Quote Originally Posted by Steampunkette View Post
Political Correctness does not assume or paint men as being controlled by their groin. That is the standard chauvinistic excuse for sexual harrassment or infidelity which is meant to excuse a guy's behavior.
Eh, no.

The chauvinistic standard stems from an earlier, now inverted societal expectation: that all women are lustful.

The Lystrasia Gambit is the name of the trope wherein women deny their men sex in order to compel them to a certain behavior or deed. In modern fiction, this is seen (on the surface and played straight) as a powerful tool that is highly believable; men can't live without sex (never mind, for instance, there are men who are in their 30s and still virgins) and will ultimately break down in the face of needing their "fix."

In the time period from whence this tale comes, however, it was seen as a comedic act, more akin to how it would be seen now if men were to tell their women that they're witholding sex until the women change their behavior in some way.

Victorian-era social expectations were similar.

That is, at that time, it was believed that women were lustful, sensual beings who had to exercise rigid self-control and be kept away from all temptation lest they succomb to their lusts. "Lie back and think of England" was more Edwardian, IIRC, when the Victorian-era reputation for coldness became thought of as the natural state rather than a necessary iron control to overcome said natural state.

So the more chauvanistic attitude tends to portray men as non-predatory because the women are all but begging for sex, so all she needs is "an excuse."

The idea that women really aren't as interested as men, and that men are unable to think with anything but their genitals, is not "pro-man." I've seen very few instances where it was honestly used as an excuse (Piers Anthony's works being about it; he was born a dirty old man and has gotten dirtier as he's gotten older). It is typically used to portray men in a negative light. It's not an excuse; it's proof they're baser, more animalistic, and not to be trusted. It's also the source of certain double-standards in both fiction and reality, centering around the idea that men don't ever mean "no," unless the sexual partner is hideously undesirable (in which case it's usually portrayed as some sort of righteous cummuppance to show men what it's like to be pursued unwillingly).


There are times it's played more accurately, but political correctness means that men being portrayed in those fashions is "acceptable" and won't raise a loud outcry the way it would if the sexes were reversed.