I don't think he necessarily intended any offense but either way he's done a lot of people a disservice and made himself look a prize pillock into the bargain.
His flippant remarks give credence to a lot of lazy stereotypes
That all gay men are promiscious
That women manipulate men using sex
That men in general are not in control of their sexual urges
That women's ultimate goal is to entrap men in a relationship
None of us were there at the interview, but his comments have reminded me of comments made by a former boyfriend of mine, when he told me that all men think about all and every possible sex, with every female, all day, every day. This boyfriend said he'd wondered what anal sex would be like with my sister, and what my mum would be like in bed. I still don't know if this ex was trying to be macho, if he really thought like that, or if he was joking. I think he was being honest - didn't make him a bad person, just that that was his view of sexuality, so he assumed it was the same for all men, and IMO, that's what Mr Fry has done here.
Men are designed to shag everything in sight, gay or straight. That is all.
I actually agree with you, although I might not have put it that way. Poor Stephen, he's a real British institution, isn't he? I think he even tested the water with a couple of unsatisfactory heterosexual relationships way back when.
Fact is, men, as you say, have a very different view on sex to women. Women are biologically programmed to find a suitable mate to father their children. Thanks to contraception, women can now enjoy sex as a recreational rather than procreational activity, but the biological programming is still there.
Stephen's views on women and sex are about as informed as the Pope's views on cottaging - passingly interesting, but scarcely likely to change the world.
I understand the distinction you are making but it is still a generalization without the empirical evidence of the "enjoyment" of every man and every women and the evidence that the degree of "enjoyment" is equal across the sexes.
That study, for example, showed "males in general have less restricted sociosexuality – are more interested in sex without emotional attachment, one night stands, or extra pair sex – than females." The converse is not far off what Fry was saying, so long as you allow him to use generalization. It really is an interesting study. I suspect that Fry has read it. Coincidentally, I am reading Jo Nesbo's The Snowman at the moment and have realised that he too has read the study and incorporated some of its findings in the book. What a small world.
See, there you go again, no one in this thread denies that male and female sexuality are different.
But in what way can you presume, and that study certainly doesn't, that fact that men are more interested than women, in sex without strings, is simply because they do not like sex per se. According to Fry men and women do not have different ways to enjoy their sexuality, women do not have sexual urges at all, that's why they do not go cruising. What kind of logic is that? It's the total opposite of the study you are quoting. He's sounding like those teenagers that when their girlfriends refuse to reenact what they see in porn movies, go around the school accusing them of being frigid. Men's desires are not the standard for women to follow.
I do not think he can be more clear than this.
"I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want,"
I actually agree with you, although I might not have put it that way. Poor Stephen, he's a real British institution, isn't he? I think he even tested the water with a couple of unsatisfactory heterosexual relationships way back when.
Fact is, men, as you say, have a very different view on sex to women. Women are biologically programmed to find a suitable mate to father their children. Thanks to contraception, women can now enjoy sex as a recreational rather than procreational activity, but the biological programming is still there.
Stephen's views on women and sex are about as informed as the Pope's views on cottaging - passingly interesting, but scarcely likely to change the world.
There is a theory that women are biologically programmed to try and get impregnated by an alpha male then get a gentle beta male type to help her rear the child. Another theory is that during ovulation a woman will try and 'collect' sperm from as many different partners as possible to ensure she gets pregnant by the strongest fastest sperm (which may be why a mans sperm will recognise and fight sperm from another man!)
I like to remind my boyfriend of these theories when he trots out the 'men are biologically programmed to want to shag around' line. It shuts him up pretty quick;)
None of us were there at the interview, but his comments have reminded me of comments made by a former boyfriend of mine, when he told me that all men think about all and every possible sex, with every female, all day, every day. This boyfriend said he'd wondered what anal sex would be like with my sister, and what my mum would be like in bed. I still don't know if this ex was trying to be macho, if he really thought like that, or if he was joking. I think he was being honest - didn't make him a bad person, just that that was his view of sexuality, so he assumed it was the same for all men, and IMO, that's what Mr Fry has done here.
This ex-boyfriend was exaggerating what actually happens, I'd say.
It's just like when you're walking along a street and suddenly the scent of food puts the idea into your mind. You can't avoid the thought.
Since guys seem to be more visually-orientated about sex, we probably get ideas put into our minds more often from the people we see around us, even if in many cases they're ideas we would never seriously consider.
All it might take is someone's mother bending over to pick up the remote control or their sister walking by with her behind at eye-level and, er... yeah.
We don't have to keep thinking about these ideas but we certainly can't avoid them when someone or something prompts them. But there's this temptation to keep thinking them once they appear...
Still, to have said ""don't ever think that" is asking the impossible but to have said "stop thinking that" is entirely reasonable.
I haven't read all this thread, nor do I intend to but anyone who follows Stephen on twitter will know its all bull...
His next to last tweet..."So some f-cking paper misquotes a humorous interview I gave, which itself misquoted me and now I'm the antichrist. I give up."
I know he might be going through a bad time with his bi-polar, but his silly flounces don't do him any favours.
I would imagine that any emotion he's been feeling over all of this is greatly magnified by his condition, his reaction on Twitter might have just been a reaction to the stuff he was reading at the time and the inability to deal with it mentally.
We don't know what else he's got going on his life right now, the interview reaction might just be a straw that broke the camels back and he's lashing out at this one particular thing when in fact it could be far worse than we imagine in his head.
Do you mean like when someone makes a racist joke while in the company solely of others of the same race as themselves, because they think that will be ok?
Well, ish - I meant more like - I'm a computer programmer, if I told a "computer programmer" joke to my colleagues they would probably find it funny whereas if I told the same joke to my friends down the local pub they'd look at me with a bemused expression...
"I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want,"
I'm sorry but I still think this is taken out of context and people are latching onto it far to much, again, when I read that quote I see him getting involved with banter and it just rolling off his tongue in a jokey manner and not intended to be a definitive statement; you said earlier that you were a fan (or used to be) so surely you've heard him come out with statements similar to this many times before while he's been in the moment with a joke?
I haven't read all this thread, nor do I intend to but anyone who follows Stephen on twitter will know its all bull...
His next to last tweet..."So some f-cking paper misquotes a humorous interview I gave, which itself misquoted me and now I'm the antichrist. I give up."
His last one "Bye bye"
If he feels he was misquoted and doesn't want the public questioning what he said, he needs to come back and qualify what his remarks instead of doing a Sooty and going ''Bye bye everybody, bye bye''. (60's kid's TV viewers will get my drift)
I haven't read all this thread, nor do I intend to but anyone who follows Stephen on twitter will know its all bull...
His next to last tweet..."So some f-cking paper misquotes a humorous interview I gave, which itself misquoted me and now I'm the antichrist. I give up."
His last one "Bye bye"
Oh, such melodrama.
Didn't he have a hissy over something else a while back and threaten to quit Twitter......drum roll.....FOREVER??!! :yawn:
I haven't read all this thread, nor do I intend to but anyone who follows Stephen on twitter will know its all bull...
His next to last tweet..."So some f-cking paper misquotes a humorous interview I gave, which itself misquoted me and now I'm the antichrist. I give up."
His last one "Bye bye"
his wasnt misquoted and it wasnt taken out of context.
instead of saying 'yes maybe im wrong' he's had a hissy fit and 'left' twitter. yet again.
btw this is him saying more or less the same thing a while back
i am in the minority in that i am not a fan of s fry
i find his ridiculous baby talk ('ooh bum titty') irritating in the extreme in a grown man
anyone who uses twitter doesnt really want to engage with other people. it isnt real life where you have to listen to them and take in what they say. it is no different from standing on the street and shouting random opinions to people as they walk by.
I thought he was supposed to be intelligent. What an incredibly stupid remark. AND how can he possibly comment on women and sex in the same sentence? Maybe he should retake his IQ test!;)
I don't think he necessarily intended any offense but either way he's done a lot of people a disservice and made himself look a prize pillock into the bargain.
His flippant remarks give credence to a lot of lazy stereotypes
That all gay men are promiscious
That women manipulate men using sex
That men in general are not in control of their sexual urges
That women's ultimate goal is to entrap men in a relationship
To name but a few
Nail on head!
For someone who likes to be "percieved" as intelligent, he shaw is a lazy thinker.
I know of many contradictions to Fry's list you have put together.
Total idiot!
Stephen Fry has sadly become victim to something which I'll refer to as "the clarkson effect", for want of a better classification.
Ie.. you say something, and may not actually be serious when you're saying it, someone quotes the most shocking bits you said, goes off and finds someone from a group that can be loosely linked to the comments who then explains they're shocked and offended by these remarks which do nothing to help with whatever that group represents.
The readers of said article gasp and cry out in horror and the "journalist" involved sits back and watches the fireworks.
I read the interview and thought he come across as a complete arse. I have never liked Stephen Fry, and I don't understand the nations obsession with him. I think he thinks because he is STEPHEN FRY, "the national treasure" he can say anything and people will agree with him. Unfortunately this time it didnt work that way. And now hes sulking. Idiot.
Stephen Fry has sadly become victim to something which I'll refer to as "the clarkson effect", for want of a better classification.
Ie.. you say something, and may not actually be serious when you're saying it, someone quotes the most shocking bits you said, goes off and finds someone from a group that can be loosely linked to the comments who then explains they're shocked and offended by these remarks which do nothing to help with whatever that group represents.
The readers of said article gasp and cry out in horror and the "journalist" involved sits back and watches the fireworks.
This 'controversy' for want of a better word, was a very small part of the piece as you'll know if you've read it. Stephen does love to pontificate, but he needs to do it in a way that doesn't make him sound as if he's presenting his personal opinions as unshakable facts.
It's no good saying 'I was only joking' when it sounds as if you weren't. As I said ^, we're all intelligent enough not to need smilies when we read something, as even the written word has nuances which can be easily seen. The journalist that did the interview was very surprised at what he'd said too. I expect it was printed exactly as Stephen said it, so instead of running away on Twitter, he should have stayed and explained his points.
Nail on head!
For someone who likes to be "percieved" as intelligent, he shaw is a lazy thinker.
I know of many contradictions to Fry's list you have put together.
Total idiot!
I think he must have been joking. It's the "journalists" favourite pastime nowadays. They strip the context, ignore a tone, what was meant as a tongue in cheek comment suddenly becomes a serious response. Fry wouldn't be the first victim. Let that be a warning for the nation's sweetheart that he should be more precise the next time, insist on authorisation of his interviews etc.
Comments
And I find we women like sex with someone we fancy. If we don't like sex then look at the partner! We have to fancy what we **** as the saying goes.
Tiger Woods just sprang into my mind......
His flippant remarks give credence to a lot of lazy stereotypes
To name but a few
I actually agree with you, although I might not have put it that way. Poor Stephen, he's a real British institution, isn't he? I think he even tested the water with a couple of unsatisfactory heterosexual relationships way back when.
Fact is, men, as you say, have a very different view on sex to women. Women are biologically programmed to find a suitable mate to father their children. Thanks to contraception, women can now enjoy sex as a recreational rather than procreational activity, but the biological programming is still there.
Stephen's views on women and sex are about as informed as the Pope's views on cottaging - passingly interesting, but scarcely likely to change the world.
See, there you go again, no one in this thread denies that male and female sexuality are different.
But in what way can you presume, and that study certainly doesn't, that fact that men are more interested than women, in sex without strings, is simply because they do not like sex per se. According to Fry men and women do not have different ways to enjoy their sexuality, women do not have sexual urges at all, that's why they do not go cruising. What kind of logic is that? It's the total opposite of the study you are quoting. He's sounding like those teenagers that when their girlfriends refuse to reenact what they see in porn movies, go around the school accusing them of being frigid. Men's desires are not the standard for women to follow.
I do not think he can be more clear than this.
"I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want,"
There is a theory that women are biologically programmed to try and get impregnated by an alpha male then get a gentle beta male type to help her rear the child. Another theory is that during ovulation a woman will try and 'collect' sperm from as many different partners as possible to ensure she gets pregnant by the strongest fastest sperm (which may be why a mans sperm will recognise and fight sperm from another man!)
I like to remind my boyfriend of these theories when he trots out the 'men are biologically programmed to want to shag around' line. It shuts him up pretty quick;)
This ex-boyfriend was exaggerating what actually happens, I'd say.
It's just like when you're walking along a street and suddenly the scent of food puts the idea into your mind. You can't avoid the thought.
Since guys seem to be more visually-orientated about sex, we probably get ideas put into our minds more often from the people we see around us, even if in many cases they're ideas we would never seriously consider.
All it might take is someone's mother bending over to pick up the remote control or their sister walking by with her behind at eye-level and, er... yeah.
We don't have to keep thinking about these ideas but we certainly can't avoid them when someone or something prompts them. But there's this temptation to keep thinking them once they appear...
Still, to have said ""don't ever think that" is asking the impossible but to have said "stop thinking that" is entirely reasonable.
His next to last tweet..."So some f-cking paper misquotes a humorous interview I gave, which itself misquoted me and now I'm the antichrist. I give up."
His last one "Bye bye"
I would imagine that any emotion he's been feeling over all of this is greatly magnified by his condition, his reaction on Twitter might have just been a reaction to the stuff he was reading at the time and the inability to deal with it mentally.
We don't know what else he's got going on his life right now, the interview reaction might just be a straw that broke the camels back and he's lashing out at this one particular thing when in fact it could be far worse than we imagine in his head.
Well, ish - I meant more like - I'm a computer programmer, if I told a "computer programmer" joke to my colleagues they would probably find it funny whereas if I told the same joke to my friends down the local pub they'd look at me with a bemused expression...
I'm sorry but I still think this is taken out of context and people are latching onto it far to much, again, when I read that quote I see him getting involved with banter and it just rolling off his tongue in a jokey manner and not intended to be a definitive statement; you said earlier that you were a fan (or used to be) so surely you've heard him come out with statements similar to this many times before while he's been in the moment with a joke?
If he feels he was misquoted and doesn't want the public questioning what he said, he needs to come back and qualify what his remarks instead of doing a Sooty and going ''Bye bye everybody, bye bye''. (60's kid's TV viewers will get my drift)
Oh, such melodrama.
Didn't he have a hissy over something else a while back and threaten to quit Twitter......drum roll.....FOREVER??!! :yawn:
his wasnt misquoted and it wasnt taken out of context.
instead of saying 'yes maybe im wrong' he's had a hissy fit and 'left' twitter. yet again.
btw this is him saying more or less the same thing a while back
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A211L382EVI
i find his ridiculous baby talk ('ooh bum titty') irritating in the extreme in a grown man
anyone who uses twitter doesnt really want to engage with other people. it isnt real life where you have to listen to them and take in what they say. it is no different from standing on the street and shouting random opinions to people as they walk by.
that has just put very rude thorts into myhead!!!:)
Nail on head!
For someone who likes to be "percieved" as intelligent, he shaw is a lazy thinker.
I know of many contradictions to Fry's list you have put together.
Total idiot!
Ie.. you say something, and may not actually be serious when you're saying it, someone quotes the most shocking bits you said, goes off and finds someone from a group that can be loosely linked to the comments who then explains they're shocked and offended by these remarks which do nothing to help with whatever that group represents.
The readers of said article gasp and cry out in horror and the "journalist" involved sits back and watches the fireworks.
He seems to think his opinions are fact or should be treated as such, when he clearly has done no research on the subject!
This 'controversy' for want of a better word, was a very small part of the piece as you'll know if you've read it. Stephen does love to pontificate, but he needs to do it in a way that doesn't make him sound as if he's presenting his personal opinions as unshakable facts.
It's no good saying 'I was only joking' when it sounds as if you weren't. As I said ^, we're all intelligent enough not to need smilies when we read something, as even the written word has nuances which can be easily seen. The journalist that did the interview was very surprised at what he'd said too. I expect it was printed exactly as Stephen said it, so instead of running away on Twitter, he should have stayed and explained his points.
I think he must have been joking. It's the "journalists" favourite pastime nowadays. They strip the context, ignore a tone, what was meant as a tongue in cheek comment suddenly becomes a serious response. Fry wouldn't be the first victim. Let that be a warning for the nation's sweetheart that he should be more precise the next time, insist on authorisation of his interviews etc.