clovenhooves The Personal Is Political Women's Rights Female Separatism Is shipping good for separatism?

Is shipping good for separatism?

Is shipping good for separatism?

 Print Thread
 
Pages (2): 1 2 Next
YesYourNigel
Find
289
Oct 3 2025, 8:12 AM
#1
Bit of a clickbaity title, but I mean all the erotica, fanfics, fanart, shipping stuff, otome games, AI boyfriends etc. made by and for women, featuring men.

I feel like this has the potential to provide an excellent outlet for straight women to safely scratch their relationship itch without hitching themselves to a man. At the same time, I wonder how much this just fuels further romanticisation of toxic relationships, red flags and, for gay male shipping, heavy androcentrism and phallocentrism or even further normalisation of abusive straight dynamics by projecting them even onto gay men (the infamous seme-uke dynamics, also anything omegaverse.). Is all this just a temporary respite until the woman finds a boyfriend and in reality does nothing to redirect women away from toxic straight norms?

There's a lot of feel-good mushy shipping that doesn't sexualise the worst most abusive excesses of heterosexuality. I feel like the women who ship interesting character dynamics for an endorphin rush fare better than those who consume self-insert x "toxic man with heart of gold" dynamics, because there isn't a 1 to 1 projection from real life patriarchal dynamics that makes you feel like you can eventually engage in it yourself. A lot of those women in the "interesting dynamics" shipper category tend to, in fact, be fairly uninterested in irl dating because of how much it pales in comparison to healthy non-abusive fictional relationships, which I think is great - anything that keeps women safe and far from men is good.

I also think straight women developing sky-high standards for men based on all this media is excellent, but that is predicated on the men in this media not being the romanticised toxic shits like they are in, for example, boddice-ripper novels. I suppose if the goal is the same (women not dating men and as such enjoying the benefits of not having a dehumanising, entitled, self-absorbed burden in their life at best, and a rapist/abuser/murderer at worst) one might argue it doesn't matter, but I would want women to consume media that makes them internalise preferences for male partners who are empathetic, invested in female well-being and have radically feminist leanings, and simply not even consider any man who doesn't fit that category to a T. While the "jerk with a heart of gold" is similarly unrealistic, the romanticised toxicity is far too easy to exploit by real life messaging and pressures. Aggressive, possessive men are not secretly kind and considerate of women, even if they temporarily pretend to be, and women should push themselves to fantasise about actually healthy dynamics instead of what the patriarchy is already trying to feed them.

I guess another downside is the chronically online nature of it. I would be worried about this addiction to easy endorphins keeping women from getting real shit done, but that's more of a general issue with modern online generations and might just be worth being managed in comparison to the alternative of women endangering themselves by dating men.
Edited Oct 3 2025, 8:33 AM by YesYourNigel.
I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing
Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
Oct 3 2025, 8:12 AM #1

Bit of a clickbaity title, but I mean all the erotica, fanfics, fanart, shipping stuff, otome games, AI boyfriends etc. made by and for women, featuring men.

I feel like this has the potential to provide an excellent outlet for straight women to safely scratch their relationship itch without hitching themselves to a man. At the same time, I wonder how much this just fuels further romanticisation of toxic relationships, red flags and, for gay male shipping, heavy androcentrism and phallocentrism or even further normalisation of abusive straight dynamics by projecting them even onto gay men (the infamous seme-uke dynamics, also anything omegaverse.). Is all this just a temporary respite until the woman finds a boyfriend and in reality does nothing to redirect women away from toxic straight norms?

There's a lot of feel-good mushy shipping that doesn't sexualise the worst most abusive excesses of heterosexuality. I feel like the women who ship interesting character dynamics for an endorphin rush fare better than those who consume self-insert x "toxic man with heart of gold" dynamics, because there isn't a 1 to 1 projection from real life patriarchal dynamics that makes you feel like you can eventually engage in it yourself. A lot of those women in the "interesting dynamics" shipper category tend to, in fact, be fairly uninterested in irl dating because of how much it pales in comparison to healthy non-abusive fictional relationships, which I think is great - anything that keeps women safe and far from men is good.

I also think straight women developing sky-high standards for men based on all this media is excellent, but that is predicated on the men in this media not being the romanticised toxic shits like they are in, for example, boddice-ripper novels. I suppose if the goal is the same (women not dating men and as such enjoying the benefits of not having a dehumanising, entitled, self-absorbed burden in their life at best, and a rapist/abuser/murderer at worst) one might argue it doesn't matter, but I would want women to consume media that makes them internalise preferences for male partners who are empathetic, invested in female well-being and have radically feminist leanings, and simply not even consider any man who doesn't fit that category to a T. While the "jerk with a heart of gold" is similarly unrealistic, the romanticised toxicity is far too easy to exploit by real life messaging and pressures. Aggressive, possessive men are not secretly kind and considerate of women, even if they temporarily pretend to be, and women should push themselves to fantasise about actually healthy dynamics instead of what the patriarchy is already trying to feed them.

I guess another downside is the chronically online nature of it. I would be worried about this addiction to easy endorphins keeping women from getting real shit done, but that's more of a general issue with modern online generations and might just be worth being managed in comparison to the alternative of women endangering themselves by dating men.

I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing

Reply
Reply
Elsacat
Find
596
Oct 3 2025, 7:39 PM
#2
Interesting question. I don't know if it's good for separatism. Maybe in the sense that it could set up girls and women with unrealistic expectations, they have terrible real-life relationship experiences, and decide they've had enough of men.

I don't have a link handy to post, but I've read articles about women who watch kdramas, think Korean men are actually like the characters in those dramas, go to Korea to find a man, and end up disappointed by how those men actually treat women. Real life ain't a kdrama romance.
Reply
Reply
Elsacat
Oct 3 2025, 7:39 PM #2

Interesting question. I don't know if it's good for separatism. Maybe in the sense that it could set up girls and women with unrealistic expectations, they have terrible real-life relationship experiences, and decide they've had enough of men.

I don't have a link handy to post, but I've read articles about women who watch kdramas, think Korean men are actually like the characters in those dramas, go to Korea to find a man, and end up disappointed by how those men actually treat women. Real life ain't a kdrama romance.

Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
Find
289
Oct 3 2025, 7:49 PM
#3
(Oct 3 2025, 7:39 PM)Elsacat Maybe in the sense that it could set up girls and women with unrealistic expectations, they have terrible real-life relationship experiences, and decide they've had enough of men.

Well, I would want them to have unrealistic expectations in a good way - expectations for a caring, supportive, feminist partner that most real men can't match, and simply feel no attraction to any man who doesn't fit that. I've seen some women in these communities who are like that - they simply have no interest in real life men because of how offputting they are.
I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing
Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
Oct 3 2025, 7:49 PM #3

(Oct 3 2025, 7:39 PM)Elsacat Maybe in the sense that it could set up girls and women with unrealistic expectations, they have terrible real-life relationship experiences, and decide they've had enough of men.

Well, I would want them to have unrealistic expectations in a good way - expectations for a caring, supportive, feminist partner that most real men can't match, and simply feel no attraction to any man who doesn't fit that. I've seen some women in these communities who are like that - they simply have no interest in real life men because of how offputting they are.

I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing

Reply
Reply
Elsacat
Find
596
Oct 3 2025, 7:53 PM
#4
Sometimes I wonder if men are more offputting than they were when I was younger, or if men have always been that bad and the women you describe are just smarter about that than those of us who thought "this man isn't like the rest." (he was like that. so was the next one. and the one after that)
Reply
Reply
Elsacat
Oct 3 2025, 7:53 PM #4

Sometimes I wonder if men are more offputting than they were when I was younger, or if men have always been that bad and the women you describe are just smarter about that than those of us who thought "this man isn't like the rest." (he was like that. so was the next one. and the one after that)

Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
Find
289
Oct 4 2025, 9:40 AM
#5
I always found real life men offputting. They do not take care of their appearance, are piggish, misogynistic and self-absorbed, and even if they weren't as pornsick in the past, were still engaging in constant objectification of women alongside the Madonna-wh*re spectrum, and shitting on feminists as crazy man-haters. And ofc all the hateful boomer men's "jokes" about their wives. At least nowadays women expect a very basic baseline of familiarity and acceptance of feminist tenets from their partners - things like sl*t-shaming are now red flags when in the past they were taken for granted, although porn use and kinks have been pushed into being acceptable. But men were never even slightly acceptable partners to women.

Sure, we now have incels and the manosphere, but I don't think those are some novel concepts, they're just the classic abusive men who are feeling more defensive than usual because of the visibility that feminism has gained among younger generations. And I also think most women nowadays are smart enough to keep away from them, despite the fearmongering over the tradwife trend (which is mainly consumed by men lmao).
Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
Oct 4 2025, 9:40 AM #5

I always found real life men offputting. They do not take care of their appearance, are piggish, misogynistic and self-absorbed, and even if they weren't as pornsick in the past, were still engaging in constant objectification of women alongside the Madonna-wh*re spectrum, and shitting on feminists as crazy man-haters. And ofc all the hateful boomer men's "jokes" about their wives. At least nowadays women expect a very basic baseline of familiarity and acceptance of feminist tenets from their partners - things like sl*t-shaming are now red flags when in the past they were taken for granted, although porn use and kinks have been pushed into being acceptable. But men were never even slightly acceptable partners to women.

Sure, we now have incels and the manosphere, but I don't think those are some novel concepts, they're just the classic abusive men who are feeling more defensive than usual because of the visibility that feminism has gained among younger generations. And I also think most women nowadays are smart enough to keep away from them, despite the fearmongering over the tradwife trend (which is mainly consumed by men lmao).

Reply
Reply
Knotgonnalie
Find
17
Nov 9 2025, 4:31 PM
#6
In the context of female heterosexuality, what does "androcentrism" and "phallocentrism" even mean??
Reply
Reply
Knotgonnalie
Nov 9 2025, 4:31 PM #6

In the context of female heterosexuality, what does "androcentrism" and "phallocentrism" even mean??

Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
Find
289
Nov 9 2025, 4:53 PM
#7
(Nov 9 2025, 4:31 PM)Knotgonnalie In the context of female heterosexuality, what does "androcentrism" and "phallocentrism" even mean??

Androcentrism is the idea that sexuality revolves around male desires that women exist pander to, both in terms of sex acts performed (which either revolve around penetration, men's one-sided fixation on women's bodies, or men's one-sided fetishes) where the woman is either expected to be borderline asexual and perform these acts to keep her Nigel happy, or she's allowed to have a libido but only insofar as it "coincidentally" revolves around everything men find sexually stimulating and desirable (i.e. multiple orgasms from fellatio and penetrative sex or from really any kind of fetish a man might get off to - if a man likes feet then a real sexually empowered woman is one that finds anything Nigel wants to do with her feet very sexy and intimate). As part of this, women's orgasm is also seen as optional, a nice bonus because it boosts the man ego, but overall something she should achieve just by virtue of the man doing whatever he wants sexually for his own stimulation, because women are sex objects for male pleasure, not something men should be expected to stoop to revolving sex around. This also extends to the expectation that women need to look pretty and sexy for men whereas men do not need to bring anything to the table in terms of appearance and attitude to make themselves seem more appealing and innocent rather than threatening. In fact, men are expected to perform displays of misogynistic hatred and violence as part of a straight relationship.

Phallocentrism is the related idea that sex revolves around penises: oral = fellatio, sex = penetration, end of sex = man orgasms. If oral is performed on a woman, it's as a prelude to penetrative sex. The other side of the phallocentrism coin is that a woman's clit is either entirely inconsequential to sex, or it's a small negligible thing that can maybe be given a bit of attention as a prelude to penetrative sex. Sex is always "penis in vagina" (or penis in/on most other parts of a woman's body) but never "penis and clit", despite the clit being the literal centre of female sexual pleasure. Another part of it is that a penis can only ever be sexualised as a tool of violence and male superiority, and this is an unavoidable, necessary part of sex that the wider public either acknowledges as integral and necessary to heterosexual dynamics, or insists is just fun and games and harmless roleplaying despite the actual daily reality of male sexual violence that women need to deal with.
Edited Nov 9 2025, 4:55 PM by YesYourNigel.
I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing
Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
Nov 9 2025, 4:53 PM #7

(Nov 9 2025, 4:31 PM)Knotgonnalie In the context of female heterosexuality, what does "androcentrism" and "phallocentrism" even mean??

Androcentrism is the idea that sexuality revolves around male desires that women exist pander to, both in terms of sex acts performed (which either revolve around penetration, men's one-sided fixation on women's bodies, or men's one-sided fetishes) where the woman is either expected to be borderline asexual and perform these acts to keep her Nigel happy, or she's allowed to have a libido but only insofar as it "coincidentally" revolves around everything men find sexually stimulating and desirable (i.e. multiple orgasms from fellatio and penetrative sex or from really any kind of fetish a man might get off to - if a man likes feet then a real sexually empowered woman is one that finds anything Nigel wants to do with her feet very sexy and intimate). As part of this, women's orgasm is also seen as optional, a nice bonus because it boosts the man ego, but overall something she should achieve just by virtue of the man doing whatever he wants sexually for his own stimulation, because women are sex objects for male pleasure, not something men should be expected to stoop to revolving sex around. This also extends to the expectation that women need to look pretty and sexy for men whereas men do not need to bring anything to the table in terms of appearance and attitude to make themselves seem more appealing and innocent rather than threatening. In fact, men are expected to perform displays of misogynistic hatred and violence as part of a straight relationship.

Phallocentrism is the related idea that sex revolves around penises: oral = fellatio, sex = penetration, end of sex = man orgasms. If oral is performed on a woman, it's as a prelude to penetrative sex. The other side of the phallocentrism coin is that a woman's clit is either entirely inconsequential to sex, or it's a small negligible thing that can maybe be given a bit of attention as a prelude to penetrative sex. Sex is always "penis in vagina" (or penis in/on most other parts of a woman's body) but never "penis and clit", despite the clit being the literal centre of female sexual pleasure. Another part of it is that a penis can only ever be sexualised as a tool of violence and male superiority, and this is an unavoidable, necessary part of sex that the wider public either acknowledges as integral and necessary to heterosexual dynamics, or insists is just fun and games and harmless roleplaying despite the actual daily reality of male sexual violence that women need to deal with.

I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing

Reply
Reply
Knotgonnalie
Find
17
Nov 9 2025, 5:15 PM
#8
(Oct 3 2025, 8:12 AM)YesYourNigel Bit of a clickbaity title, but I mean all the erotica, fanfics, fanart, shipping stuff, otome games, AI boyfriends etc. made by and for women, featuring men.

I feel like this has the potential to provide an excellent outlet for straight women to safely scratch their relationship itch without hitching themselves to a man. At the same time, I wonder how much this just fuels further romanticisation of toxic relationships, red flags and, for gay male shipping, heavy androcentrism and phallocentrism or even further normalisation of abusive straight dynamics by projecting them even onto gay men (the infamous seme-uke dynamics, also anything omegaverse.). Is all this just a temporary respite until the woman finds a boyfriend and in reality does nothing to redirect women away from toxic straight norms?

There's a lot of feel-good mushy shipping that doesn't sexualise the worst most abusive excesses of heterosexuality. I feel like the women who ship interesting character dynamics for an endorphin rush fare better than those who consume self-insert x "toxic man with heart of gold" dynamics, because there isn't a 1 to 1 projection from real life patriarchal dynamics that makes you feel like you can eventually engage in it yourself. A lot of those women in the "interesting dynamics" shipper category tend to, in fact, be fairly uninterested in irl dating because of how much it pales in comparison to healthy non-abusive fictional relationships, which I think is great - anything that keeps women safe and far from men is good.

I also think straight women developing sky-high standards for men based on all this media is excellent, but that is predicated on the men in this media not being the romanticised toxic shits like they are in, for example, boddice-ripper novels. I suppose if the goal is the same (women not dating men and as such enjoying the benefits of not having a dehumanising, entitled, self-absorbed burden in their life at best, and a rapist/abuser/murderer at worst) one might argue it doesn't matter, but I would want women to consume media that makes them internalise preferences for male partners who are empathetic, invested in female well-being and have radically feminist leanings, and simply not even consider any man who doesn't fit that category to a T. While the "jerk with a heart of gold" is similarly unrealistic, the romanticised toxicity is far too easy to exploit by real life messaging and pressures. Aggressive, possessive men are not secretly kind and considerate of women, even if they temporarily pretend to be, and women should push themselves to fantasise about actually healthy dynamics instead of what the patriarchy is already trying to feed them.

I guess another downside is the chronically online nature of it. I would be worried about this addiction to easy endorphins keeping women from getting real shit done, but that's more of a general issue with modern online generations and might just be worth being managed in comparison to the alternative of women endangering themselves by dating men.

Of course women shouldn't be reading and/or creating toxic, violent, misogynistic relationships. But that is not up for you to even debate. You admit you aren't heterosexual. If you are a lesbian, how would you feel if a heterosexual women was talking about you/lesbians with such authority??
Reply
Reply
Knotgonnalie
Nov 9 2025, 5:15 PM #8

(Oct 3 2025, 8:12 AM)YesYourNigel Bit of a clickbaity title, but I mean all the erotica, fanfics, fanart, shipping stuff, otome games, AI boyfriends etc. made by and for women, featuring men.

I feel like this has the potential to provide an excellent outlet for straight women to safely scratch their relationship itch without hitching themselves to a man. At the same time, I wonder how much this just fuels further romanticisation of toxic relationships, red flags and, for gay male shipping, heavy androcentrism and phallocentrism or even further normalisation of abusive straight dynamics by projecting them even onto gay men (the infamous seme-uke dynamics, also anything omegaverse.). Is all this just a temporary respite until the woman finds a boyfriend and in reality does nothing to redirect women away from toxic straight norms?

There's a lot of feel-good mushy shipping that doesn't sexualise the worst most abusive excesses of heterosexuality. I feel like the women who ship interesting character dynamics for an endorphin rush fare better than those who consume self-insert x "toxic man with heart of gold" dynamics, because there isn't a 1 to 1 projection from real life patriarchal dynamics that makes you feel like you can eventually engage in it yourself. A lot of those women in the "interesting dynamics" shipper category tend to, in fact, be fairly uninterested in irl dating because of how much it pales in comparison to healthy non-abusive fictional relationships, which I think is great - anything that keeps women safe and far from men is good.

I also think straight women developing sky-high standards for men based on all this media is excellent, but that is predicated on the men in this media not being the romanticised toxic shits like they are in, for example, boddice-ripper novels. I suppose if the goal is the same (women not dating men and as such enjoying the benefits of not having a dehumanising, entitled, self-absorbed burden in their life at best, and a rapist/abuser/murderer at worst) one might argue it doesn't matter, but I would want women to consume media that makes them internalise preferences for male partners who are empathetic, invested in female well-being and have radically feminist leanings, and simply not even consider any man who doesn't fit that category to a T. While the "jerk with a heart of gold" is similarly unrealistic, the romanticised toxicity is far too easy to exploit by real life messaging and pressures. Aggressive, possessive men are not secretly kind and considerate of women, even if they temporarily pretend to be, and women should push themselves to fantasise about actually healthy dynamics instead of what the patriarchy is already trying to feed them.

I guess another downside is the chronically online nature of it. I would be worried about this addiction to easy endorphins keeping women from getting real shit done, but that's more of a general issue with modern online generations and might just be worth being managed in comparison to the alternative of women endangering themselves by dating men.

Of course women shouldn't be reading and/or creating toxic, violent, misogynistic relationships. But that is not up for you to even debate. You admit you aren't heterosexual. If you are a lesbian, how would you feel if a heterosexual women was talking about you/lesbians with such authority??

Reply
Reply
Knotgonnalie
Find
17
Nov 9 2025, 5:18 PM
#9
(Nov 9 2025, 4:53 PM)YesYourNigel
(Nov 9 2025, 4:31 PM)Knotgonnalie In the context of female heterosexuality, what does "androcentrism" and "phallocentrism" even mean??

Androcentrism is the idea that sexuality revolves around male desires that women exist pander to, both in terms of sex acts performed (which either revolve around penetration, men's one-sided fixation on women's bodies, or men's one-sided fetishes) where the woman is either expected to be borderline asexual and perform these acts to keep her Nigel happy, or she's allowed to have a libido but only insofar as it "coincidentally" revolves around everything men find sexually stimulating and desirable (i.e. multiple orgasms from fellatio and penetrative sex or from really any kind of fetish a man might get off to - if a man likes feet then a real sexually empowered woman is one that finds anything Nigel wants to do with her feet very sexy and intimate). As part of this, women's orgasm is also seen as optional, a nice bonus because it boosts the man ego, but overall something she should achieve just by virtue of the man doing whatever he wants sexually for his own stimulation, because women are sex objects for male pleasure, not something men should be expected to stoop to revolving sex around. This also extends to the expectation that women need to look pretty and sexy for men whereas men do not need to bring anything to the table in terms of appearance and attitude to make themselves seem more appealing and innocent rather than threatening. In fact, men are expected to perform displays of misogynistic hatred and violence as part of a straight relationship.

Phallocentrism is the related idea that sex revolves around penises: oral = fellatio, sex = penetration, end of sex = man orgasms. If oral is performed on a woman, it's as a prelude to penetrative sex. The other side of the phallocentrism coin is that a woman's clit is either entirely inconsequential to sex, or it's a small negligible thing that can maybe be given a bit of attention as a prelude to penetrative sex. Sex is always "penis in vagina" (or penis in/on most other parts of a woman's body) but never "penis and clit", despite the clit being the literal centre of female sexual pleasure. Another part of it is that a penis can only ever be sexualised as a tool of violence and male superiority, and this is an unavoidable, necessary part of sex that the wider public either acknowledges as integral and necessary to heterosexual dynamics, or insists is just fun and games and harmless roleplaying despite the actual daily reality of male sexual violence that women need to deal with.

I should have clarified. I mean of course a woman who is heterosexual is going to be focused on either gay male or male-female romance since she is exclusively MALE attracted. So she is androcentric, hence the appeal of erotica and "shipping."
Reply
Reply
Knotgonnalie
Nov 9 2025, 5:18 PM #9

(Nov 9 2025, 4:53 PM)YesYourNigel
(Nov 9 2025, 4:31 PM)Knotgonnalie In the context of female heterosexuality, what does "androcentrism" and "phallocentrism" even mean??

Androcentrism is the idea that sexuality revolves around male desires that women exist pander to, both in terms of sex acts performed (which either revolve around penetration, men's one-sided fixation on women's bodies, or men's one-sided fetishes) where the woman is either expected to be borderline asexual and perform these acts to keep her Nigel happy, or she's allowed to have a libido but only insofar as it "coincidentally" revolves around everything men find sexually stimulating and desirable (i.e. multiple orgasms from fellatio and penetrative sex or from really any kind of fetish a man might get off to - if a man likes feet then a real sexually empowered woman is one that finds anything Nigel wants to do with her feet very sexy and intimate). As part of this, women's orgasm is also seen as optional, a nice bonus because it boosts the man ego, but overall something she should achieve just by virtue of the man doing whatever he wants sexually for his own stimulation, because women are sex objects for male pleasure, not something men should be expected to stoop to revolving sex around. This also extends to the expectation that women need to look pretty and sexy for men whereas men do not need to bring anything to the table in terms of appearance and attitude to make themselves seem more appealing and innocent rather than threatening. In fact, men are expected to perform displays of misogynistic hatred and violence as part of a straight relationship.

Phallocentrism is the related idea that sex revolves around penises: oral = fellatio, sex = penetration, end of sex = man orgasms. If oral is performed on a woman, it's as a prelude to penetrative sex. The other side of the phallocentrism coin is that a woman's clit is either entirely inconsequential to sex, or it's a small negligible thing that can maybe be given a bit of attention as a prelude to penetrative sex. Sex is always "penis in vagina" (or penis in/on most other parts of a woman's body) but never "penis and clit", despite the clit being the literal centre of female sexual pleasure. Another part of it is that a penis can only ever be sexualised as a tool of violence and male superiority, and this is an unavoidable, necessary part of sex that the wider public either acknowledges as integral and necessary to heterosexual dynamics, or insists is just fun and games and harmless roleplaying despite the actual daily reality of male sexual violence that women need to deal with.

I should have clarified. I mean of course a woman who is heterosexual is going to be focused on either gay male or male-female romance since she is exclusively MALE attracted. So she is androcentric, hence the appeal of erotica and "shipping."

Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
Find
289
Nov 9 2025, 10:58 PM
#10
(Nov 9 2025, 5:18 PM)Knotgonnalie I should have clarified. I mean of course a woman who is heterosexual is going to be focused on either gay male or male-female romance since she is exclusively MALE attracted. So she is androcentric, hence the appeal of erotica and "shipping."

You're mistaking androphilic with androcentric. Straight men are not gynocentric by a long shot, they are just as andro- and phallocentric as gay men are. A lot of people have noted this decidedly homoerotic aspect to male heterosexuality. They are fairly unconcerned or disgusted with the majority of the female body that other men didn't fetishise for them (especially if not caked in makeup), and are offput by women's sexual preferences. Clits do not feature in content aimed at straight people at all, least of all content aimed at men. In fact men are far far more likely to get off to anuses or feet before they even think that clits exist. Men also whine endlessly about how women aren't attracted ro "real men" and mock the men that women find sexy as "gay". You'd think they'd all be taking notes instead of running to their porn made by other men and to incel forums complaining about how women don't like their smelly 24/7 gamer ass.

Imagine if the vast majority of porn that both men and women created treated the penis as entirely irrelevant to sex, and if the particularly enlightened women knew to add in a bit of petting to that area before moving onto cunnilingus. All of the patriarchal biases I mentioned apply as much to straight men as they do to straight women, which doesn't make sense - shouldn't straight women like different things from straight men? Why do straight women like sexualised women in lingerie and the focus on how attractive or beautiful female bodies are? Why do straight women like not having any attention paid to their centre of sexual pleasure? Why are straight women always so insistent that orgasms and their clits are unimportant? Because women do not profit off of the male self-centred sexual entitlement that is taken for granted in straight relationships.
Edited Nov 9 2025, 11:01 PM by YesYourNigel.
I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing
Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
Nov 9 2025, 10:58 PM #10

(Nov 9 2025, 5:18 PM)Knotgonnalie I should have clarified. I mean of course a woman who is heterosexual is going to be focused on either gay male or male-female romance since she is exclusively MALE attracted. So she is androcentric, hence the appeal of erotica and "shipping."

You're mistaking androphilic with androcentric. Straight men are not gynocentric by a long shot, they are just as andro- and phallocentric as gay men are. A lot of people have noted this decidedly homoerotic aspect to male heterosexuality. They are fairly unconcerned or disgusted with the majority of the female body that other men didn't fetishise for them (especially if not caked in makeup), and are offput by women's sexual preferences. Clits do not feature in content aimed at straight people at all, least of all content aimed at men. In fact men are far far more likely to get off to anuses or feet before they even think that clits exist. Men also whine endlessly about how women aren't attracted ro "real men" and mock the men that women find sexy as "gay". You'd think they'd all be taking notes instead of running to their porn made by other men and to incel forums complaining about how women don't like their smelly 24/7 gamer ass.

Imagine if the vast majority of porn that both men and women created treated the penis as entirely irrelevant to sex, and if the particularly enlightened women knew to add in a bit of petting to that area before moving onto cunnilingus. All of the patriarchal biases I mentioned apply as much to straight men as they do to straight women, which doesn't make sense - shouldn't straight women like different things from straight men? Why do straight women like sexualised women in lingerie and the focus on how attractive or beautiful female bodies are? Why do straight women like not having any attention paid to their centre of sexual pleasure? Why are straight women always so insistent that orgasms and their clits are unimportant? Because women do not profit off of the male self-centred sexual entitlement that is taken for granted in straight relationships.

I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing

Reply
Reply
Pages (2): 1 2 Next
 Print Thread
Recently Browsing
 4 Guest(s)
Recently Browsing
 4 Guest(s)