A Few Comments on Why Feminism is the Anti-Viagra
April 19, 2011 | ~6 mins read time.

I read this article on Psychology Today's website called Why Feminism is the Anti-Viagra [Dead link culled July 25, 2017]. Then I read a bunch of blog posts commenting on that blog, and I was astonished by the amount of so-called feminists confusing sexual dominance and submission with social dominance and submission. The two certainly can go together, but they are slightly different things.

The PT article was clearly attempting to show that the majority of women have sexual submission fantasies and there have been umpteen articles and a number of studies done supporting that claim. It goes so far as to mention that science has picked out certain men who, due to certain prenatal developmental situations, are born with submissive tendencies. They even mention that through the same prenatal situations, some women are born wired to seek dominance. That is to say, most studies show that most men are dominant, most women are submissive, some men are submissive, and a few women are dominant.

This is to do with sexual dominance, rather than social dominance - and I think this is where a lot of the responders on the various blogs, especially the feminist blogs, get confused. They're focussed on the mention of the rat sex (dominant male posture, submissive female posture, and going on and on about how rats aren't humans and vice versa), the mention of romance novels, and totally missing the point - or willfully missing it.

It seems that feminism has an issue with biology. It doesn't wish to "believe" the facts that so many studies have shown to be the norm. That men are inherently dominant and women are inherently submissive as a general rule. Science has this pesky habit of allowing for exceptions to the rule. Those exceptions are that there are some men who are submissive and that there are some women who are dominant.

The feminist standpoint seems to be that this biological point of view doesn't allow for people who are gay or transgendered to be counted amongst the studied. I propose that it seems quite obvious, even from just anecdotal observation, that everyone could be counted among the stats based on the sex of the individual as long as their gender identifiers are accounted for. I wonder if someone's done a study on this yet? If not, they should.

There are gay men who are "men's men", and there is no way to mistake them for being submissive. There are gay men who are more effeminate and are clearly submissive. The same goes for gay women and transgendered people. I would surmise, just from my own informal observations, that men and women still take on the same roles of dominance and submission as the straight studies show regardless of orientation. I would further suggest by the same informal observations that those who are transgendered fall into line with the straight data once it is determined what gender they identify with, despite their physiology. Now I want to do my own study just to see - I could very well be wrong, but that's what science is for!

That said, I'm glad for the women's movement for a couple of things. I no longer am the property of a man (even if that's appealing to me); I can vote; I am allowed to express my opinion; I can do anything I want as far as a profession goes assuming I have the skill and physical ability to do it. Even so, I think it is ridiculous to totally ignore and rationalize away purely scientific data because you don't like the results. Results that haven't got much to do with social standing at all since they are looking at sexual standing (and the two are not always the same).

I don't like the fact that my body turns into a hormonal centre for the potentially batshit crazy once a month because I'm a woman, even if it's just for a minute or two, but those are the facts and every woman experiences it to some degree. That's that pesky biology for you. Always getting in the way of how we'd prefer things to be. I would say that if you're one of those feminists who say that a woman can't have a rape fantasy or enjoy being dominated because that's degrading all women, that you need to consider personal preference and desires do not apply to literally everyone.

If we ignore all the scientific data for a moment on sexual dominance and submission and get down to basic human interaction I would think that, as a woman, you would embrace facts and you would embrace those things which make women women. Embrace the idea that not all women want and desire the same things. If a woman wants to be her husband's dinner table and he's okay with that, then let them get to it. If a man wants his girlfriend to use the heel of her stilettos on his testicles, then let them have at it. It's not up to the feminist movement to dictate what women or men may enjoy - that is up to the individuals. As long as no one is demanding that everyone take part or that it's right for everyone, I don't see the problem

It seems to me that most of the outrage regarding any study that indicates the majority of women are sexually submissive or have tendencies toward submission comes from an irrational need to control how people behave based on gender. This is where we, as a society, have strayed from the path to "equality". Not everyone is equal, and they never will be, but we need to start on equal footing. What we do with that is up to the individual. It should never be about controlling everyone's personal, sexual preferences. It should be about supporting the choices people make for themselves so long as they're not harming anyone who isn't consenting.

If you're a woman who has sexually submissive tendencies, which you probably are according to most of the studies, and you fancy yourself a feminist then embrace who you are. Feminism should be about allowing you, as a woman, to fulfill your desires and needs without having to conform to what is "expected". The amusing thing about the PT article is that it really has an unfortunate title because it's got almost nothing to do with feminism. It seems that the author has similar views on modern feminism that I do though.