"According to this study and the overwhelming weight of the evidence, it is clear: there are sex differences. In everyday life, people continue to be exposed to these differences and only an honest approach to the expression of sex differences will allow us to fully understand them.
From a clinical perspective, it is worrisome to consider the effects of claims that there are no differences when indeed there are, have on the emotional climate of couples experiencing differences. In such cases, experts claiming that there are no differences will be inducing guilt and shame in females, and doubt and worry in males, and increase the number of couples experiencing differences in sexual desire that believe there is something wrong in their relationship. Thereby ideological claims of similarity aimed at not suppressing female sexuality, might be causing females to feel pressure into having sex they do not desire."
No, he doesn't. He's not your parent, your doctor, your bank manager or your priest and thus has no obligation to consider what effect his opinion has on you or the readers of Attitude magazine. His sole obligation is to remain within the law and, morally, to be honest.
He has nothing to apologise for.
Mouthing off his opinions is what the magazine wanted him to do. It's why the article was commissioned. The media thinks people are interested in what certain people have to say. Presumably, their sales figures support this belief. Stephen is not "mouthing off" for the sake of it or in any way indicating that he is God and that the public have to agree with his opinions. This type of hyperbole is far sillier, in my opinion, than anything he said in that interview about how he sees the world.
Hardly, since within the context of what he was talking about, that was his point.
I do not think he has to apologise, at all.
But the same way he feels feels entitled to give his opinion with no regard for the public, the public is also free to criticise him back, and remember what his view are, every time that decides to change the channel when confronted with his programmes or when faced with the possibility to buy his books, deciding for someone else.
Plus there is a big difference between an opinion and an ignorant affirmation that can be scientifically proven otherwise.
All of you who are "outraged" have never had something you've said taken out of context and repeated to others in a completely untrue light then I take it?
... Of couse you have, anyone who tries to say otherwise is either 10 or incredibly naive.
This is exactly what's happened here except on a much grander scale.
It's pathetic that he should be the subject of such "outrage" by people who should quite frankly know better than to believe what's written in the media.
"According to this study and the overwhelming weight of the evidence, it is clear: there are sex differences. In everyday life, people continue to be exposed to these differences and only an honest approach to the expression of sex differences will allow us to fully understand them.
From a clinical perspective, it is worrisome to consider the effects of claims that there are no differences when indeed there are, have on the emotional climate of couples experiencing differences. In such cases, experts claiming that there are no differences will be inducing guilt and shame in females, and doubt and worry in males, and increase the number of couples experiencing differences in sexual desire that believe there is something wrong in their relationship. Thereby ideological claims of similarity aimed at not suppressing female sexuality, might be causing females to feel pressure into having sex they do not desire."
Did anyone in this thread claimed that men and women's sexuality is exactly the same? Please take me to that post.
Did anyone in this thread claimed that men and women's sexuality is exactly the same? Please take me to that post.
Exactly. We've all acknowledged that there are differences, but his assertion that women only have sex to keep men is not one of the differences, something his defenders seem to be missing.
No, he doesn't. He's not your parent, your doctor, your bank manager or your priest and thus has no obligation to consider what effect his opinion has on you or the readers of Attitude magazine. His sole obligation is to remain within the law and, morally, to be honest.
He has nothing to apologise for.
Mouthing off his opinions is what the magazine wanted him to do. It's why the article was commissioned. The media thinks people are interested in what certain people have to say. Presumably, their sales figures support this belief. Stephen is not "mouthing off" for the sake of it or in any way indicating that he is God and that the public have to agree with his opinions. This type of hyperbole is far sillier, in my opinion, than anything he said in that interview about how he sees the world.
Hardly, since within the context of what he was talking about, that was his point.
I was not speaking of myself but of impressionable people who take the opinions of celebrities on board.Mr fry has an intellectual persona and people may take: what are merely uninformed personal opinions as facts from some actual report..Look at the amount of people who are influenced by celebrities.like Jordan.
He stated his opinions as facts, that is the problem.Opinions without any real experience or knowledge to back them.Stating that women only tolerate sex to gain a relationship being the worst.He may have his opinions as we all do but needs to ensure he says they are personal opinions not established facts.Does he know every woman on planet earth enough to establish their sex drive,I think not.
BTW plenty of men have low sex drives, so men should not be generalized about either.Sexuality is an individual thing based on many factors, emotion, hormone levels and age.It cant be generalized about.
You also have the matters of self control and morals to contend with.Promiscuity is not seen as an attractive trait in a partner or people in general.It leads to unwanted pregnancy and STDs. and makes it hard to establish trust.
It is illegal to engage in sex in public or public areas for good reason, it is inappropriate.IMo some people male and female like sex in high risk situations rather than having high sex drives.At home in bed they might feel differently, the risk of being caught being the turn -on.To feel sexual they need a bit of kink and risk. Like taking drugs, you need more and more to get the high. Not very healthy really.
All of you who are "outraged" have never had something you've said taken out of context and repeated to others in a completely untrue light then I take it?
... Of couse you have, anyone who tries to say otherwise is either 10 or incredibly naive.
This is exactly what's happened here except on a much grander scale.
It's pathetic that he should be the subject of such "outrage" by people who should quite frankly know better than to believe what's written in the media.
I sincerely do not Know how he can taken out of context about the same subject several times, in several situations and when the reporter already came forward saying that it was exactly what he said and that he thought at the time those affirmations were quite strange coming from someone like Fry.
If Fry feels in any way misquoted he should have demanded an apology already.
I sincerely do not Know how he can taken out of context about the same subject several times, in several situations and when the reporter already came forward saying that it was exactly what he said and that he thought at the time those affirmations were quite strange coming from someone like Fry.
If Fry feels in any way misquoted he should have demanded an apology already.
It's his sense of humour, something which is quite evident if you've read his interviews, seen him interviewed on TV - It's just the way he is, harmless enough stuff when taken in context with the rest of the jokey atmosphere - But taken and printed verbatium with no explanation behind it... It's likely to offend.
Find almost any stand up comic routine - Start about half way through the show and pick out a joke out of it and then read how it may look if you didn't know the context that it came from, without the jokes that came before it in the same way.
Of course the reporter is going to add fuel to the fire for his interview .. Get more people reading it etc.
Exactly. We've all acknowledged that there are differences, but his assertion that women only have sex to keep men is not one of the differences, something his defenders seem to be missing.
I agree. It would be absurd to claim something like that.
Fortunately woman enjoy sex as much as men. Men do not own the monopoly of the "right way to enjoy sex".
He stated his opinions as facts, that is the problem.
What, like, starting the contentious passage saying "I think most straight men..." How could he had better have expressed that he was giving his opinion?
Neither men nor women can generalised about. There are men who don't like sex. There are women who don't like sex. However, generalizations can say something about one's impression of how the majority of men and women feel. To ban people from using generalizations as an aid to discussion seems a little radical to me.
See? Viridiana surely isn't really saying that she's speaking for all women.
Does anyone have a link to where the reporter, Mr. Flynn, made statements about the context of the interview? I've only seen the Observer report where he did not.
It's his sense of humour, something which is quite evident if you've read his interviews, seen him interviewed on TV - It's just the way he is, harmless enough stuff when taken in context with the rest of the jokey atmosphere - But taken and printed verbatium with no explanation behind it... It's likely to offend.
Find almost any stand up comic routine - Start about half way through the show and pick out a joke out of it and then read how it may look if you didn't know the context that it came from, without the jokes that came before it in the same way.
Of course the reporter is going to add fuel to the fire for his interview .. Get more people reading it etc.
I used to watch his programmes religiously. I'm very familiar with his humour. And like you said, compared to other comedians, it's usually harmless stuff, but his this harmless?
One thing is a persona and the public is expecting a certain opinion, a certain type of joke, look at Jimmy Carr, another is the fact that Fry besides being a comedian , also makes a career as serious character, he wants some of his opinion to be taken seriously. He does not inhabit a character 24/7. What type of Joke was he making? What type of part was he trying to play? The misogynist? Since when that is part of his act?
Why would the interviewer, and of Attitude magazine from all places, say that to a newspaper like the Observer when he can be sued by Fry if it's not true? Why is Fry not demanding an apology but just acting like a kid with a tantrum?
I don't think there is one. Does there have to be such a post to find that study interesting?
What, like, starting the contentious passage saying "I think most straight men..." How could he had better have expressed that he was giving his opinion?
Neither men nor women can generalised about. There are men who don't like sex. There are women who don't like sex. However, generalizations can say something about one's impression of how the majority of men and women feel. To ban people from using generalizations as an aid to discussion seems a little radical to me.
See? Viridiana surely isn't really saying that she's speaking for all women.
Does anyone have a link to where the reporter, Mr. Flynn, made statements about the context of the interview? I've only seen the Observer report where he did not.
Yes women enjoy sex as much as men. They have the capability to enjoy sex as much as men. That is a fact.
Not all men enjoy sex not all woman enjoy sex, just facts.
So they both enjoy it.
Very different from.
"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 don't think he has done himself any favours by flouncing off of Twitter (again), he's just coming off as a sulk and a drama queen. If he feels he has been misquoted then he should just have set the record straight, not made a big deal out of it. If you search his name on Twitter, a lot of people are quite unimpressed.
About 90 if not more women love Dxxk, even if it happends to be a strap on or vib, the guy is a total idiot and discredits women into these poor creatures that have to put up with men there dreadfull behviour and needs[playing women as the eternal victim]. He should stop surounding himself with halfwits and yes people and he might actualy be able to form a credible opinion.
He obviously knows nothing about lesbian relations either, in which there are sluty females, but its harder to be niavely flirtatious etc when women know all those games.
What type of Joke was he making? What type of part was he trying to play? The misogynist? Since when that is part of his act?
Why would the interviewer, and of Attitude magazine from all places, say that to a newspaper like the Observer when he can be sued by Fry if it's not true? Why is Fry not demanding an apology but just acting like a kid with a tantrum?
I'd of the opinion that he was making a joke to the core audience of the magazine in question and not really understanding the implications it might have outside the context of the magazine and by people who don't understand his lifestyle like many of the readers of Attitude may do.
I've no doubt he did say it, I'm not trying to say he didn't.
I'm just saying what he did say was taken out of context - Mr Fry could have easily been referencing an earlier, private joke he had with the interviewer; it might not have even part of the same day if he'd met the interviewer before.
Lets also not forget that what he said in that interview was inherently true, women don't indulge themselves in the same kind of lifestyle as homosexual men and therefore the comment made by him ("find it difficult to believe that women are as interested in sex as they are") can be qualified in the context of a "humerous interview" - Which he has claimed he meant, and I for one believe him after knowing his work and his sense of humour for years.
He goes onto say;
"For good reason," Fry told the gay monthly. "If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas.
"Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking, 'God, I've got to get my f**king rocks off', or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush. It doesn't happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it."
To me, I imagine those quotes meant in a light hearted manner, similar to his banter on QI, he doesn't actually mean it, he's just having a laugh and playing along making a joke out of his own lifestyle choices which in itself is often a source of humour and derogatory remarks made against himself and others like him.
Stephen Fry in another non-news story shocker. Yawn
Let's be honest Stephen Fry is a homosexual who knows nothing about normal sex never mind women.
Depends what you mean by 'normal'.
What's normal to one person isn't necessarily regarded as so by another person regardless of their gender or sexuality.
I don't think he has done himself any favours by flouncing off of Twitter (again), he's just coming off as a sulk and a drama queen. If he feels he has been misquoted then he should just have set the record straight, not made a big deal out of it. If you search his name on Twitter, a lot of people are quite unimpressed.
You're absolutely right.
If he'd stayed and either qualified or backed up his argument, I might have been able to see his points, but when a grown man does a silly flounce because he feels hard done by, I've got no sympathy. If he truly believed in the rightness of what he was saying, he wouldn't have closed his Twitter account.
Yes women enjoy sex as much as men. They have the capability to enjoy sex as much as men. That is a fact.
Not all men enjoy sex not all woman enjoy sex, just facts.
So they both enjoy it.
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.
I don't think he has done himself any favours by flouncing off of Twitter (again), he's just coming off as a sulk and a drama queen. If he feels he has been misquoted then he should just have set the record straight, not made a big deal out of it. If you search his name on Twitter, a lot of people are quite unimpressed.
You're absolutely right.
If he'd stayed and either qualified or backed up his argument, I might have been able to see his points, but when a grown man does a silly flounce because he feels hard done by, I've got no sympathy. If he truly believed in the rightness of what he was saying, he wouldn't have closed his Twitter account.
Yeah - I agree with this as well - Though, it's often the case with these things that you've hung drawn and quartered by most people before you've got the chance to explain yourself which I'm guessing is why he took the actions he did.
Lets face it, his explanations would never be reported and or commented on as much as the original interview unfortunately; kind of like the second rate "apologies" the tabloids give buried on the 5th page when they've ran stories for days on the front page that were incorrect
Yeah - I agree with this as well - Though, it's often the case with these things that you've hung drawn and quartered by most people before you've got the chance to explain yourself which I'm guessing is why he took the actions he did.
Lets face it, his explanations would never be reported and or commented on as much as the original interview unfortunately; kind of like the second rate "apologies" the tabloids give buried on the 5th page when they've ran stories for days on the front page that were incorrect
I just think it's a bit pathetic when a mature man of Stephen's intelligence can't cope when he's told he's making wide generalisations on a subject he knows next to nothing about. I know he might be going through a bad time with his bi-polar, but his silly flounces don't do him any favours.
This time last year he made comments about Polish people's involvement in the Holocaust for which he had to apologise. To me anyway, this shows a great ability for making statements before he puts his brain in gear on a regular basis.
I'd of the opinion that he was making a joke to the core audience of the magazine in question and not really understanding the implications it might have outside the context of the magazine and by people who don't understand his lifestyle like many of the readers of Attitude may do.
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?
It's certainly true that a lot (I'm not saying 'all' or 'most') of gay men do think that only a man can truly satisfy another man. I wonder if that was his point of reference.
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?
Like when black people call each other the N word?
when a grown man does a silly flounce because he feels hard done by, I've got no sympathy.
He flounces when he's under pressure. We've seen it more than once. It's a by-product of his mental condition which is not cured by pills. Compassion, in my opinion, is the appropriate response. Clearly, mileage varies.
Like when black people call each other the N word?
No, not like that.
The equivalent to that would be a group of gay men referring to themselves with the Q word, not a gay man making insulting comments about straight women. The equivalent would be a white person making a P*ki joke in the company of other white people.
Comments
Very interesting study:
"According to this study and the overwhelming weight of the evidence, it is clear: there are sex differences. In everyday life, people continue to be exposed to these differences and only an honest approach to the expression of sex differences will allow us to fully understand them.
From a clinical perspective, it is worrisome to consider the effects of claims that there are no differences when indeed there are, have on the emotional climate of couples experiencing differences. In such cases, experts claiming that there are no differences will be inducing guilt and shame in females, and doubt and worry in males, and increase the number of couples experiencing differences in sexual desire that believe there is something wrong in their relationship. Thereby ideological claims of similarity aimed at not suppressing female sexuality, might be causing females to feel pressure into having sex they do not desire."
I do not think he has to apologise, at all.
But the same way he feels feels entitled to give his opinion with no regard for the public, the public is also free to criticise him back, and remember what his view are, every time that decides to change the channel when confronted with his programmes or when faced with the possibility to buy his books, deciding for someone else.
Plus there is a big difference between an opinion and an ignorant affirmation that can be scientifically proven otherwise.
All of you who are "outraged" have never had something you've said taken out of context and repeated to others in a completely untrue light then I take it?
... Of couse you have, anyone who tries to say otherwise is either 10 or incredibly naive.
This is exactly what's happened here except on a much grander scale.
It's pathetic that he should be the subject of such "outrage" by people who should quite frankly know better than to believe what's written in the media.
Did anyone in this thread claimed that men and women's sexuality is exactly the same? Please take me to that post.
Exactly. We've all acknowledged that there are differences, but his assertion that women only have sex to keep men is not one of the differences, something his defenders seem to be missing.
I was not speaking of myself but of impressionable people who take the opinions of celebrities on board.Mr fry has an intellectual persona and people may take: what are merely uninformed personal opinions as facts from some actual report..Look at the amount of people who are influenced by celebrities.like Jordan.
He stated his opinions as facts, that is the problem.Opinions without any real experience or knowledge to back them.Stating that women only tolerate sex to gain a relationship being the worst.He may have his opinions as we all do but needs to ensure he says they are personal opinions not established facts.Does he know every woman on planet earth enough to establish their sex drive,I think not.
BTW plenty of men have low sex drives, so men should not be generalized about either.Sexuality is an individual thing based on many factors, emotion, hormone levels and age.It cant be generalized about.
You also have the matters of self control and morals to contend with.Promiscuity is not seen as an attractive trait in a partner or people in general.It leads to unwanted pregnancy and STDs. and makes it hard to establish trust.
It is illegal to engage in sex in public or public areas for good reason, it is inappropriate.IMo some people male and female like sex in high risk situations rather than having high sex drives.At home in bed they might feel differently, the risk of being caught being the turn -on.To feel sexual they need a bit of kink and risk. Like taking drugs, you need more and more to get the high. Not very healthy really.
I sincerely do not Know how he can taken out of context about the same subject several times, in several situations and when the reporter already came forward saying that it was exactly what he said and that he thought at the time those affirmations were quite strange coming from someone like Fry.
If Fry feels in any way misquoted he should have demanded an apology already.
It's his sense of humour, something which is quite evident if you've read his interviews, seen him interviewed on TV - It's just the way he is, harmless enough stuff when taken in context with the rest of the jokey atmosphere - But taken and printed verbatium with no explanation behind it... It's likely to offend.
Find almost any stand up comic routine - Start about half way through the show and pick out a joke out of it and then read how it may look if you didn't know the context that it came from, without the jokes that came before it in the same way.
Of course the reporter is going to add fuel to the fire for his interview .. Get more people reading it etc.
I agree. It would be absurd to claim something like that.
Fortunately woman enjoy sex as much as men. Men do not own the monopoly of the "right way to enjoy sex".
I don't think there is one. Does there have to be such a post to find that study interesting?
What, like, starting the contentious passage saying "I think most straight men..." How could he had better have expressed that he was giving his opinion?
Neither men nor women can generalised about. There are men who don't like sex. There are women who don't like sex. However, generalizations can say something about one's impression of how the majority of men and women feel. To ban people from using generalizations as an aid to discussion seems a little radical to me.
See? Viridiana surely isn't really saying that she's speaking for all women.
Does anyone have a link to where the reporter, Mr. Flynn, made statements about the context of the interview? I've only seen the Observer report where he did not.
I used to watch his programmes religiously. I'm very familiar with his humour. And like you said, compared to other comedians, it's usually harmless stuff, but his this harmless?
One thing is a persona and the public is expecting a certain opinion, a certain type of joke, look at Jimmy Carr, another is the fact that Fry besides being a comedian , also makes a career as serious character, he wants some of his opinion to be taken seriously. He does not inhabit a character 24/7. What type of Joke was he making? What type of part was he trying to play? The misogynist? Since when that is part of his act?
Why would the interviewer, and of Attitude magazine from all places, say that to a newspaper like the Observer when he can be sued by Fry if it's not true? Why is Fry not demanding an apology but just acting like a kid with a tantrum?
Yes women enjoy sex as much as men. They have the capability to enjoy sex as much as men. That is a fact.
Not all men enjoy sex not all woman enjoy sex, just facts.
So they both enjoy it.
Very different from.
"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,"
Let's be honest Stephen Fry is a homosexual who knows nothing about normal sex never mind women.
He obviously knows nothing about lesbian relations either, in which there are sluty females, but its harder to be niavely flirtatious etc when women know all those games.
I'd of the opinion that he was making a joke to the core audience of the magazine in question and not really understanding the implications it might have outside the context of the magazine and by people who don't understand his lifestyle like many of the readers of Attitude may do.
I've no doubt he did say it, I'm not trying to say he didn't.
I'm just saying what he did say was taken out of context - Mr Fry could have easily been referencing an earlier, private joke he had with the interviewer; it might not have even part of the same day if he'd met the interviewer before.
Lets also not forget that what he said in that interview was inherently true, women don't indulge themselves in the same kind of lifestyle as homosexual men and therefore the comment made by him ("find it difficult to believe that women are as interested in sex as they are") can be qualified in the context of a "humerous interview" - Which he has claimed he meant, and I for one believe him after knowing his work and his sense of humour for years.
He goes onto say;
"For good reason," Fry told the gay monthly. "If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas.
"Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking, 'God, I've got to get my f**king rocks off', or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush. It doesn't happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it."
To me, I imagine those quotes meant in a light hearted manner, similar to his banter on QI, he doesn't actually mean it, he's just having a laugh and playing along making a joke out of his own lifestyle choices which in itself is often a source of humour and derogatory remarks made against himself and others like him.
Depends what you mean by 'normal'.
What's normal to one person isn't necessarily regarded as so by another person regardless of their gender or sexuality.
You're absolutely right.
If he'd stayed and either qualified or backed up his argument, I might have been able to see his points, but when a grown man does a silly flounce because he feels hard done by, I've got no sympathy. If he truly believed in the rightness of what he was saying, he wouldn't have closed his Twitter account.
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.
Yeah - I agree with this as well - Though, it's often the case with these things that you've hung drawn and quartered by most people before you've got the chance to explain yourself which I'm guessing is why he took the actions he did.
Lets face it, his explanations would never be reported and or commented on as much as the original interview unfortunately; kind of like the second rate "apologies" the tabloids give buried on the 5th page when they've ran stories for days on the front page that were incorrect
I just think it's a bit pathetic when a mature man of Stephen's intelligence can't cope when he's told he's making wide generalisations on a subject he knows next to nothing about. I know he might be going through a bad time with his bi-polar, but his silly flounces don't do him any favours.
This time last year he made comments about Polish people's involvement in the Holocaust for which he had to apologise. To me anyway, this shows a great ability for making statements before he puts his brain in gear on a regular basis.
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?
It's certainly true that a lot (I'm not saying 'all' or 'most') of gay men do think that only a man can truly satisfy another man. I wonder if that was his point of reference.
Like when black people call each other the N word?
He flounces when he's under pressure. We've seen it more than once. It's a by-product of his mental condition which is not cured by pills. Compassion, in my opinion, is the appropriate response. Clearly, mileage varies.
And with that, I'm going back to my book.
The equivalent to that would be a group of gay men referring to themselves with the Q word, not a gay man making insulting comments about straight women. The equivalent would be a white person making a P*ki joke in the company of other white people.
Get it now?