> "it's impossible to determine someone's preferences by sex in the first place" as you wrote, is a completely false statement and disinformation. Please read here the research data that you are attempting to deny. The validity of your beliefs and your tactics of disseminating unfounded skepticism are equivalent to those of the flat-earth cult. There are two innate sexes and they create in the vast majority two innate and distinct types of sexuality.
No. Feminism does not support male issues. Please see a complete analysis of the feminist claim that it does, here, under "Is Feminism for Men Too?" https://www.amazon.com/Lovism-Humanist-Alternative-Henry-Blair-ebook/dp/B08RXMS7M2
Thank you very much! I have published a book with similar analysis and data, called Lovism, I hope to get as many people as possible aware of such facts (https://www.amazon.com/Lovism-Humanist-Alternative-Henry-Blair-ebook/dp/B08RXMS7M2/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=lovism&qid=1611929472&s=amazon-devices&sr=1-1)
I'll just mention that I'm a biologist with a degree in psychology as well. There are two sexes. They are innate. There are three types of differences between the sexes, or three layers: 1. differences that are expressed biologically and come from innate biological differences, 2. differences that are expressed culturally but come from innate biological differences, 3. differences that are expressed culturally and originate in culture. The third layer is the thinnest. It comprises very mild differences compared to the ones of the first two layers. The second layer is what confuses the progressives (which I don't consider as leftists, I see them as alt-right in disguise). These are differences that materialize in cultural forms, which makes progressives infer that they originate from culture, while forgetting that culture, in all humanoids - apes and humans - is itself composed of some very fundamental layer determined by biology. Culture has a biological layer. For example, almost all mammals organize in: social groups, with: a hierarchy, and: a leader or leaders, and: compete in inter-group conflicts over resources. These are features expressed in humans as cultures, which makes progressives believe that they "originate from culture", but they do not. Other examples of the biological layer of culture are facial expressions, which are universal and shared by all humans in all places and as far as we know in all recorded times, and parent-baby relations (one nurtures the other and not vice versa - because of biologically-determined traits in both). I will not go through the classification of every difference between the sexes into those three layers (biological, cultural originating in biology, cultural originating in culture), but I'll just mention the one that confuses most people today: clothing. The fact that the dress code foe men and women is arbitrary makes feminists and progressives believe that it's purely cultural. What they are missing is that like facial expressions, every known human society past and present in every location had a different code for the different sexes. While what the code is, is indeed arbitrary, the existence of the binary dress code, is not arbitrary, it is as universal as facial expressions - it is therefore most probably of the same origin - biological. We can only speculate that when humanity evolved a culture that caused ambiguity through dressing, humanity evolved a code to reinstate the signaling of one's sex simply because of the sexual drives - the drives to be identified by the other sex and identify it.
I believe that the following are culturally-expressed, biological, differences between the sexes:
This is really the tip of the iceberg, you can read more in my book https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08RXMS7M2 and in my blog https://lovists.com/blog/ .
In fact in the 1970s there was a feminist movement of ideological lesbianism. There was even an article in the 1990s asking "can a woman be accepted as a feminist today without being a lesbian?" (in so many words, this isn't the actual title). This ideology has returned today - I have seen a TwoX post, suggesting that women should form households without sharing a bed, but as a couple-hood, which is very akin to the 70s political lesbianism. The post was moderately popular (hundreds of endorsements). I know intimately this core and I can attest that most are women who anyhow are WGTOW - they rejected any relationship with men, either as divorced, lesbian or living in solitude (in a previous post here, I suggested that MGTOW in nothing more than a response-through-imitation of feminism, as feminism is in fact since the 1970s, Women Going Their Own Way - WGTOW, and men, left alone, had no choice but doing the same). In my book I also ask what are the consequences of feminism being at its core a group with a majority of women who wish to have no relations with men - are they the ones to represent women who do want to be in such relationships, are they the ones who should define what a heterosexual woman regards as wanted and acceptable - considering that for such feminists, repulsion or antagonism will come from the very fact that a man interacted with them regardless of how he did that. Here is the book and here is a blog post called Is Feminism For Women Too, summarizing that last point out of the book (your support will be highly appreciated : ) )
It's available online here (it should be straight-forward to save as PDF there, from Chrome: menu > print > chose "destination" as pdf). This is also a chapter in a new book which can be ordered on amazon as ebook or print. The book holds more data and references on similarly-acute subjects.
I will! And the bottom line of the book is not the problem, but the solution, which I chose to publish first, as this book which is available - https://www.amazon.com/Lovism-Humanist-Alternative-Henry-Blair-ebook/dp/B08RXMS7M2
I think its because people are only reacting to my first sentence and not bothering to fully digest everything else I said. If they did they would see how that adds context and nuance to it.
Yeah, I've heard the same and I don't really understand that either. If I had to guess, it probably has something to with the fact that women are evolutionarily wired to be attracted to good provider/protectors. So it may actually be that they aren't attracted to the aesthetics of a masculine body themselves, but for what they represent: strength, resiliency, etc. I once heard a woman complain that she doesn't understand why she's attracted to things she called "manly grossness" like body hair and BO. But these things are explainable if you look at them as signifiers of high testosterone, which also predicts proving/protecting ability in a hunter/gatherer tribe.
This could also explain why there are studies showing things like women being aroused by other women's perfume more than they are by men's cologne, and even why there is evidence that most women who identify as straight are secretly aroused by other women.
But I have also heard supposedly heterosexual men say that vaginas are gross. It's more rare than women saying penises are gross but I have heard it. Those guys could be repressed homosexuals but I honestly think it could also just be that some people are more influenced by their instinctive urges than others. But for some, maybe it's more of a deep aesthetic appreciation.
I also found some insights related to this topic in this book. In one chapter, the author argues that (among heterosexuals) men have a sexuality that focuses "outward" and that women have a sexuality that focuses "inward". Meaning that (as I understand it) male sexuality is defined by a feeling like "women are beautiful" but that female sexuality is defined by a feeling like "I feel beautiful".
This is actually something I have firsthand experience with being an androgynous guy who cross-dresses occasionally. I'm starting to think that guys like me (almost all of which are cis and straight, weirdly) may be someone who has a sexuality that focuses both outward AND inward for whatever reason. Meaning that for us, femininity is the definition of beauty, and they want to feel beautiful/desired, so they desire to embody femininity.
Yeah, you said it. Reverse the genders and there would be an uproar. Society already treats vaginas like some sacred things that can solely determine your worth as a man based on how often you touch them, so to call them ugly would basically be like heresy. After all, you'd be taking away their source of power and self worth.
I write about the solution here - lovists.com
And here -
https://www.amazon.com/Lovism-Humanist-Alternative-Henry-Blair-ebook/dp/B08RXMS7M2
Absolutely. Here it is. https://www.amazon.com/Lovism-Humanist-Alternative-Henry-Blair-ebook/dp/B08RXMS7M2
This is why a new perception on equality, a shared and mutual one, is neccesary. You are welcome to join. See here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08RXMS7M2
Correct. That book is called Lovism. Please click the url to learn more (https://www.amazon.com/Lovism-Humanist-Alternative-Henry-Blair-ebook/dp/B08RXMS7M2/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=lovism&qid=1611872821&s=amazon-devices&sr=1-1).