Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: PMS and Incompetence
Message-ID: <2640@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 23:12:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: randvax.2640
Posted: Mon Aug 12 23:12:13 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 03:56:25 EDT
References: <2030CJC@psuvm>
Reply-To: edhall@rand-unix.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 59
Summary: 

In article <2030CJC@psuvm> CJC@psuvm.BITNET writes:
> ... Sunny posted an article comparing some experiences from both
>sides; so far I've seen two responses from men, both of whom stated that
>Sunny's experience couldn't be representative. However neither tried to
>answer this section of Sunny's posting:
>     
>>                                                                  On
>>the whole, from my observations of myself, and of other people, I'd
>>have to say that on the average, women are less bothered by their sex
>>than men are.

Taking this one piece at a time: I can't say I've known that many people
of *either* sex that are that uncomfortable about it.  And I tend to be
the sort that folks ``open up'' to (in person), so it's not just a matter
of my own ignorance.  However, women have by far been the most self-
deprecating in terms of their sexuality (can you think of a male
equivalent to ``the curse''?)

>>Back in the old days, I all to often watched previously
>>intelligent conversations between men grind to a total halt, or to
>>blithering idiocy, as some nice looking woman walked by, and when she'd
>>disappeared from sight, would turn to discussion of her "fuckability"
>>rather than back to work.  (was that blunt enough? no, not really). This
>>behavior pattern is most observable in a group of only men.  The presence
>                          ----------------------------------
>>of women reduces it's effects.  Much of it is a very animalistic jousting
>>between the men to prove to each other who is the horniest.

I'd say about 15% of the men I work with are this way, though I've been
in other environments where it was a lot worse.  But I'll certainly
confirm the existance of the phenomenon.  And I'll also offer the opinion
that it has little to do with ``testosterone poisoning'', but is rather
an unfortunate component of male culture.

As for myself, I don't engage in such games, and though I have a
healthy sex drive it is quite rare that it interferes with my work.
On the contrary, I've found that I'm at my most creative when I'm
horny, and can get into a good session of power-coding unless it's the
rare case when I'm just *too* distracted.

Now to Carolyn's comments:

>  I'm a woman. Obviously I've never been in a group of *only men*. All I
>know about how men act when no women are around is what I hear or read.
>I don't recall observing a group women stopping their talk to ogle a passing
>male, at least not since high school, nor discussing the possible sexual
>merits of such a passer-by. Is this a real difference or isn't it?

Based on my experience there *is* a difference.  Men tend to do this
a lot more, and tend to be a lot more gross about it when they do.
But I've overheard women making comments about passing men before,
and I'll even hear such things directly from my female friends.
However, a man is a lot more likely to be called a ``hunk'' than
``fuckable'' (though I've heard a few things about ``nice buns'').

>                                         --Carolyn J. Clark

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall