A Question for the Men...

[Handley_Page]

Hopefully this hasn't been asked a thousand times before and I am aware it's very generalised, but I have to know ... in real life, literature, erotica or other, do you guys - writers, readers and all - prefer ...

(a) a woman you can take care of and whose need and fragility makes you feel like real men and good about yourselves;

or do you prefer ...

(b) a woman who is capable and competent (not, please note, automatically a bitch) and proves you to be real man by sharing your life fully in every aspect?

Not a trick question, although I've probably stuffed up the wording. My apologies in advance for the use of the term 'real man' ... I hope y'all know what I mean and don't take instant offence at it!

So many stories, developed or not, seem to favour the damsel-in-distress that it would appear that an intelligent, competent and able woman is not what (most) men want. Opinions, examples and thoughts sought and appreciated!

In general - [b].
I prefer my woman to be by my side; not ordering me about or clinging like the vine, but intelligent enough to debate the issues of the day when necessary, and to discuss a problem and help arrive at a mutual solution.
One who appreciates my bringing her Breakfast in Bed (a real English fry-up) on a Sunday morning.
And who can tell me, politely and calmly, when I'm really wrong.

 

[RailRoader]

Smart, competent, capable women are the best, hands down. But you'd better be a real man if you want a meaningful relationship with one. If you're not her equal there isn't much hope.
Dependent, needy types add too much weight to the relationship because the man ends up carrying all of it.

 

[LoveMenLoveSex]

Hey, thanks for your responses!

Opion C is a combination of A and B. Option C are the type women I have met more frequently in real life.

Yeah, the options are black and white, to indicate an end-of-spectrum preference rather than delve into the shades of grey that constitute most people in real life. It's curious that most of the responses here indicate that the preference is for intelligent independence yet the very popular stories on the site indicate the opposite.

Handley Page wrote: And who can tell me, politely and calmly, when I'm really wrong.

That would have to be one of the most important aspects of any relationship, being able to remain loving enough to be objective in a crisis and able to explain the problem, rather than justify, rationalise, go off the deep end, wave arms in the air etc? But, aside from the literary device of contrived misunderstanding, very few people seem to understand or be capable of such a response when their emotions (ego) are at stake. Male or female. And it's not a common trait of characters in popular literature.

Railroader, thanks for your comment. Equality, whilst understanding that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses - that PEOPLE have different strengths and weaknesses, on a case by case basis - is surely what everyone aspires to. So then ... why the weighted popularity of the female that needs saving from herself?

In regards to personal experience, everyone has their strong days and weak days; that's not really the issue. Everyone has the capacity to be able to take care of themselves, though many eschew that in favour of being taken care of, both male and female. In real life. In fictional relationships, however, especially in those fictional relationships were attraction and arousal play the largest part, what is it that drives the desire to have a personality-less female in the story?

For those anxious to get to the action, sure, fleshed-out, moderately realistic characters need not apply. That's fair enough, there's a purpose to reading or writing such stuff. But for the stories that are touted as being 'great stories' and 'well-written' how is it that the female character is seen as desirable when she's incapable of offering much more than ego-stroking? In real life too, I guess.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Hey, thanks for your responses!



Yeah, the options are black and white, to indicate an end-of-spectrum preference rather than delve into the shades of grey that constitute most people in real life. It's curious that most of the responses here indicate that the preference is for intelligent independence yet the very popular stories on the site indicate the opposite.



That would have to be one of the most important aspects of any relationship, being able to remain loving enough to be objective in a crisis and able to explain the problem, rather than justify, rationalise, go off the deep end, wave arms in the air etc? But, aside from the literary device of contrived misunderstanding, very few people seem to understand or be capable of such a response when their emotions (ego) are at stake. Male or female. And it's not a common trait of characters in popular literature.

Railroader, thanks for your comment. Equality, whilst understanding that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses - that PEOPLE have different strengths and weaknesses, on a case by case basis - is surely what everyone aspires to. So then ... why the weighted popularity of the female that needs saving from herself?

In regards to personal experience, everyone has their strong days and weak days; that's not really the issue. Everyone has the capacity to be able to take care of themselves, though many eschew that in favour of being taken care of, both male and female. In real life. In fictional relationships, however, especially in those fictional relationships were attraction and arousal play the largest part, what is it that drives the desire to have a personality-less female in the story?

For those anxious to get to the action, sure, fleshed-out, moderately realistic characters need not apply. That's fair enough, there's a purpose to reading or writing such stuff. But for the stories that are touted as being 'great stories' and 'well-written' how is it that the female character is seen as desirable when she's incapable of offering much more than ego-stroking? In real life too, I guess.

Blowing smoke up asses is common here. Readers come for the thrills NOT for self improvement. Youll find it out.

 

[sr71plt]

I go with b, but I also question whether your repeated claim about what predominates on the site is valid. I wouldn't argue the opposite, but that's the point. I don't think posters reach the premises like you have of what predominates here with any really grounding for knowing that's true. So it's just another "maybe/maybe not" premise for me.

 

[Misshotndeep]

How about the C) No woman is all one of these all the time. Gesh!?! What a narrow view! and as a woman I can tell ya its so very true.

 

[LoveMenLoveSex]

JAMESBJOHNSON wrote: Blowing smoke up asses is common here. Readers come for the thrills NOT for self improvement. Youll find it out.

Yeah, pretty sure I mentioned I got that. Doesn't have anything to do with the question, however.

sr7plt wrote: I wouldn't argue the opposite, but that's the point. I don't think posters reach the premises like you have of what predominates here with any really grounding for knowing that's true. So it's just another "maybe/maybe not" premise for me.

You're totally right, this isn't an exactly quantifiable survey - just me asking anyone who has an opinion and is comfortable enough to give it what they think of an archetypal fantasy figure that appears in many of the male-authored (and some female-authored) stories I've read here. Somewhat insanely, I wondered if authors and readers are aware of their choices or if they're subconscious and whether those choices (reflected in the high popularity and much-commented abovementioned stories) go through to real life or if they're acknowledged as a pleasant diversion only and no expectations arise.

It's not a terribly brain-bending question. Do the male readers and writers here (who feel comfortable enough to respond honestly) find themselves preferring their fantasies of somewhat character-less, needy/broken/damaged females or do they seek out stories that have more challenging female characters? Do those preferences exist only for erotic fiction or are they present in their real lives? As a generalisation for the bulk of their time?

Misshotndeep wrote: How about the C) No woman is all one of these all the time. Gesh!?! What a narrow view! and as a woman I can tell ya its so very true.

Meh. Pretty damned sure that I asked about preferences - hopefully honestly given - between the two archetypes and wasn't stating a view that there are only two types of women in the universe. Comprehension is a skill many find useful in life.

 

[sr71plt]

Do the male readers and writers here (who feel comfortable enough to respond honestly) find themselves preferring their fantasies of somewhat character-less, needy/broken/damaged females or do they seek out stories that have more challenging female characters? Do those preferences exist only for erotic fiction or are they present in their real lives? As a generalisation for the bulk of their time?

OK, well, there's an overextended presumption there. Many of the male readers and writers here are into other men, not females, to begin with.

 

[LoveMenLoveSex]

sr7lt wrote:OK, well, there's an overextended presumption there. Many of the male readers and writers here are into other men, not females, to begin with.

LOL ... touché. That might an interesting sub-topic somewhere down the line. For the purposes of today's meaningless questions, I'll stick to asking the hetero contingent. No doubt I'll be labelled and lambasted for being discriminatory but so be it.

 

[RailRoader]

Hey, thanks for your responses!


Railroader, thanks for your comment. Equality, whilst understanding that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses - that PEOPLE have different strengths and weaknesses, on a case by case basis - is surely what everyone aspires to. So then ... why the weighted popularity of the female that needs saving from herself?

In regards to personal experience, everyone has their strong days and weak days; that's not really the issue. Everyone has the capacity to be able to take care of themselves, though many eschew that in favour of being taken care of, both male and female. In real life. In fictional relationships, however, especially in those fictional relationships were attraction and arousal play the largest part, what is it that drives the desire to have a personality-less female in the story?

For those anxious to get to the action, sure, fleshed-out, moderately realistic characters need not apply. That's fair enough, there's a purpose to reading or writing such stuff. But for the stories that are touted as being 'great stories' and 'well-written' how is it that the female character is seen as desirable when she's incapable of offering much more than ego-stroking? In real life too, I guess.

In my opinion, male authors write damsel-in-distress characters to stroke their own ego; to be Superman for a day. Women write them to express their fantasy of one day being saved by and presumably having sex with Superman. I don't care much for it either way as it seems rather immature.
Talented authors write female characters that are far more believable.

In real life, someone who doesn't normally need any help is more likely to get it from me than someone who's life reads like a soap opera.

 

[NaokoSmith]

Did you get enough answers from strong men yet?

In the mess of 'real life', we often find we have to get along without a man to help us haul hay - as you mention you have to do.

Society is based on a sexual economy. The tensions created by having two genders are so important to the cultural exchange between people that if we are not sure that our gender matches our biological sex, we may even go for surgery so we can fit in. (As it were <snerk>.) A man, a woman, 2.4 children is an ideal we strive for partly by setting up alternatives to show how ideal the heteronormal is.

In romance fiction, we indulge in larger than life gender characteristics: strong men, willowy women, in order to reassure us that this binary distinction exists and is a desirable way for society to function. We enjoy the perfection of contrast between manly men and feminine women which we know deep inside is not real.

A strong female character challenges our brain instead of reassuring our cultural sensibilities. It's harder work to read something that makes you consider the stereotypical assumptions by which you operate every day, but it can be enjoyable to do a bit of mental gymnastics when reading too, so long as it isn't so blatant it makes you drop out of the story.



(I wrote recently about some of this on my blogpost.)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Did you get enough answers from strong men yet?

In the mess of 'real life', we often find we have to get along without a man to help us haul hay - as you mention you have to do.

Society is based on a sexual economy. The tensions created by having two genders are so important to the cultural exchange between people that if we are not sure that our gender matches our biological sex, we may even go for surgery so we can fit in. (As it were <snerk>.) A man, a woman, 2.4 children is an ideal we strive for partly by setting up alternatives to show how ideal the heteronormal is.

In romance fiction, we indulge in larger than life gender characteristics: strong men, willowy women, in order to reassure us that this binary distinction exists and is a desirable way for society to function. We enjoy the perfection of contrast between manly men and feminine women which we know deep inside is not real.

A strong female character challenges our brain instead of reassuring our cultural sensibilities. It's harder work to read something that makes you consider the stereotypical assumptions by which you operate every day, but it can be enjoyable to do a bit of mental gymnastics when reading too, so long as it isn't so blatant it makes you drop out of the story.



(I wrote recently about some of this on my blogpost.)

You got it all wrong.

We are what we are. Male or female. And within our specific sexual environment we are what we are particularly. Understand the distinctions. Specific is common to all males or all females, and particular is us alone. Bruce Jenner is a male dressed in a girl suit. What you and the OP champion is political conformity to mythological non-specific ideals.

 

[NaokoSmith]

You got it all wrong.

We are what we are. Male or female. And within our specific sexual environment we are what we are particularly. Understand the distinctions. Specific is common to all males or all females, and particular is us alone. Bruce Jenner is a male dressed in a girl suit. What you and the OP champion is political conformity to mythological non-specific ideals.

No no, you don't really believe in biological determinism. You understand these dynamics much better than this.

Anyway I have to go and haul hay now. Or rather, drive Piglet to her drama club as it's raining and she will cause a magnificent Oscar-winning scene if I make her trudge through the wet, and probably catch cold causing me to have to take up the culturally determined positioning of 'wastrel single mother' instead of independent working parent, LOL.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

No no, you don't really believe in biological determinism. You understand these dynamics much better than this.

Anyway I have to go and haul hay now. Or rather, drive Piglet to her drama club as it's raining and she will cause a magnificent Oscar-winning scene if I make her trudge through the wet, and probably catch cold causing me to have to take up the culturally determined positioning of 'wastrel single mother' instead of independent working parent, LOL.

I know Bruce Jenner isn't the official template for males. Jenner is to females what saccharin is to sugar. He's an old guy dressed in a girl suit.

You and the OP argue females are guys in girl suits.

 

[Sammael Bard]

Hopefully this hasn't been asked a thousand times before and I am aware it's very generalised, but I have to know ... in real life, literature, erotica or other, do you guys - writers, readers and all - prefer ...

(a) a woman you can take care of and whose need and fragility makes you feel like real men and good about yourselves;

or do you prefer ...

(b) a woman who is capable and competent (not, please note, automatically a bitch) and proves you to be real man by sharing your life fully in every aspect?

Not a trick question, although I've probably stuffed up the wording. My apologies in advance for the use of the term 'real man' ... I hope y'all know what I mean and don't take instant offence at it!

So many stories, developed or not, seem to favour the damsel-in-distress that it would appear that an intelligent, competent and able woman is not what (most) men want. Opinions, examples and thoughts sought and appreciated!

(a) sounds like a burden for me -- mentally, physically and socially. Thank you, but I'm better of without these types of women. I want a partner, not a burden on my back.

Same with my stories. Almost all of them have independent women working freely in the same military organisation as the protagonist. Rarely do I have a place for a fragile, Daisy Mae in my plot. It just doesn't fit.

Same with movies. It irritates me every single damn time I encounter a woman who screams her lungs out at the sign of any danger. I stop just short of waving my fist, saying "WTF are you doing, woman?! Run!"

That said, my type is completely capable and competent outside the bedroom, a delightful host in the living room and a Grade A whore in the bed.

My ordinary views lean slightly more towards the macho side, but that's it. I like seeing independent women over "dependent, fragile dolls". They might good for looking and fantasy writing in erotica, but IRL, they just don't make the cut for me.

We're talking IRL, right...?

 

[NaokoSmith]

I know Bruce Jenner isn't the official template for males. Jenner is to females what saccharin is to sugar. He's an old guy dressed in a girl suit.

You and the OP argue females are guys in girl suits.

OP is just asking, not arguing anything.

I argue that we are all constituting our gendered identity and that one of the ways we do this is to read certain kinds of story with certain kinds of character. We find it reassuring to slump into a 'waking dream' with stereotypical 'weak' women and 'strong' men. It's hard work to be a real person and take responsibility for what we actually need to do, while at the same time pandering sufficiently to society's prejudices about what we should look like while we do it in order to get by. In fact, it's often impossible to do this so it's occasionally a pleasure to forget all about it by reading something which suggests it's OK to be totally feminine, and that there are totally masculine men out there.

 

[oggbashan]

... so it's occasionally a pleasure to forget all about it by reading something which suggests it's OK to be totally feminine, and that there are totally masculine men out there.

Or OK to play act with a partner.

Today she could be the shrinking violet; tomorrow the demanding domme; the day after the man-hunter etc.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

OP is just asking, not arguing anything.

I argue that we are all constituting our gendered identity and that one of the ways we do this is to read certain kinds of story with certain kinds of character. We find it reassuring to slump into a 'waking dream' with stereotypical 'weak' women and 'strong' men. It's hard work to be a real person and take responsibility for what we actually need to do, while at the same time pandering sufficiently to society's prejudices about what we should look like while we do it in order to get by. In fact, it's often impossible to do this so it's occasionally a pleasure to forget all about it by reading something which suggests it's OK to be totally feminine, and that there are totally masculine men out there.

We're all of us REAL. I'm real, youre real, Bruce Jenner is real. That said, there exist sexual templates for all of us. The template is the set of all common traits and characteristics. Are there any SEX WITH MIDGETS stories at LIT? I doubt it. Yet midgets are real, and midgets have sex, but the midget niche is miniscule, therefore UNPOPULAR. You and the OP demand unpopular be popular.

 

[oggbashan]

We're all of us REAL. I'm real, youre real, Bruce Jenner is real. That said, there exist sexual templates for all of us. The template is the set of all common traits and characteristics. Are there any SEX WITH MIDGETS stories at LIT? I doubt it. Yet midgets are real, and midgets have sex, but the midget niche is miniscule, therefore UNPOPULAR. You and the OP demand unpopular be popular.

Sex with Midgets? Yes. jeanne_d_artois wrote a six part story.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Sex with Midgets? Yes. jeanne_d_artois wrote a six part story.

I'll be damned.

 

[NaokoSmith]

Sex with Midgets? Yes. jeanne_d_artois wrote a six part story.

I'll be damned.

I am trying to keep it real, it's true. However I sympathise with those who like to relax at night with a sexual template that doesn't challenge braincells which have been hard at it all day.

Or stimulate other parts of the body which might not have had the chance to be hard all day .

 

[oggbashan]

Sex with Midgets? Yes. jeanne_d_artois wrote a six part story.

I'll be damned.

Now you know why jeanne and I are low-rated authors. We explore plots that no one else would consider, and the others have good sensible reasons for not using those scenarios.

As oggbashan I also have my Tripletit stories with Giant three-breasted women. Normal human males are sexually desirable midgets on Tripletit.

 

[LoveMenLoveSex]

WOW. Teach me to not login occasionally to see what's being said. Seems to have run the gamut. To be honest, I didn't see the conversation about midgets and triple-breasted women coming. Douglas Adams et al have a lot to answer for.

Naoko, my condolences on having a grade school Oscar contender! And uh, yeah, more ... um ... responses than I thought While the explanation of brain-and-emotion resting in stereotypical fictionalised accounts is a neat one, I can't really agree that complex characters are too challenging for relaxation. On the other hand, maybe I'm just a freak who finds complications restful and predictability a turn off. Anything's possible and quite likely.

Soulful Bard, I will be reading your stories immediately since they sound like my cup of tea. I too scream at the screen (not in the cinema, thank god, haven't been to a cinema for years) with helpful tips to the foolish characters and extortions to the heroes and heroines. I even occasionally direct sarcastic comments to the director, although why, I have no idea.

Thank you, everyone for all your responses, once again. The viewpoints are refreshingly delivered and provide a banquet for thought.

 

[LoveMenLoveSex]

Crap. Or exhortations for that matter. Sigh.

 

[Sammael Bard]

Soulful Bard, I will be reading your stories immediately since they sound like my cup of tea. I too scream at the screen (not in the cinema, thank god, haven't been to a cinema for years) with helpful tips to the foolish characters and extortions to the heroes and heroines. I even occasionally direct sarcastic comments to the director, although why, I have no idea.

Thank you, everyone for all your responses, once again. The viewpoints are refreshingly delivered and provide a banquet for thought.

There's violence (as in bloodshed, cutting, gory deaths and zombies ). Besides, the draft is with my editor. Try again during August.

You should take out the time and see some old horror movies sometimes. The only use of women cast is to be paralysed and scream their lungs out at anything that moves. It's really frustrating these days to see inaction like that.