I suppose this could be more of a rant. Take it as you will though.
While talking to my girlfriend about our current sexual activities, of which I'll spare you the details, she mentioned that her roommate had read and recommended a book called Daniel Rose's Sex God Method. Always one interested in increasing my sexual prowess (hey, this body has got to be good for something) I decided to take a breeze through a pdf of it.
One of the first things it started getting into was the issue of dominance in sex. It got into talking about how in ancestry there were the divisions of alpha males and beta males and so on, how some women went after the alpha males and some "perfered the gentle, nurturing nature of the beta males". Now the next portion I have to quote verbatim:
QuoteWhat happened though, is that alpha males eventually beat the >-bleeped-< out if the beta males and raped all their women. The children of beta males did not survive, the children of the alpha males did. Evolution slowly weeded out all theose women who were attraced to anything but the most dominant of men.
Today, there is only one type of female: those who like alpha males. The desire to be submissive to a dominant alpha male is one of the deepest and most important instincts of females of any species....
Now, my male side being what would other wise be considered a "beta male", takes offense to this. I don't have the desire to compete, be aggressive or the like, and so to females I'm now not attractive as a mate? More so my kind, the kinder and gentler male should have died out millennia ago? Along with this the female side of me feels that such sentiment undermines my strength and dignity, reducing me to some quivering piece of flesh to be lorded over by some muscle-bound hulk. At this point I had to stop reading, as it was bringing me to compulsively mutter "
>-bleeped-< you" under my breath. After a little while I decide to breeze through again, giving it another chance, yet again found more ultra-cis, ultra-hetro sentiment. Humorously enough the book states also that a woman wants someone who's in touch with their animal desires and free of inhibiting social condition. Talk about irony.
My conundrum though is do I have the right to be angry? As being an androgyne that recognizes both sides of my psyche I feel that such writing, while perhaps beneficial to cisgendered people lacking in sexual confidence, re-enforces sexual stereotypes, furthering binary gender roles in society and making it harder for those like me to be accepted (not to mention doing further damage to womens rights). However, as being an androgyne and being neither truly male nor female am I really one to comment, as in a sense I am removed from those direct male/female gender politics?
I feel that in a way androgynes are almost uniquely qualified to comment on such issues as we (at least those who identify as both male and female) speak with better understanding of both sides. I also feel that simply as a human I have the right to comment on something that I think could slow down the process of development of equal rights and respect for all peoples. In spite of those sentiments though, I still feel the need to question the depth of my indignation.
As being those in between (or not at all) how should we face these statements? Should we speak less as androgynes and more from the humanistic side, should we polarize on the fact of detriment to our cause, or simply be above these matters and leave it to the cis to fight it out? Or some other combination?
Maybe should I just get rid of the pdf, lol.
Bise,
-6th
