tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4920736517919502370.post7588032277583709793..comments2023-10-24T06:58:24.345-07:00Comments on The Sex Nerd: Dueling Sex Nerds: Yes, Emily Doods really ARE this . . .Ian Ironwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09776355241706284910noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4920736517919502370.post-77505360417172450082011-04-14T02:20:06.496-07:002011-04-14T02:20:06.496-07:00This seems to be part of the Mars/Venus conundrum....This seems to be part of the Mars/Venus conundrum. The male and female though process are so inherently different and, I think, regarding sex the difference is the greatest. So much so that each one has difficulty comprehending the other's way of thinking/reacting.<br /><br />Emily says: ...men, I want to tell my students, are not actually dick-driven simpletons incapable of recognizing a woman's personhood in the absence of sexual access to that woman.<br /><br />I have a bit of a problem with this sentence. You say this unfairly biased. I would like to say that this is unfair. Period. I think Emily evaluating men's behavior through a femal perspective, when she might have been better off trying to view things from the male perspective before making such statements. Men are sexually driven, moreso than women. We all know that. Portraying that as a negative trait seems both unfair and incorrect. Also unfair is the conclusion that their being that way equates them incapable of recognizing a woman's personhood.<br /><br />This is very well written and a pleasure to read. I enjoyed the insight to the male mind, and the examples you gave really make it clear. Thank you for your honesty. I got here from Emily's blog, but I'm going to have to dig a little deeper. You presented an interesting and intelligent opinion.sivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05589124118996823717noreply@blogger.com