How can someone be a male and be a feminist at the same time?

[oldbadger]

But its not just a womans movement. Its a movement for men who loves ballet as well. To those that doesnt fit in the normal ideal of how a man is supposed to be. And to every man who actually wants the women close to them to have equal rights to men.

Hi Kerr....... It looks as if Uberono.... has gone! I hope he might come back.

I can't pick up from him because I hold a different viewpoint, but I was interested in your sentence which I have underlined.
Do you mean that Male ballet-dancers are feminist?

All the best,

 

[oldbadger]

I never said egalitarians support male privilege, I meant that an egalitarian may not even believe that such privilege exists, and therefore aren't feminists. Feminists believe patriarchy and male privilege exists which is why someone would rather call themselves a feminist over egalitarian.

You wrote, in bold, within my post, 'I don't really care.' I'm really sad that you wrote that. Caring is a massive part of egalitarianism and feminism. Without care you cannot empathise. Without empathy you cannot seek to show, teach, promote, demonstrate (small d), guide........ understand.

I tell you this, I care. I care about what feminism means to me:- equal rights, opportunities, freedoms, choices, speech, securities, ....... oh, equality in every way. Why would I not? The center and focus of my life is a woman.

However badly I might have put this, it is intended as heartfelt rather than a stone thrown.
-----------------------------------------
Later, you wrote:- an egalitarian may not even believe that such privilege exists,.....
Yes........ this could happen. So there would be an egalitarian heart who needed to be guided and shown yet another truth. An egalitarian would then respond. You would know the truth then, if that person responded, or ignored.

I have met Feminists (every sort of person you could think of) who have not seen conditions, and needed to be shown.

I have learned too much on this RF site to claim that I have not been introduced to many conditions that I was hitherto unaware of...... (I have learned loads) did that make me less of an egalitarian? I responded, and so wish to retain this newly acquired title.

It is for you to decide what you might have learned, true?

 

[oldbadger]

I wasn't choosing your title. I was using what was kinda of apparent from your text that egalitarianism was used by ya earlier to refer to everyone having equal protection under the law. It seemed kinda obvious when you were mentioning your egalitarianism earlier that you weren't referring to like... a Marxist egalitarianism or anything.

Dust1n..... your writing broke up there a bit. That underlined part. I like the idea of equal protection under law, or any other wise, but did I write those words? I forget, but can't remember them. It's not an issue, because I don't mind them.

Marxism....... Karl Marx wrote some beautiful words, I'm just sad that they evaporated away once dictatorship grasped that huge nation. Stalin by comparison, was the exact antithesis of Karl Marx's ideas. What I know of Marxism, I like.

I would guess that you respect Karl Marx as well. Did you know he is buried in London? Highgate Cemetery. I somehow think that you knew this.

 

[oldbadger]

Jesus, what a low quality response. Dust1n out.

Now I don't think that was such a bad post. When you reply in this kind of way, I believe I might have touched some important chord, somewhere.

Come on then, what do you think about hierarchy, forces, police, law, community services etc?

And what do you think about egalitarian luck? Natural luck is an interesting subject. Some are super strong, others super memory, others still, super intellect. All are lucky, but many forget their luck, such as the super intellects. These appear on this site, posting silly remarks about those who have missed a point, or shown poor brainpower.... this is bullying, no less than the giant scoffing at the dwarf.

I do need to get over my knee-jerk reactions to the physical ones, because I have taken some hidings in my life by 'going in'. I think many Brits are short circuited on that one.

No offence meant........ it's only a bloody debate.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

You wrote, in bold, within my post, 'I don't really care.' I'm really sad that you wrote that. Caring is a massive part of egalitarianism and feminism. Without care you cannot empathise. Without empathy you cannot seek to show, teach, promote, demonstrate (small d), guide........ understand.

I tell you this, I care. I care about what feminism means to me:- equal rights, opportunities, freedoms, choices, speech, securities, ....... oh, equality in every way. Why would I not? The center and focus of my life is a woman.

I often write bold within people's posts, because I'm on my phone and its a mission to quote and unquote stuff, so I don't bother. I quote all of it and comment in between the quote.
I meant I don't care if people think I'm weak because I'm not giving examples of patriarchy in the UK. We have only had one white female prime minister, there is an example right there.
The thread isn't about proving that patriarchy exists in or outside the UK anyway, it's about if men can be feminists.

 

[dust1n]

Now I don't think that was such a bad post. When you reply in this kind of way, I believe I might have touched some important chord, somewhere.

Sorry, it just seemed like you were taking offense by what I read from all your posts regarding egalitarianism, which is frustrating, because I can only infer from the text what is not explicitly stated. When we talk about egalitarianism from a civic or legal standpoint, we are referring to the law applying the same to everyone (even though, hopefully, both acknowledge that there will never be a perfect manifestation of this). Most people of Western influence agree with civic egalitarianism. People who think otherwise tend to be.. well racists or sexist, at least a civic one, if that means anything. But it's not the only type of egalitarianism. I was assuming this is the one you were referencing this entire time, because you linked us the the law, and mentioned that a few times.

It's very different, then say, Marx's egalitarianism, ya know, where we are all equal... monetarily, as contributors to society, which, almost no one in the West finds particularly valuable.

Come on then, what do you think about hierarchy, forces, police, law, community services etc?

Well, it's complicated. I'm a post-anarchist, so my influences and understanding of hierarchy and authority come from anarchist, particularly from Bakunin. I also draw a ton of influence from early 20th century anarchy-communism (a/k/a libertarian socialism) and especially the practical applications, such as during the Spanish Revolution. To put this incredibly and inappropriately short, as a post-anarchist I'm also inclined to some of the revelations of post-structuralism; the most relevant point being that language and empirical descriptions of the world are still very weak and then are notions of legitimate truth are much more shaky than we would particularly like it to be. Interpretation plays a major part in the function of language and describing various aspects of relatively. This is important for anarchism, because notions like 'liberty' and 'freedom' and 'equality' and 'egalitarian society' are much less defined, and do not represent a single notion that applies in every circumstance. Cutting to the point, my goal in society is the perfect of application of 'liberty' and 'equality,' something thought traditionally to be dichotomous, or exclusive entities, but not so in anarcho-communism. On a personal level, I note that our ideals of liberty and equality are never going to be perfect and that there is no type of society that can a perfect reflection of these. How this translate into application, is that people should seek to increase both equality and liberty simultaneously to their fullest extent, in any small step available. Equality and liberty are things we endlessly strive for, not things we acquire and then someone retain forever just by having acquired it. The limits of equality and liberty in society are unknown.

Most anarchists agree that a society is generally incredibly localized, the least capitalistic, or exploitative as it could be, with giving mutual aid to others when it can be given or is needed, with voluntary associated (and democratic) federations localized. Direct democracy and all that jazz.

And what do you think about egalitarian luck? Natural luck is an interesting subject. Some are super strong, others super memory, others still, super intellect. All are lucky, but many forget their luck, such as the super intellects. These appear on this site, posting silly remarks about those who have missed a point, or shown poor brainpower.... this is bullying, no less than the giant scoffing at the dwarf.

It's obviously a huge influence, or else we wouldn't have rights for the handicapped, or benefits for kids whose parents die at a young age, or programs designed to help the poor at all. All of these are acknowledgements that life is unfair and that we, as a society, should, to the extent that we can must resemble 'fair & equal opportunity,' address this a collection of individuals.

I do need to get over my knee-jerk reactions to the physical ones, because I have taken some hidings in my life by 'going in'. I think many Brits are short circuited on that one.

No offence meant........ it's only a bloody debate.

Don't sweat it. I really don't take offense or get personal. I'm sure I would fare well in Britain, what with the propensity to drink, riot and debate passionately but, somehow, with no emotion involved what so ever.

 

[dust1n]

Dust1n..... your writing broke up there a bit. That underlined part. I like the idea of equal protection under law, or any other wise, but did I write those words? I forget, but can't remember them. It's not an issue, because I don't mind them.

No, you just referenced that British law a bunch of times as something that kinda affirms the notion that egalitarianism has already been achieved.

Marxism....... Karl Marx wrote some beautiful words, I'm just sad that they evaporated away once dictatorship grasped that huge nation. Stalin by comparison, was the exact antithesis of Karl Marx's ideas. What I know of Marxism, I like.

I would guess that you respect Karl Marx as well. Did you know he is buried in London? Highgate Cemetery. I somehow think that you knew this.

Marxism was just a guy with the best intentions and an impoverished death, whose ideas were used to justifiy some of the most terrible things in humanity. Yet he gets the wrap for all this terrible stuff. Poor guy.

I thought the KGB had his brain, along with Bakunin's and Stalin's and a bunch of highly regarded Russian intellectuals.

 

[Kerr]

Hi Kerr....... It looks as if Uberono.... has gone! I hope he might come back.

I can't pick up from him because I hold a different viewpoint, but I was interested in your sentence which I have underlined.
Do you mean that Male ballet-dancers are feminist?

All the best,

Lol, no, I was thinking that by fighting for the rights of women we also combat the stereotypes and gender roles that constrain men as well. I could be wrong, but ballet is typically labeled as a thing for women, and the men that does it are labeled as feminine. That is in all honesty a prejudice of mine, but thats my point. Feminism helps not only women but also men to get rid of those kinds of prejudices.

Maybe it wasnt the best example.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Oh, please do hang around!! These threads don't get interesting until 60 pages long! I'm beginning to be interested in some of the mindsets.

You would be better off not trying to figure out why some of these people think the way they do and just tell them to “get with the times”.

For the most part, it’s an “us vs. them” mentality. As in, if you aren’t with us (i.e. if you aren’t a feminist) then you are against us, which we already know isn’t the case. So anyone who takes that position has already failed with their position of calling themselves a feminist because they have failed to acknowledge their core belief of equality and equal rights since equality involves accepting diversity. Maybe they have a hard time believing or understanding equality and equal rights. That would be my best guess, but I’m not going to spend a lot of time speculating why people continue to have this mindset when there are plenty of people who have already moved beyond these issues of equality to accept pro-feminism and have already acknowledged women as having equal rights and opportunities.

So you will continue to get badgered Oldbadger. I personally don’t enjoy debating people like this and the more I do the more I dislike feminism and people who claim to be feminist. Although I will admit, I have a hard time believing that any of these people are feminist (or supportive of feminism), mainly because their views on this topic have been so distorted, if any are then its just a few.

… just something to take into consideration.

Have fun debating the rest of this. I might pick it back up later, but as of right now I have other things I need to do. I'm a busy man. lol

 

[oldbadger]

I often write bold within people's posts, because I'm on my phone and its a mission to quote and unquote stuff, so I don't bother. I quote all of it and comment in between the quote.

Cool! I haven't got a smart phone and so don't understand all that yet!

I meant I don't care if people think I'm weak because I'm not giving examples of patriarchy in the UK. We have only had one white female prime minister, there is an example right there.

Don't hold your breath.
Germany, Australia, Iceland...... USA could have gotten one last time but one.
In Thatcher's years, 1 MP in 20 was female. Today I think the number is 1 MP in 5. Climbing steadily.

The thread isn't about proving that patriarchy exists in or outside the UK anyway, it's about if men can be feminists.

OK..... but you mentioned it.
Now I have agreed, from start of thread until now, that males can be feminist. But I have questioned why men (and women) might not move forward to either egalitarianism (or humanitarianism), since this expands the horizon far beyond whilst including all.
Our UK politicians are clearly on board with that, because the new all-encompassing Equality Act is just that...... It is not a Feminism Act, goes much further.
Come to think of it, the North American Feminism does not seem to get included in US State or Federal Laws, at least I've never seen one. I do see the words 'Civil Rights' encompassing close to what we call Equality.

 

[Alceste]

You would be better off not trying to figure out why some of these people think the way they do and just tell them to “get with the times”.

For the most part, it’s an “us vs. them” mentality. As in, if you aren’t with us (i.e. if you aren’t a feminist) then you are against us, which we already know isn’t the case. So anyone who takes that position has already failed with their position of calling themselves a feminist because they have failed to acknowledge their core belief of equality and equal rights since equality involves accepting diversity. Maybe they have a hard time believing or understanding equality and equal rights. That would be my best guess, but I’m not going to spend a lot of time speculating why people continue to have this mindset when there are plenty of people who have already moved beyond these issues of equality to accept pro-feminism and have already acknowledged women as having equal rights and opportunities.

So you will continue to get badgered Oldbadger. I personally don’t enjoy debating people like this and the more I do the more I dislike feminism and people who claim to be feminist. Although I will admit, I have a hard time believing that any of these people are feminist (or supportive of feminism), mainly because their views on this topic have been so distorted, if any are then its just a few.

… just something to take into consideration.

Have fun debating the rest of this. I might pick it back up later, but as of right now I have other things I need to do. I'm a busy man. lol

I'm amazed that this is your take home message after all this.

The truth is far simpler. You're incorrect about what the word "feminism" means and whether one's gender determines who may or may not use it. Doesn't that make more sense than this "us vs. them" nonsense you've come up with?

 

[oldbadger]

Sorry, it just seemed like you were taking offense by what I read from all your posts regarding egalitarianism, which is frustrating, because I can only infer from the text what is not explicitly stated. When we talk about egalitarianism from a civic or legal standpoint, we are referring to the law applying the same to everyone (even though, hopefully, both acknowledge that there will never be a perfect manifestation of this). Most people of Western influence agree with civic egalitarianism. People who think otherwise tend to be.. well racists or sexist, at least a civic one, if that means anything. But it's not the only type of egalitarianism. I was assuming this is the one you were referencing this entire time, because you linked us the the law, and mentioned that a few times.

It's very different, then say, Marx's egalitarianism, ya know, where we are all equal... monetarily, as contributors to society, which, almost no one in the West finds particularly valuable.

OK..... I underlined ^^^^. Now we have plenty of sexists and racists within both genders. But it's much much worse than that. I could pick 50 other examples. Oh yes. I might make 100...... some related to gender, others more general. I try to see as many as possible.
Let me just pick on one hidden example of 'wrongness' which survives unseen by most, and which a (proper) egalitarian would want to address. I know this one well.
A large retailer of, say, Do-it-yourself products takes thousands of very expensive tools and electric drills, saws etc etc and just stacks them, high as possible, filling the displays to bulging. Now the retailer gets rid of all but a skeleton staff, using part-timers to fill and stack the shelves. There might be 1-2 employees on the huge sales-floor most evenings. A couple of tills open.
So every (any) person can walk into this store, and, surrounded by gear that s/he could only ever dream of owning, with no-one nearby, be tempted, either to buy more than can be afforded (another wrongness..... easy credit with hard payments on high APR) or theft. Now if the person is tempted to theft, the retailer, society, law, government, friends, family, everybody.... can scream 'foul'! Crime! Evil! So the person gets a record, which affects their chances of employment, which......
But nobody gives a sh-t about retailers who lead people into unbelievable levels of temptation to overspend or steal. The shareholders don't mind because this lifts spontaneous purchases, and on and on. The government don't mind because various taxes linked to 'purchase' are kept higher.
That is one tiny issue in bundles of huge issues, which people don't notice.

I'm more acutely aware of some of these 'issues'than might be guessed.

 

[oldbadger]

It's very different, then say, Marx's egalitarianism, ya know, where we are all equal... monetarily, as contributors to society, which, almost no one in the West finds particularly valuable.

Well, it's complicated. I'm a post-anarchist, so my influences and understanding of hierarchy and authority come from anarchist, particularly from Bakunin. I also draw a ton of influence from early 20th century anarchy-communism (a/k/a libertarian socialism) and especially the practical applications, such as during the Spanish Revolution. To put this incredibly and inappropriately short, as a post-anarchist I'm also inclined to some of the revelations of post-structuralism; the most relevant point being that language and empirical descriptions of the world are still very weak and then are notions of legitimate truth are much more shaky than we would particularly like it to be. Interpretation plays a major part in the function of language and describing various aspects of relatively. This is important for anarchism, because notions like 'liberty' and 'freedom' and 'equality' and 'egalitarian society' are much less defined, and do not represent a single notion that applies in every circumstance. Cutting to the point, my goal in society is the perfect of application of 'liberty' and 'equality,' something thought traditionally to be dichotomous, or exclusive entities, but not so in anarcho-communism. On a personal level, I note that our ideals of liberty and equality are never going to be perfect and that there is no type of society that can a perfect reflection of these. How this translate into application, is that people should seek to increase both equality and liberty simultaneously to their fullest extent, in any small step available. Equality and liberty are things we endlessly strive for, not things we acquire and then someone retain forever just by having acquired it. The limits of equality and liberty in society are unknown.

Most anarchists agree that a society is generally incredibly localized, the least capitalistic, or exploitative as it could be, with giving mutual aid to others when it can be given or is needed, with voluntary associated (and democratic) federations localized. Direct democracy and all that jazz.

You show, in that short piece, how deeply one can dive into a subject. I always have difficulty with 'heavily' complicated tenets, and do everything I can to simplify as much as possible, bringing enough to the surface for grasping. I would add to the above, that people have very very simple needs, wants, peer pressures, excitements, angers, naughtinesses and hopes (in any order). Complicated communism fell into pieces because of the above, driven by nasty powerful psychos like Stalin. Simple systems win. I don't think capitalism is anywhere near as complicated..

It's obviously a huge influence, or else we wouldn't have rights for the handicapped, or benefits for kids whose parents die at a young age, or programs designed to help the poor at all. All of these are acknowledgements that life is unfair and that we, as a society, should, to the extent that we can must resemble 'fair & equal opportunity,' address this a collection of individuals.

Yes....... but natural egalitarianism can go very deep. Most of our schools don't seem to give a sh-t about physical bullying, and promote intellectual pride into a fault, etc. It p-ss-s me off when (eg) a Doctor insists that s/he is worth £110,000 per annum because s/he has special abilities, which in fact s/he was given by fluke of nature's fate, and insists that his/her house cleaner should only have the minimum wage because that person has no special talents.

Oh.... don't start me or I won't get to sleep!

 

[oldbadger]

Lol, no, I was thinking that by fighting for the rights of women we also combat the stereotypes and gender roles that constrain men as well. I could be wrong, but ballet is typically labeled as a thing for women, and the men that does it are labeled as feminine. That is in all honesty a prejudice of mine, but thats my point. Feminism helps not only women but also men to get rid of those kinds of prejudices.

Maybe it wasnt the best example.

Yes........ I think that is a good one. Most (stupid) people around here would label a male ballet dancer as 'obviously' gay! Long ago I gave daily lifts to a male hitch hiker who was attending the Royal school of ballet. He must have been the fittest athlete I knew. And he also had a great sense of humour. He didn't mind the 'gay' jibes because he was so confident, and was constantly approached by curious girls who 'wanted to find out....' !

 

[oldbadger]

Have fun debating the rest of this. I might pick it back up later, but as of right now I have other things I need to do. I'm a busy man. lol

Cool! See you again soon, here or on some thread!

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

I'm amazed that this is your take home message after all this.

The truth is far simpler. You're incorrect about what the word "feminism" means and whether one's gender determines who may or may not use it. Doesn't that make more sense than this "us vs. them" nonsense you've come up with?

Maybe for you, but not for me, I don’t give words mixed meanings and neither should you.

I don’t buy into hidden agendas or send mixed messages either. So giving a response to a comment that I was giving to someone else was unnecessary, but thanks for giving your two cents.

 

[oldbadger]

I don’t buy into hidden agendas or send mixed messages ...................

Click click....... nor me neither

I'm not against feminism, but sometimes find agenda attachments here and there.
That (some) feminists would choose to glorify some great women, yet dismiss and ignore other great women,.... attracts my attention. Spectacles on, peer into the 'mix', and sometimes..... bingo! :biglaugh:

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Cool! I haven't got a smart phone and so don't understand all that yet!



Don't hold your breath.
Germany, Australia, Iceland...... USA could have gotten one last time but one.
In Thatcher's years, 1 MP in 20 was female. Today I think the number is 1 MP in 5. Climbing steadily.

Trust me I wasn't planning on to.

OK..... but you mentioned it.
Now I have agreed, from start of thread until now, that males can be feminist. But I have questioned why men (and women) might not move forward to either egalitarianism (or humanitarianism), since this expands the horizon far beyond whilst including all.
Our UK politicians are clearly on board with that, because the new all-encompassing Equality Act is just that...... It is not a Feminism Act, goes much further.
Come to think of it, the North American Feminism does not seem to get included in US State or Federal Laws, at least I've never seen one. I do see the words 'Civil Rights' encompassing close to what we call Equality.

The problem I personally have with calling myself a humanist is that it doesn't adress any specific philosophy's or principles.
If I say "I'm a humanist" what would the response be? "Thats lovely dear, so am I, I'm all about human rights and equality blah blah."
If I say I'm what is called a 'radical feminist' it conveys a totally different meaning and view on how I see the world. Yes I am a humanist but from the feminist view point.
Someone can be a humanist and know absolutely nothing about feminist theory. Or even disagree that there is a need for feminism anymore, which some members of this forum believe.
I don't have a problem if someone does have feminists views and do not call themselves a feminist. There are some black women who prefer to call themselves womanists instead of feminists because of how feminism has excluding racism and has been largely white dominated.
I mostly have a problem with anti-feminism as oppose to people who just don't call themselves a feminist.
I do not have a problem with calling the equality act, the equality act. I don't expect it to be called the feminist act as I hope eventually we won't even need feminism and feminist literature would just be a remnant of how backwards we use to be.

 

[oldbadger]

The problem I personally have with calling myself a humanist is that it doesn't adress any specific philosophy's or principles.

Hi .....again...!
Humanist.... I agree..... I don't think that the word humanist works well. I'm sure that I've read that a stomping raving patriarch can be a humanist of some sort. The word that might come close to egalitarian is humanitarian, but I prefer egalitarian.

If I say "I'm a humanist" what would the response be? "Thats lovely dear, so am I, I'm all about human rights and equality blah blah."

Yes :yes: whilst inside they might also be thinking 'Oh Gawd!!!'

If I say I'm what is called a 'radical feminist' it conveys a totally different meaning and view on how I see the world. Yes I am a humanist but from the feminist view point.

Wow!! Now that's different. Are you? A radical feminist? I ask, because if you are, then you are the very first member on RF to up and say it, straight out. I tell you what, I think I would prefer to talk to a radical extremist fundamental feminist than the wimpy ones (oh yes there are!) and I tell you why................. I would learn more from a die hard extremist feminist than from, please excuse me, some of the apparently 'fashion feminists' that are around.
In the 60's my cousin was a fashion feminist, she sounded good, but I reckon that if she had been offered the price of a car to get her tits out for a page 3 picture, she would have ripped the contract out of their hands to sign it. Or is that acceptable? You see? I understand equality, but feminist integrity is something I would need to learn more about...... and I can't do that from someone I don't trust. So when you give it out like that, I feel I can trust you more. Make sense?

I know that you wrote lots more, but my focus is upon the above.......

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Hi .....again...!
Humanist.... I agree..... I don't think that the word humanist works well. I'm sure that I've read that a stomping raving patriarch can be a humanist of some sort. The word that might come close to egalitarian is humanitarian, but I prefer egalitarian.

sorry I did mean humanitarian, forgive me I'm ill. Yes, I am an egalitarian but I don't think the name isn't very specific to my views.

Yes :yes: whilst inside they might also be thinking 'Oh Gawd!!!'


Wow!! Now that's different. Are you? A radical feminist? I ask, because if you are, then you are the very first member on RF to up and say it, straight out. I tell you what, I think I would prefer to talk to a radical extremist fundamental feminist than the wimpy ones (oh yes there are!) and I tell you why................. I would learn more from a die hard extremist feminist than from, please excuse me, some of the apparently 'fashion feminists' that are around.
In the 60's my cousin was a fashion feminist, she sounded good, but I reckon that if she had been offered the price of a car to get her tits out for a page 3 picture, she would have ripped the contract out of their hands to sign it. Or is that acceptable? You see? I understand equality, but feminist integrity is something I would need to learn more about...... and I can't do that from someone I don't trust. So when you give it out like that, I feel I can trust you more. Make sense?

I know that you wrote lots more, but my focus is upon the above.......

I'm a radical feminist, well yes have you seen my signature Go on tumblr mate you will find many more radscum blogs on there.
I have weaknesses too I wear a bit of makeup about 3 times a year. I could be even more radical and never wear any

Joking aside though, I think the most unfeminist and the most feminist of us would submit to certain things when faced with male dominance. I've often been nice to men I would rather not be nice to just because of fear on how they might react if I told them to F off and die.

Yeah I tend to straight up say radical feminists things. I straight up said on my Facebook not long ago that I think high heels are a modern form of foot binding.

I said to a couple of my work colleagues that I admire Dworkin, some people hate her but I think she was needed. she thought pornography was hate speech against women and my female work colleague said "well it kind of is."
I admit I was surprised I expected to get "it's only sex" or something like that.