but with women, plural.

The fact that men want these things does not necessarily mean that they should get them. But it does mean that telling men not to want them is counterproductive. Some men will simply ignore what society is demanding, while others will comply but endure lifelong self-loathing for their inability to expunge these "inappropriate" desires. The rebellious men will end up treating women badly while the compliant men will be incapable of demonstrating the true openness and intimacy women deserve.

Women are harmed when we tell men to deny their nature. That outcome shouldn't be desirable to any feminist, no matter how much we might prefer that the internal workings of men's minds conform to our long-held notions of propriety.

We can and should demand that men treat women well. We can and should demand that promises of fidelity are kept, that unwanted attention is not thrust upon anyone, that basic respect is the right of every human being. But we cannot insist that men's internal responses are society's to mandate, any more than we can rightly expect homosexuals to simply "decide" to be straight.

If after all this you're still thinking, "He's just rationalizing so he can keep perving over every attractive woman he meets," then I can only shrug and say I'm sorry you see it that way.

Perving is fun.

You should try it sometime.