ISTM that @Curiosity killed and @asher are talking about experiences of different groupings.
I suspect the ‘loudness’ (and IMO obnoxiousness) of the behaviours @Curiosity killed describes can easily overshadow even the existence of the kind of experiences @asher describes.
Since a sufficient number of men indulge in behaviour that means women have to routinely protect themselves from that kind of behaviour it is inevitably going to affect the interaction between women and men in general.
The physical response of the erection should not be taken as an indicator that a man wants sex
Although that's not necessarily the response to be heard from young men of my acquaintance - the sort of boys who shout out to passing girls that they have an erection and will she help him with it.
Why do you shut asher down like this? He states something about men being treated in a stereotypical matter, and you shut him down and say other males act that way so ... what? He shouldn't mention it? Those "sort of boys" are right? Are in the majority? Why did you shut him down like this?
Assuming you're being serious, of which I'm not totally convinced, I wasn't trying to shut asher down, I was trying to point out that, in my experience, different young men demonstrate different responses, possibly in different environments. I work with young men (and women) in the community and have done for the last 25 years. My impression is that asher is working with young men in prison, when maybe they are reflecting back on experiences. I'm reporting on personal observations, things I've seen or heard.
One sensitive young man I knew as he became involved in his first sexual relationship did talk to a colleague about being overwhelmed by his girlfriend's libido, but he stands out as the sole exception among many, many young men. I have heard both men and women who regretted their first sexual encounters as not being ideal or being asked to take part in sexual acts they didn't enjoy - often as "OK honey sex", and the advice there would always be that enthusiastic consent is needed for all sexual acts, which I teach to both male and female teenagers, both hetero- or homosexual acts.
I've had some very frank conversations in my time as someone safe to talk to. Other things that stand out in my mind include the ongoing conversation with a young lad I knew really well whose solution to avoiding STIs was to have sex with virgins or the devastated youngster who was desperately upset that his girlfriend had aborted the pregnancy that had resulted from their sexual experiments. He was very confused, didn't want to become a father, felt terrible about the abortion and started drinking shortly afterwards for a while. (Having seen him around drinking for a few weeks, I stopped seeing him around, so have no idea how that vignette finished.)
I also know that one group of teenagers we were providing with an alternative education graded us as MILFs* or not. I've been in groups of men (as the only invisible female) who watched the women coming past and graded them as marks out of 1: I'd give her one/she's a zero. How much of that was group bravado and living up to a macho image I couldn't say, but it's not an unusual experience.
But other times as the only woman around, the experience has been hearing men asking each other for the same sort of advice that women would ask in that situation - I really like this girl, how do I get her to notice me? or to see me as boyfriend material? But that's not really a work conversation, it's something for relaxation time.
OK, so let me try here. When a member of a privileged community states that they are being shut down, it often translates to them complaining about losing their privileged position. In other words, merely trying to level the playing field is translated to being shutdown.
If nothing else, the outcome of the kerfuffle regarding the XY thread should be seen as solid evidence that SOF does not shutdown male voices.
People tend to think of themselves as the normal. Even decidedly not normal people like me. We can only truly reference the inside of our own perceptions, so this is how we base our pictures of others.
If one is in a position of being the societal default, it is more difficult to see what others feel.
On top of this, we naturally feel threatened by anything which seeks to change our position.
So the privileged tend to see equality of interchange as being shutdown.
Thanks @lilbuddha . As you may have gathered I took 24 hrs to step back and reflect.
I disagree with nothing that you have written.
<Well, one thing perhaps - your use of what in my house we used to call the 'Margaret Thatcher' defense (there's one so there's no issue). But that's quibbling.>
Equality of interchange is a good thing to aim for. But what does it look like?
Shyness, fear of embarrassment, etc. those things have always been an issue for the shy and awkward. But the "fear whatever I do will be perceived wrong", especially when framed in terms of 'a history of male oppressive action' is not about being awkward and the sensitivity seems to be focused on self. Part of interacting with other people is focusing on being sensitive to other people. The lack of doing so seems to be at the heart of the narrative of fear.
To expand on this: I think if a man starts from the position of, "I don't know what it's like to be you. I want to learn. Tell me about what it's like to be female in a male-dominated culture. What would you like to see change? What has harmed you?" they are (if they come across at all sincere) not likely to get shouted down. Then shut up and listen. If you're listening and not talking, you're not going to say something stupid.
Well, yes. Absolutely no issue with this.
This is certainly the safest way for men to behave - as you seem to suggest.
In the spirit of equality of interchange that @lilbuddha says that would like, is there ever a time for the man to be asked those questions and helped (probably will need help) to engage in them?
@Curiosity killed Thank you. A lot in your post. I'll try respond to some of it.
First, I hold my hand up, there were some generalisations - but I did attempt to qualify them all ('not always' 'many' etc.)
Regarding transgressive early sexual experiences. Upthread some posters talked about their approach to sex ed, and led by telling their children 'don't do it'.
Regarding erections. You are of course correct that young men in groups do at times behave appallingly. There is never any excuse for such behaviour. Nonetheless, I stand by the substantive point that the presence of an erection does not mean that a man wants sex.
Regarding young men having a more nuanced construct of masculinity than my generation. You are of course correct that young men are capable of behaving appallingly towards women. There is never any excuse for such behaviour. I do see changes from my generation in attitudes to risk taking behaviour, attitudes to LGBT issues, attitudes to emotional openness, attitudes to alcohol, some attitudes to women.
You are of course right that all young people are frightened of getting it wrong in early relationships.
Regarding the coursening of young men. I'm sure the factors of peer pressure and peer learning come into play. Could there be others?
Equality of interchange is a good thing to aim for. But what does it look like?
This is difficult because it will vary somewhat from person to person and because most people do not understand their own blindness. Especially someone looking at this through the lens of fear.
Seeing everyone as a full and complete person with agency, not as a goal to be pursued, a piece to fit into our puzzle is a place to start.
If a person approaches another with a proposition (date/sex/relationship) and is rejected, there should be little disappointment. Why? Before the proposition, there should be an understanding of the person and expectation of outcome commensurate with the level of the proposition.
If I ask a woman at a club for a date, I will have spent a some time establishing a connection. But if I am rejected, the disappointment should be low because I do not truly know this person. If I am asking a person of longer acquaintance, I should have a much better understanding of that person. So if there is a rejection, I either did not know the person as well as I thought, or I should be prepared for either outcome. Therefore the disappoint should be low here as well.
Reality is often a little messier than this, but it still holds as the core of the pursuit of relationships.
A musing on the Theory of mind.* Technically, humans have it. In practice, however, there are factors other than those listed below that can impair it. Our male dominated cultures masks it in regards to women. How self-centred a person's thinking is can obscure it as well.
*
Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states — beliefs, intents, desires, emotions, knowledge, etc. — to oneself and to others. Theory of mind is necessary to understand that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one's own.[1] Theory of mind is crucial for everyday human social interactions and is used when analyzing, judging, and inferring others' behaviors.[2] Deficits can occur in people with autism spectrum disorders, genetic-based eating disorders, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,[3] cocaine addiction,[4] and brain damage suffered from alcohol's neurotoxicity;[5] deficits associated with opiate addiction reverse after prolonged abstinence.
Equality of interchange is a good thing to aim for. But what does it look like?
This is difficult because it will vary somewhat from person to person and because most people do not understand their own blindness. Especially someone looking at this through the lens of fear.
Seeing everyone as a full and complete person with agency, not as a goal to be pursued, a piece to fit into our puzzle is a place to start.
If a person approaches another with a proposition (date/sex/relationship) and is rejected, there should be little disappointment. Why? Before the proposition, there should be an understanding of the person and expectation of outcome commensurate with the level of the proposition.
If I ask a woman at a club for a date, I will have spent a some time establishing a connection. But if I am rejected, the disappointment should be low because I do not truly know this person. If I am asking a person of longer acquaintance, I should have a much better understanding of that person. So if there is a rejection, I either did not know the person as well as I thought, or I should be prepared for either outcome. Therefore the disappoint should be low here as well.
Reality is often a little messier than this, but it still holds as the core of the pursuit of relationships.
A musing on the Theory of mind.* Technically, humans have it. In practice, however, there are factors other than those listed below that can impair it. Our male dominated cultures masks it in regards to women. How self-centred a person's thinking is can obscure it as well.
*
Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states — beliefs, intents, desires, emotions, knowledge, etc. — to oneself and to others. Theory of mind is necessary to understand that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one's own.[1] Theory of mind is crucial for everyday human social interactions and is used when analyzing, judging, and inferring others' behaviors.[2] Deficits can occur in people with autism spectrum disorders, genetic-based eating disorders, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,[3] cocaine addiction,[4] and brain damage suffered from alcohol's neurotoxicity;[5] deficits associated with opiate addiction reverse after prolonged abstinence.
I am such a fan of Uta Frith. She doesn't always get the credit she deserves - but the ARC casts a long shadow. If someone asks me for a book to help them understand autism, I always buy them her Oxford Very Short Introduction to Autism.
I'll have a think about how ToM might inform my thinking in this discussion.
Shyness, fear of embarrassment, etc. those things have always been an issue for the shy and awkward. But the "fear whatever I do will be perceived wrong", especially when framed in terms of 'a history of male oppressive action' is not about being awkward and the sensitivity seems to be focused on self. Part of interacting with other people is focusing on being sensitive to other people. The lack of doing so seems to be at the heart of the narrative of fear.
To expand on this: I think if a man starts from the position of, "I don't know what it's like to be you. I want to learn. Tell me about what it's like to be female in a male-dominated culture. What would you like to see change? What has harmed you?" they are (if they come across at all sincere) not likely to get shouted down. Then shut up and listen. If you're listening and not talking, you're not going to say something stupid.
Well, yes. Absolutely no issue with this.
Thank you. And thanks for demonstrating that other people can see this. I feared it was invisible to everybody but me.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited June 2020
Host Hat On
Some things need clarifying here.
Firstly, Curiosity Killed's post was in my Hostly Judgment not a shut down.
Secondly, both attempts to shut down contributions from other Shipmates and accusations that a Shipmate's post is shutting down contributions are a matter for Hosts here. The ethos here is that Shipmates are free to post within the guidelines and the Hosts monitor the acceptability of posts within those guidelines in the interests of all Shipmates. You are free to call to Hell someone whose posting pisses you off but you are not free to junior host.
If we're going to talk about Men's reproductive responsibilities, then that conversation can't be honestly held without looking at where male privilege has come into it, it's the water the whole discussion swims in.
I think it could be useful to have a conversation about that. My question is whether it is possible to do so on SoF without male voices being shutdown.
I wrote out a series of examples, but I'm choosing not to post them as I don't want to get into quibbling. But I often see statements that associate male posters, by virtue of their chromosomes, with a history of male oppressive action they had no part in. These statements shut men down.
Tell you what. Do you drink beer? If we can attempt what you propose without sweeping shutdowns, without appeals to gender taint - I'll send you some beer.
Respectfully
Asher
If you have general issues with Hosting here in Epiphanies or anywhere else you do not post your concerns in any discussion forum. You take your issues and your alleged evidence to the Styx. That is what the Styx is for.
These are pretty sweeping generalisations that may be true of some men and some women. Some men do feel trapped in their jobs and toxic relationships, but not all. Some women will discuss their partners in unpleasant terms and explore sexual relationships in full technicolour glory, but in my experience, those women are the minority, the sort of woman Shakespeare characterised as Mistress Quickly and her friends in The Merry Wives of Windsor. It hasn't been a major feature of any workplace I have been in; there the female to female relationship discussions have been far more supportive - such as asking for suggestions for presents for partners or what to cook tonight.
I think this points up something difficult about the subject area of this thread. When I was much younger, the characterisation above was kind of what I expected girls to be like. When we were teenagers, and students, a pretty strong 'if you want to even speak to women, don't objectify them!' message floated about from our right-on girl friends. We were fairly right-on ourselves - I smiled at the 'I'd give her one' line somewhere above but only as word-play, which my male friends might still share. The only reason it would be funny / worth the group's time is if everyone knew the probability of that, was zero.
But something odd has been happening. There are tit mags in the Student's Union shop - in my day, the Women's Society would have picketed it and probably burnt it down. When Tinder came out, we discussed it in the lab amongst right-on-ish older working men and concluded it would sink without trace - gay men on Grindr, it appeared, had demonstrated there was a market for an app which would let you advertise for a fuck amongst conveniently co-located orifices, but surely no woman would be interested and there would just be acres of lonely, perhaps predatory single men. Those guesses were informed by the sort of expectation of a picture of women which CK painted and from which I have quoted above. Whatever-wave of women's thought we are now in, suggests that 'sex-and-the-city' was an accurate view of women wanting to take sexual initiative, and in a phrase which was used at the time it was released 'have sex like men'. It seems Tinder has not sunk without trace.
So - I'm not at all surprised that young men haven't a clue what it going on. I suspect - based on a general impression of what motivates people in general - that a lot of sexual bravado amongst both sexes is based on vanity or bruised ego, and perhaps even conquests themselves. As someone long married (and here, anonymous) I have personally largely given up on the reality of romantic love, and as middle-age goes by the drive for sex recedes and the questions become peculiar distractions rather than anything urgent or pressing. On reading a book lately with (so far as I can recall) plausible sex scenes, I am left with a feeling a bit like trying to remember what it was that was exciting about Christmas when I was about 10. But it would be nice to be able to say something to my kids other than 'if I were your age with my old head on me, I would join a monastery' - which is the truth. Like a shot.
With respect, you appear to be viewing the current scene through vintage specs. Tit mags in the student union represents a more open view of sex, not the step backwards you infer. In theory. There are arguments here, but that is a side issue.
Tinder is problematic,* but the basic concept that women like to hook up is solid.
If young men do not have a clue, they are not paying attention. There are more resources than ever to understand a female POV.
The problem as I see it, is that the culture has become more sex positive, but parts of male culture lag behind in their perception of women.
*For women it is a minefield and there are better apps like Bumble
I'm not convinced that the sort of magazines we're talking about represent sex positivity so much as sexual objectification. There's a difference between Cosmopolitan and Loaded.
I'm not convinced that the sort of magazines we're talking about represent sex positivity so much as sexual objectification. There's a difference between Cosmopolitan and Loaded.
Again, that is a side issue. But part of the women taking control of their own bodies is being able to show what they wish.
The main point to m_i_m is that his POV is not in step with the current metrics
If a person approaches another with a proposition (date/sex/relationship) and is rejected, there should be little disappointment. Why? Before the proposition, there should be an understanding of the person and expectation of outcome commensurate with the level of the proposition.
I don't understand why you think there should be little disappointment.
If I apply for a job, and I think it's a great job, and would be a good fit for me, and I don't get it, I'll be disappointed. The better I think the job is, the more I'll be disappointed if I don't get it. And I think, also, the more nervous I am about applying for the job, and the bigger deal I make to myself about the process, the more I'll be disappointed, because I'll have more emotional investment in the outcome. Plus, being rejected will be a blow to my pride, because clearly I think I'm a great person, and an employer would be lucky to have me. Being rejected tells me that actually, I'm not so great as I thought I was.
Why do you think I'd have a different attitude towards seeking a personal, rather than a professional, relationship?
I'm not convinced that the sort of magazines we're talking about represent sex positivity so much as sexual objectification. There's a difference between Cosmopolitan and Loaded.
Again, that is a side issue. But part of the women taking control of their own bodies is being able to show what they wish.
The main point to m_i_m is that his POV is not in step with the current metrics
It's hardly a side issue if it's the thing you're taking him to task about. I'm pretty certain that most women of my acquaintance would also see the type of soft porn mags that @mark_in_manchester is talking about as being straightforward sexual objectification of women, by men, for men. As would I. But perhaps we've all missed the memo about the current metrics too.
If you look at Tindr statistics (link) the figure given is 2:1 men to women and the biggest age group is the 30-44 age range (link). I'm not going to link to the various articles (including the Sun), but Tindr is known to be used by prostitutes to drum up trade. All of which suggests women are not using Tindr so much.
Re the objectification, a conversation I overheard a few years ago, while youth working, horrified me. A young man was loudly discussing a sexual encounter to a number of others around including girls; his description of the acts performed and what acts he expected to be performed to his satisfaction had nothing of the feelings of his partner or what her needs, but all about he deserved to have this tick list that needed to be covered, much of it sounding as if it was garnered from extensive watching of porn. The woman involved wasn't a prostitute, it sounded like a regular hook up. I did quietly ask one of the girls I knew better if they weren't upset by this and they just shrugged.
Talking to my daughter, her generation is expected to know the porn moves, and what satisfies men of course satisfies women.
(In case there were any doubt, FHM is one of the titles which springs to mind). But LB you were right - I can't get my head around all this, and I'm old enough to be in the fortunate position of only needing to get one head around it - young blokes have even less chance. In my paeleolithic view this will leave most uneasy and putting up with the sense of generally being in the wrong in the hope of an occasional shag; the misogynists won't care one way or the other.
Talking to my daughter, her generation is expected to know the porn moves, and what satisfies men of course satisfies women.
Sorry CK, we x-posted. Expected by who? And with what result if expectations are unfulfilled? Has the world changed so much that young men, finding themselves in an serious amorous encounter of any description, are so spoilt for choice that rather like young teens used to dump their latest snog for not liking the right band, they can simply swipe again (but no, you said girls are not on Tindr much, so... See, I'm clueless ).
If a person approaches another with a proposition (date/sex/relationship) and is rejected, there should be little disappointment. Why? Before the proposition, there should be an understanding of the person and expectation of outcome commensurate with the level of the proposition.
I don't understand why you think there should be little disappointment.
If I apply for a job, and I think it's a great job, and would be a good fit for me, and I don't get it, I'll be disappointed. The better I think the job is, the more I'll be disappointed if I don't get it. And I think, also, the more nervous I am about applying for the job, and the bigger deal I make to myself about the process, the more I'll be disappointed, because I'll have more emotional investment in the outcome. Plus, being rejected will be a blow to my pride, because clearly I think I'm a great person, and an employer would be lucky to have me. Being rejected tells me that actually, I'm not so great as I thought I was.
Why do you think I'd have a different attitude towards seeking a personal, rather than a professional, relationship?
I'm going to skip dealing with that analogy and go to a relationship one.
Would you go to your local, scan the blokes and immediately pick one to be friends with and be crushed if they didn't accept? If you'd struck up a conversation that seemed friendly, how much expectation would you have of him becoming your best mate right then and there?
Accepting you have good mates, are you not going to generally be aware of how they might react before you ask them to do something?
I'm not convinced that the sort of magazines we're talking about represent sex positivity so much as sexual objectification. There's a difference between Cosmopolitan and Loaded.
Again, that is a side issue. But part of the women taking control of their own bodies is being able to show what they wish.
The main point to m_i_m is that his POV is not in step with the current metrics
Even if we accept that pornography can be a choice freely made (a view that is hardly uncontroversial if I understand my feminism correctly) the type of magazines we're talking about are not "women taking control of their own bodies" - they're magazines produced to satisfy male desires and while I won't rule out the idea that some women get their kicks from being an object of male desire most such images are just as transactional as those that take place in a strip club or brothel.
Talking to my daughter, her generation is expected to know the porn moves, and what satisfies men of course satisfies women.
Sorry CK, we x-posted. Expected by who? And with what result if expectations are unfulfilled? Has the world changed so much that young men, finding themselves in an serious amorous encounter of any description, are so spoilt for choice that rather like young teens used to dump their latest snog for not liking the right band, they can simply swipe again (but no, you said girls are not on Tindr much, so... See, I'm clueless ).
What I was trying to say is there is concern that young people are getting much of their sex education from pornography - which is rife, huge percentages of children are viewing porn, and they start viewing at age 11 on average. And from porn our young people are learning a skewed version of sexual relationships. This NSPCC article from 2015 (link) entitled 40% of teenage girls are pressured into sex, discusses some of the issues (the link to the research in the original article is now broken). There's also a problem with sexual violence and harassment in schools - the UK Government produced guidance for dealing with this in May 2018 (link) and this briefing for workers about young people and pornography (pdf) gives a statistic from 2015 that 60% of young people feel that pornography affects their sex lives and feelings about their appearance.
So for young girls in a sexual relationship, the expectation is that they act like porn stars for boys to like them - I can't find the original NSPCC article from 2013, but a news report from the Daily Telegraph (link) is still available.
I'm not convinced that the sort of magazines we're talking about represent sex positivity so much as sexual objectification. There's a difference between Cosmopolitan and Loaded.
Again, that is a side issue. But part of the women taking control of their own bodies is being able to show what they wish.
The main point to m_i_m is that his POV is not in step with the current metrics
Even if we accept that pornography can be a choice freely made (a view that is hardly uncontroversial if I understand my feminism correctly) the type of magazines we're talking about are not "women taking control of their own bodies" - they're magazines produced to satisfy male desires and while I won't rule out the idea that some women get their kicks from being an object of male desire most such images are just as transactional as those that take place in a strip club or brothel.
It is not that simple and if one actually speaks to young women, and sex workers fof various levels, as I have you will find modern feminism has an overlap.
I'll admit to issues with some of it.
The main point to m_i_m is that his POV is not in step with the current metrics
Well, I guess my lack of..errm...skin in the game will save me from the implied necessity for re-education.
(Jolly good job too, as I'm not bright enough to stay the course).
What exactly is a "current metric" when there are several generations all alive at the same time, each with their own viewpoints (and those not discrete, either)? Why bury the man until he's dead (Sorry, Mark!)? If we're going to play generation snobbery, I have a son who's younger than all of us, and could overrrule us all.
The reference you made was to Mark's POV being out of step with current metrics.
Yes. Because he is saying young men have a confusing time. His not understanding appears to be because his POV is out of date. Young men's POV should be very much more up to date.
So you are saying that young men are NOT confused? I've certainly seen some confusion. I don't think you can treat an entire demographic as a unit in this way. I don't think you can safely attribute a single POV to such a large demographic either.
What is your point, LC? There will always be outliers, people who through no fault of their own, don't move with the flow. But we are talking about the main. And there is no excuse for the average male to have the level of confusion described by some here.
Don't have expectations. Consider your object of interest as a person. What about that is so confusing?
People are people. Not logical propositions. Not robots. Not creatures even capable of behaving entirely logically, let alone doing it under the circumstances you paint.
I hear victim blaming going on here. We mention that some young men are confused (and young women too, God knows). You say "there is no excuse for the average male to have the level of confusion described by some here".
Why are you doing this? It is not helpful to say to a confused person, "There is no excuse for your confusion." That just adds shame to their confusion. You might instead say, "Here is what is going on, let me coach you" or other helpful things.
Being young IS for many people a state of confusion. It is a time of learning. If those who have it all sorted out take the time to educate others, those young people have a better chance of maturing as healthy, decent human beings who know what's what. If instead you stand at a distance and shame them, well, won't we all have a lovely result from that.
People are people. Not logical propositions. Not robots. Not creatures even capable of behaving entirely logically, let alone doing it under the circumstances you paint.
I hear victim blaming going on here.
That you pick a post at the end of several days and two pages of actual discussion and then pick on the perceived tone rather than content does not paint a picture of listening, so I cannot account for what you think you hear.
I suspect, @Lamb Chopped and @lilbuddha , that you are conceptualizing each other in terms of how each others posts don't comply with what you personally know. However, I see your points co-existing rather well.
It is absolutely true that a huge part of maturing is discovering not only who we are ourselves, but also how to relate with others, and that process is fundamentally confusing. I do not think that anyone is arguing against that lived experience. And there is no likely chance that we're going to easily impart understanding to maturing youth.
At the same time, the modalities serving to inform those coming of age has massively shifted since female objectification was literally entrenched exclusively in the fabric of society. It still exists, obviously, but now it is balanced by sex-positivity and much more encouragement about openness than ever before. A big part of that is enabling people to see sexual partners as people primarily, and I've been very heartened by the support on this front that my kids have gotten already. This is very different from my experience, and radically different from my parent's experiences.
His not understanding appears to be because his POV is out of date. Young men's POV should be very much more up to date.
Do you know, I think I'll abuse you in Hell because it will make me feel a little better.
If you think I am missing something, enlighten me. I get feeling angry, but I'd rather you discuss here and actually get somewhere. Perhaps achieve some understanding.
Obviously, the fact that we were taught by our mothers and sisters that publications that objectified women's bodies for sexual purposes were Not Okay, and we listened to them, and in some/many cases helped to remove those magazines from the sales racks where we had the power to do so.
@lilbuddha - can you describe what this up-to-date male POV is? I work with young people, and the views I hear expressed vary considerably, but if there is some general young male POV, I'd be interested to hear it.
Talking to my daughter, her generation is expected to know the porn moves, and what satisfies men of course satisfies women.
Sorry CK, we x-posted. Expected by who? And with what result if expectations are unfulfilled? Has the world changed so much that young men, finding themselves in an serious amorous encounter of any description, are so spoilt for choice that rather like young teens used to dump their latest snog for not liking the right band, they can simply swipe again (but no, you said girls are not on Tindr much, so... See, I'm clueless ).
What I was trying to say is there is concern that young people are getting much of their sex education from pornography - which is rife, huge percentages of children are viewing porn, and they start viewing at age 11 on average. And from porn our young people are learning a skewed version of sexual relationships. This NSPCC article from 2015 (link) entitled 40% of teenage girls are pressured into sex, discusses some of the issues (the link to the research in the original article is now broken). There's also a problem with sexual violence and harassment in schools - the UK Government produced guidance for dealing with this in May 2018 (link) and this briefing for workers about young people and pornography (pdf) gives a statistic from 2015 that 60% of young people feel that pornography affects their sex lives and feelings about their appearance.
So for young girls in a sexual relationship, the expectation is that they act like porn stars for boys to like them - I can't find the original NSPCC article from 2013, but a news report from the Daily Telegraph (link) is still available.
This all makes great, sad, sense to me, CK. At the same time, apparently porn is good and sex-positive, or something, and people who don't think so are antediluvian. I have no ambition to be 'current' - I just don't think that your point of view, and the supposedly sex-positive point of view, can both be true at once. And, since I think your argument is a strong one, I tend to your side of what seems to be a duality. I'm sure there are men, and women, who want mutually exclusive things to be true at once, and for resulting confusion to be the fault of the confused. Oh well.
@lilbuddha - can you describe what this up-to-date male POV is? I work with young people, and the views I hear expressed vary considerably, but if there is some general young male POV, I'd be interested to hear it.
I am not saying that I have a complete handle on their POV, I am saying that the young men I have interacted with do not express the level of fear and confusion outlined by asher and m_i_m. I'm not saying that everything is egalitarian, but that the picture they paint is not accurate to anything to what I'm seeing, reading or hearing about.
Obviously, the fact that we were taught by our mothers and sisters that publications that objectified women's bodies for sexual purposes were Not Okay, and we listened to them, and in some/many cases helped to remove those magazines from the sales racks where we had the power to do so.
That's what you're missing.
Not missing that. But we are talking about young men and what they experience.
There is research saying porn is not a bad thing for people to explore their sexuality, to add spice to a relationship, but that research assumes people with some knowledge of sexual relationships. There are negatives with porn too - lots out there about desensitisation from watching violent porn and the effects on sexual relationships.
However, what I'm saying here is that young people who do not get sex and relationship lessons and learn what they know of sexual relationships from porn they get a skewed view of sex. Now in England and Wales PSHE (personal, sexual, health and employment education) is not a compulsory subject in schools, Citizenship is, but that only teaches about voting and representation. Neither are counted into any of the measures of progress (Progress 8, EBacc, Attainment 8), so schools will regard them as worthless and the qualifications are not approved to continue, meaning that if parents don't teach their kids or teach them early enough, those kids learn from porn.
To confuse, I've been talking about teaching PSHE* to students in alternative education over more than a decade as something we believed strongly is information these students need, because those students are often in care or from dysfunctional homes. In those situations we did make sure we taught contraception, consent, relationships, pregnancy, STIs explicitly and openly. This is how I've had so many frank conversations with young people.
One of the things my daughter said when we've been discussing this is that the women's lib sexual revolution happened too early - getting the message out there that women are sexual beings, but without true equality for women, so that this has been translated into women are up for it in a lot of porn and men's mags leaving the impression that women will be happy and satisfied by porn style sex (which is totally unrealistic).
* The AQA qualification I taught finishes this summer but covered sex and relationships, drug education including alcohol and tobacco, healthy lifestyles, writing CVs and applying for jobs, personal finance, emotional wellbeing, critical consumer, prejudice and discrimination. The qualification had 12 units - 7 were required to achieve a level 1 or 2 (or entry level) qualification equivalent to a full GCSE (4 for a short course). To cover what was the suggested PSHE curriculum the students could cover the first 5 on the list (6 units) and one other.
@lilbuddha - can you describe what this up-to-date male POV is? I work with young people, and the views I hear expressed vary considerably, but if there is some general young male POV, I'd be interested to hear it.
I am not saying that I have a complete handle on their POV, I am saying that the young men I have interacted with do not express the level of fear and confusion outlined by asher and m_i_m. I'm not saying that everything is egalitarian, but that the picture they paint is not accurate to anything to what I'm seeing, reading or hearing about.
And why do you have the privilege of being right in your anecdata while they are obviously wrong?
I, too, know at least one young man who finds these matters confusing.
By the way, your use of "up to date" and your sneer at Mark for not being so is usually called chronological snobbery--the belief that the latest is best, without any regard to content or logic. It is also illogical--Mark is still living, and his viewpoint is therefore just as "up to date" as that of any other living person. To relegate him to the ashheaps of history is rude.
Obviously, the fact that we were taught by our mothers and sisters that publications that objectified women's bodies for sexual purposes were Not Okay, and we listened to them, and in some/many cases helped to remove those magazines from the sales racks where we had the power to do so.
That's what you're missing.
Not missing that. But we are talking about young men and what they experience.
I don't honestly think we can generalise what they experience. We just have to listen to what each of them says. My own children are young (20s) adults. Their experiences (one boy, one girl) are very different.
One of the things my daughter said when we've been discussing this is that the women's lib sexual revolution happened too early - getting the message out there that women are sexual beings, but without true equality for women, so that this has been translated into women are up for it in a lot of porn and men's mags leaving the impression that women will be happy and satisfied by porn style sex (which is totally unrealistic).
Given the statistics that demonstrate the ubiquity of porn, and the ease with which teens can access internet porn, does this suggest that our young people might be served by flooding the market with realistic, sex-positive, respect-positive porn?
@lilbuddha - can you describe what this up-to-date male POV is? I work with young people, and the views I hear expressed vary considerably, but if there is some general young male POV, I'd be interested to hear it.
I am not saying that I have a complete handle on their POV, I am saying that the young men I have interacted with do not express the level of fear and confusion outlined by asher and m_i_m. I'm not saying that everything is egalitarian, but that the picture they paint is not accurate to anything to what I'm seeing, reading or hearing about.
Yes, I'm not seeing huge amounts of confusion either. I mean, there's always been confusion with teens and young adults, trying to navigate the dating/sex scene. Actually also with older adults, who start dating again after a longterm relationship ends. I find it's more older men who like to make sweeping patronising jokes about how women are impossible to understand. If anything, perhaps young adults are more likely to actually talk to each other and adapt to the individual, rather than expecting that all relationships must be a certain way. Of course, there are some young men who talk disparagingly about women, objectifying them, just as older men do. What people are taught (explicitly or implicitly) by their parents and siblings varies considerably.
I think a bit of confusion is quite positive and healthy. Far better than assuming all women are a certain way, and will want something or other. If a man doesn't know what 'all women want,' that is reason to talk to the individual women he is interested in, and get to know her, listen to her, find out what her values and preferences are.
With any new relationship, non-sexual - such as a friendship, or relationship with colleagues - you are more cautious and unsure to begin with, as you know you don't know them and they don't know you. You generally don't rush in making the same jokes you might with your best pal from childhood, where you have the whole context of knowing each other well, knowing each other's intentions, etc. You could say it's ever so confusing, because different people will have different backgrounds, different assumptions, different values, etc., but people generally take it slow, get to know each other, and adapt to different people's personalities.
What I was trying to say is there is concern that young people are getting much of their sex education from pornography - which is rife, huge percentages of children are viewing porn, and they start viewing at age 11 on average. And from porn our young people are learning a skewed version of sexual relationships.
My Beloved Goddaughter got sent her first dick pic by a fellow pupil when she was not long turned 12. Some of her 12 year old classmates were being bombarded with dick pics and requests for nudes.
My daughter, at the same school, but a few years older, didn't get them; if she had she'd have gone straight to guidance, and she would have had my full support. Any boy who sent a photo like that to my daughter at school would have ended up a very sorry boy indeed. But Beloved has less confidence, was worried about getting a name as a clype (tell-tale / snitch), didn't report them and didn't want me going to school on her behalf.
I gather it was just a few boys widely distributing photos of their penises, but what makes that small minority think that 12 year old girls want to get dick pics? And (in the example I know) sending them to the more vulnerable girls which suggests they knew they wouldn't be welcomed by most girls.
I'm not suggesting that this is what boys are like - my son, his friends, my nephews etc, aren't like that. I'm posting to agree with CK's point, as I can only assume that viewing porn has encouraged this minority.
One of the things my daughter said when we've been discussing this is that the women's lib sexual revolution happened too early - getting the message out there that women are sexual beings, but without true equality for women, so that this has been translated into women are up for it in a lot of porn and men's mags leaving the impression that women will be happy and satisfied by porn style sex (which is totally unrealistic).
Given the statistics that demonstrate the ubiquity of porn, and the ease with which teens can access internet porn, does this suggest that our young people might be served by flooding the market with realistic, sex-positive, respect-positive porn?
When I was trying to find research to back up one of my posts I tripped over a campaign to do just this. I'd have to look to find it again. It was an international programme - they were talking about children in India and Cambodia needing access to information.
Comments
I suspect the ‘loudness’ (and IMO obnoxiousness) of the behaviours @Curiosity killed describes can easily overshadow even the existence of the kind of experiences @asher describes.
Since a sufficient number of men indulge in behaviour that means women have to routinely protect themselves from that kind of behaviour it is inevitably going to affect the interaction between women and men in general.
Assuming you're being serious, of which I'm not totally convinced, I wasn't trying to shut asher down, I was trying to point out that, in my experience, different young men demonstrate different responses, possibly in different environments. I work with young men (and women) in the community and have done for the last 25 years. My impression is that asher is working with young men in prison, when maybe they are reflecting back on experiences. I'm reporting on personal observations, things I've seen or heard.
One sensitive young man I knew as he became involved in his first sexual relationship did talk to a colleague about being overwhelmed by his girlfriend's libido, but he stands out as the sole exception among many, many young men. I have heard both men and women who regretted their first sexual encounters as not being ideal or being asked to take part in sexual acts they didn't enjoy - often as "OK honey sex", and the advice there would always be that enthusiastic consent is needed for all sexual acts, which I teach to both male and female teenagers, both hetero- or homosexual acts.
I've had some very frank conversations in my time as someone safe to talk to. Other things that stand out in my mind include the ongoing conversation with a young lad I knew really well whose solution to avoiding STIs was to have sex with virgins or the devastated youngster who was desperately upset that his girlfriend had aborted the pregnancy that had resulted from their sexual experiments. He was very confused, didn't want to become a father, felt terrible about the abortion and started drinking shortly afterwards for a while. (Having seen him around drinking for a few weeks, I stopped seeing him around, so have no idea how that vignette finished.)
I also know that one group of teenagers we were providing with an alternative education graded us as MILFs* or not. I've been in groups of men (as the only invisible female) who watched the women coming past and graded them as marks out of 1: I'd give her one/she's a zero. How much of that was group bravado and living up to a macho image I couldn't say, but it's not an unusual experience.
But other times as the only woman around, the experience has been hearing men asking each other for the same sort of advice that women would ask in that situation - I really like this girl, how do I get her to notice me? or to see me as boyfriend material? But that's not really a work conversation, it's something for relaxation time.
*MILF - mother I'd like to fuck
Thanks @lilbuddha . As you may have gathered I took 24 hrs to step back and reflect.
I disagree with nothing that you have written.
<Well, one thing perhaps - your use of what in my house we used to call the 'Margaret Thatcher' defense (there's one so there's no issue). But that's quibbling.>
Equality of interchange is a good thing to aim for. But what does it look like?
Respectfully
Asher
Well, yes. Absolutely no issue with this.
This is certainly the safest way for men to behave - as you seem to suggest.
In the spirit of equality of interchange that @lilbuddha says that would like, is there ever a time for the man to be asked those questions and helped (probably will need help) to engage in them?
Respectfully
Asher
First, I hold my hand up, there were some generalisations - but I did attempt to qualify them all ('not always' 'many' etc.)
Regarding transgressive early sexual experiences. Upthread some posters talked about their approach to sex ed, and led by telling their children 'don't do it'.
Regarding erections. You are of course correct that young men in groups do at times behave appallingly. There is never any excuse for such behaviour. Nonetheless, I stand by the substantive point that the presence of an erection does not mean that a man wants sex.
Regarding young men having a more nuanced construct of masculinity than my generation. You are of course correct that young men are capable of behaving appallingly towards women. There is never any excuse for such behaviour. I do see changes from my generation in attitudes to risk taking behaviour, attitudes to LGBT issues, attitudes to emotional openness, attitudes to alcohol, some attitudes to women.
You are of course right that all young people are frightened of getting it wrong in early relationships.
Regarding the coursening of young men. I'm sure the factors of peer pressure and peer learning come into play. Could there be others?
Thanks again. Respectfully,
Asher
Seeing everyone as a full and complete person with agency, not as a goal to be pursued, a piece to fit into our puzzle is a place to start.
If a person approaches another with a proposition (date/sex/relationship) and is rejected, there should be little disappointment. Why? Before the proposition, there should be an understanding of the person and expectation of outcome commensurate with the level of the proposition.
If I ask a woman at a club for a date, I will have spent a some time establishing a connection. But if I am rejected, the disappointment should be low because I do not truly know this person. If I am asking a person of longer acquaintance, I should have a much better understanding of that person. So if there is a rejection, I either did not know the person as well as I thought, or I should be prepared for either outcome. Therefore the disappoint should be low here as well.
Reality is often a little messier than this, but it still holds as the core of the pursuit of relationships.
A musing on the Theory of mind.* Technically, humans have it. In practice, however, there are factors other than those listed below that can impair it. Our male dominated cultures masks it in regards to women. How self-centred a person's thinking is can obscure it as well.
*
I am such a fan of Uta Frith. She doesn't always get the credit she deserves - but the ARC casts a long shadow. If someone asks me for a book to help them understand autism, I always buy them her Oxford Very Short Introduction to Autism.
I'll have a think about how ToM might inform my thinking in this discussion.
Thank you
Asher
Thank you. And thanks for demonstrating that other people can see this. I feared it was invisible to everybody but me.
Some things need clarifying here.
Firstly, Curiosity Killed's post was in my Hostly Judgment not a shut down.
Secondly, both attempts to shut down contributions from other Shipmates and accusations that a Shipmate's post is shutting down contributions are a matter for Hosts here. The ethos here is that Shipmates are free to post within the guidelines and the Hosts monitor the acceptability of posts within those guidelines in the interests of all Shipmates. You are free to call to Hell someone whose posting pisses you off but you are not free to junior host.
Thirdly and quite specifically
If you have general issues with Hosting here in Epiphanies or anywhere else you do not post your concerns in any discussion forum. You take your issues and your alleged evidence to the Styx. That is what the Styx is for.
Barnabas62
Epiphanies Host
Host Hat Off
I think this points up something difficult about the subject area of this thread. When I was much younger, the characterisation above was kind of what I expected girls to be like. When we were teenagers, and students, a pretty strong 'if you want to even speak to women, don't objectify them!' message floated about from our right-on girl friends. We were fairly right-on ourselves - I smiled at the 'I'd give her one' line somewhere above but only as word-play, which my male friends might still share. The only reason it would be funny / worth the group's time is if everyone knew the probability of that, was zero.
But something odd has been happening. There are tit mags in the Student's Union shop - in my day, the Women's Society would have picketed it and probably burnt it down. When Tinder came out, we discussed it in the lab amongst right-on-ish older working men and concluded it would sink without trace - gay men on Grindr, it appeared, had demonstrated there was a market for an app which would let you advertise for a fuck amongst conveniently co-located orifices, but surely no woman would be interested and there would just be acres of lonely, perhaps predatory single men. Those guesses were informed by the sort of expectation of a picture of women which CK painted and from which I have quoted above. Whatever-wave of women's thought we are now in, suggests that 'sex-and-the-city' was an accurate view of women wanting to take sexual initiative, and in a phrase which was used at the time it was released 'have sex like men'. It seems Tinder has not sunk without trace.
So - I'm not at all surprised that young men haven't a clue what it going on. I suspect - based on a general impression of what motivates people in general - that a lot of sexual bravado amongst both sexes is based on vanity or bruised ego, and perhaps even conquests themselves. As someone long married (and here, anonymous) I have personally largely given up on the reality of romantic love, and as middle-age goes by the drive for sex recedes and the questions become peculiar distractions rather than anything urgent or pressing. On reading a book lately with (so far as I can recall) plausible sex scenes, I am left with a feeling a bit like trying to remember what it was that was exciting about Christmas when I was about 10. But it would be nice to be able to say something to my kids other than 'if I were your age with my old head on me, I would join a monastery' - which is the truth. Like a shot.
With respect, you appear to be viewing the current scene through vintage specs. Tit mags in the student union represents a more open view of sex, not the step backwards you infer. In theory. There are arguments here, but that is a side issue.
Tinder is problematic,* but the basic concept that women like to hook up is solid.
If young men do not have a clue, they are not paying attention. There are more resources than ever to understand a female POV.
The problem as I see it, is that the culture has become more sex positive, but parts of male culture lag behind in their perception of women.
*For women it is a minefield and there are better apps like Bumble
The main point to m_i_m is that his POV is not in step with the current metrics
I don't understand why you think there should be little disappointment.
If I apply for a job, and I think it's a great job, and would be a good fit for me, and I don't get it, I'll be disappointed. The better I think the job is, the more I'll be disappointed if I don't get it. And I think, also, the more nervous I am about applying for the job, and the bigger deal I make to myself about the process, the more I'll be disappointed, because I'll have more emotional investment in the outcome. Plus, being rejected will be a blow to my pride, because clearly I think I'm a great person, and an employer would be lucky to have me. Being rejected tells me that actually, I'm not so great as I thought I was.
Why do you think I'd have a different attitude towards seeking a personal, rather than a professional, relationship?
Well, I guess my lack of..errm...skin in the game will save me from the implied necessity for re-education.
(Jolly good job too, as I'm not bright enough to stay the course).
It's hardly a side issue if it's the thing you're taking him to task about. I'm pretty certain that most women of my acquaintance would also see the type of soft porn mags that @mark_in_manchester is talking about as being straightforward sexual objectification of women, by men, for men. As would I. But perhaps we've all missed the memo about the current metrics too.
Re the objectification, a conversation I overheard a few years ago, while youth working, horrified me. A young man was loudly discussing a sexual encounter to a number of others around including girls; his description of the acts performed and what acts he expected to be performed to his satisfaction had nothing of the feelings of his partner or what her needs, but all about he deserved to have this tick list that needed to be covered, much of it sounding as if it was garnered from extensive watching of porn. The woman involved wasn't a prostitute, it sounded like a regular hook up. I did quietly ask one of the girls I knew better if they weren't upset by this and they just shrugged.
Talking to my daughter, her generation is expected to know the porn moves, and what satisfies men of course satisfies women.
Sorry CK, we x-posted. Expected by who? And with what result if expectations are unfulfilled? Has the world changed so much that young men, finding themselves in an serious amorous encounter of any description, are so spoilt for choice that rather like young teens used to dump their latest snog for not liking the right band, they can simply swipe again (but no, you said girls are not on Tindr much, so... See, I'm clueless
Would you go to your local, scan the blokes and immediately pick one to be friends with and be crushed if they didn't accept? If you'd struck up a conversation that seemed friendly, how much expectation would you have of him becoming your best mate right then and there?
Accepting you have good mates, are you not going to generally be aware of how they might react before you ask them to do something?
Even if we accept that pornography can be a choice freely made (a view that is hardly uncontroversial if I understand my feminism correctly) the type of magazines we're talking about are not "women taking control of their own bodies" - they're magazines produced to satisfy male desires and while I won't rule out the idea that some women get their kicks from being an object of male desire most such images are just as transactional as those that take place in a strip club or brothel.
What I was trying to say is there is concern that young people are getting much of their sex education from pornography - which is rife, huge percentages of children are viewing porn, and they start viewing at age 11 on average. And from porn our young people are learning a skewed version of sexual relationships. This NSPCC article from 2015 (link) entitled 40% of teenage girls are pressured into sex, discusses some of the issues (the link to the research in the original article is now broken). There's also a problem with sexual violence and harassment in schools - the UK Government produced guidance for dealing with this in May 2018 (link) and this briefing for workers about young people and pornography (pdf) gives a statistic from 2015 that 60% of young people feel that pornography affects their sex lives and feelings about their appearance.
So for young girls in a sexual relationship, the expectation is that they act like porn stars for boys to like them - I can't find the original NSPCC article from 2013, but a news report from the Daily Telegraph (link) is still available.
I'll admit to issues with some of it.
What exactly is a "current metric" when there are several generations all alive at the same time, each with their own viewpoints (and those not discrete, either)? Why bury the man until he's dead (Sorry, Mark!)? If we're going to play generation snobbery, I have a son who's younger than all of us, and could overrrule us all.
Don't have expectations. Consider your object of interest as a person. What about that is so confusing?
I hear victim blaming going on here. We mention that some young men are confused (and young women too, God knows). You say "there is no excuse for the average male to have the level of confusion described by some here".
Why are you doing this? It is not helpful to say to a confused person, "There is no excuse for your confusion." That just adds shame to their confusion. You might instead say, "Here is what is going on, let me coach you" or other helpful things.
Being young IS for many people a state of confusion. It is a time of learning. If those who have it all sorted out take the time to educate others, those young people have a better chance of maturing as healthy, decent human beings who know what's what. If instead you stand at a distance and shame them, well, won't we all have a lovely result from that.
It is absolutely true that a huge part of maturing is discovering not only who we are ourselves, but also how to relate with others, and that process is fundamentally confusing. I do not think that anyone is arguing against that lived experience. And there is no likely chance that we're going to easily impart understanding to maturing youth.
At the same time, the modalities serving to inform those coming of age has massively shifted since female objectification was literally entrenched exclusively in the fabric of society. It still exists, obviously, but now it is balanced by sex-positivity and much more encouragement about openness than ever before. A big part of that is enabling people to see sexual partners as people primarily, and I've been very heartened by the support on this front that my kids have gotten already. This is very different from my experience, and radically different from my parent's experiences.
So, basically, you're both right.
Thank you.
Do you know, I think I'll abuse you in Hell because it will make me feel a little better.
That's what you're missing.
This all makes great, sad, sense to me, CK. At the same time, apparently porn is good and sex-positive, or something, and people who don't think so are antediluvian. I have no ambition to be 'current' - I just don't think that your point of view, and the supposedly sex-positive point of view, can both be true at once. And, since I think your argument is a strong one, I tend to your side of what seems to be a duality. I'm sure there are men, and women, who want mutually exclusive things to be true at once, and for resulting confusion to be the fault of the confused. Oh well.
However, what I'm saying here is that young people who do not get sex and relationship lessons and learn what they know of sexual relationships from porn they get a skewed view of sex. Now in England and Wales PSHE (personal, sexual, health and employment education) is not a compulsory subject in schools, Citizenship is, but that only teaches about voting and representation. Neither are counted into any of the measures of progress (Progress 8, EBacc, Attainment 8), so schools will regard them as worthless and the qualifications are not approved to continue, meaning that if parents don't teach their kids or teach them early enough, those kids learn from porn.
To confuse, I've been talking about teaching PSHE* to students in alternative education over more than a decade as something we believed strongly is information these students need, because those students are often in care or from dysfunctional homes. In those situations we did make sure we taught contraception, consent, relationships, pregnancy, STIs explicitly and openly. This is how I've had so many frank conversations with young people.
One of the things my daughter said when we've been discussing this is that the women's lib sexual revolution happened too early - getting the message out there that women are sexual beings, but without true equality for women, so that this has been translated into women are up for it in a lot of porn and men's mags leaving the impression that women will be happy and satisfied by porn style sex (which is totally unrealistic).
* The AQA qualification I taught finishes this summer but covered sex and relationships, drug education including alcohol and tobacco, healthy lifestyles, writing CVs and applying for jobs, personal finance, emotional wellbeing, critical consumer, prejudice and discrimination. The qualification had 12 units - 7 were required to achieve a level 1 or 2 (or entry level) qualification equivalent to a full GCSE (4 for a short course). To cover what was the suggested PSHE curriculum the students could cover the first 5 on the list (6 units) and one other.
And why do you have the privilege of being right in your anecdata while they are obviously wrong?
I, too, know at least one young man who finds these matters confusing.
By the way, your use of "up to date" and your sneer at Mark for not being so is usually called chronological snobbery--the belief that the latest is best, without any regard to content or logic. It is also illogical--Mark is still living, and his viewpoint is therefore just as "up to date" as that of any other living person. To relegate him to the ashheaps of history is rude.
I don't honestly think we can generalise what they experience. We just have to listen to what each of them says. My own children are young (20s) adults. Their experiences (one boy, one girl) are very different.
Given the statistics that demonstrate the ubiquity of porn, and the ease with which teens can access internet porn, does this suggest that our young people might be served by flooding the market with realistic, sex-positive, respect-positive porn?
Yes, I'm not seeing huge amounts of confusion either. I mean, there's always been confusion with teens and young adults, trying to navigate the dating/sex scene. Actually also with older adults, who start dating again after a longterm relationship ends. I find it's more older men who like to make sweeping patronising jokes about how women are impossible to understand. If anything, perhaps young adults are more likely to actually talk to each other and adapt to the individual, rather than expecting that all relationships must be a certain way. Of course, there are some young men who talk disparagingly about women, objectifying them, just as older men do. What people are taught (explicitly or implicitly) by their parents and siblings varies considerably.
I think a bit of confusion is quite positive and healthy. Far better than assuming all women are a certain way, and will want something or other. If a man doesn't know what 'all women want,' that is reason to talk to the individual women he is interested in, and get to know her, listen to her, find out what her values and preferences are.
With any new relationship, non-sexual - such as a friendship, or relationship with colleagues - you are more cautious and unsure to begin with, as you know you don't know them and they don't know you. You generally don't rush in making the same jokes you might with your best pal from childhood, where you have the whole context of knowing each other well, knowing each other's intentions, etc. You could say it's ever so confusing, because different people will have different backgrounds, different assumptions, different values, etc., but people generally take it slow, get to know each other, and adapt to different people's personalities.
What I was trying to say is there is concern that young people are getting much of their sex education from pornography - which is rife, huge percentages of children are viewing porn, and they start viewing at age 11 on average. And from porn our young people are learning a skewed version of sexual relationships.
My Beloved Goddaughter got sent her first dick pic by a fellow pupil when she was not long turned 12. Some of her 12 year old classmates were being bombarded with dick pics and requests for nudes.
My daughter, at the same school, but a few years older, didn't get them; if she had she'd have gone straight to guidance, and she would have had my full support. Any boy who sent a photo like that to my daughter at school would have ended up a very sorry boy indeed. But Beloved has less confidence, was worried about getting a name as a clype (tell-tale / snitch), didn't report them and didn't want me going to school on her behalf.
I gather it was just a few boys widely distributing photos of their penises, but what makes that small minority think that 12 year old girls want to get dick pics? And (in the example I know) sending them to the more vulnerable girls which suggests they knew they wouldn't be welcomed by most girls.
I'm not suggesting that this is what boys are like - my son, his friends, my nephews etc, aren't like that. I'm posting to agree with CK's point, as I can only assume that viewing porn has encouraged this minority.
When I was trying to find research to back up one of my posts I tripped over a campaign to do just this. I'd have to look to find it again. It was an international programme - they were talking about children in India and Cambodia needing access to information.