[sakura_k]

Interesting to see how many comments cite supposedly immutable male sexual dynamics as the cause of this phenomenon - like being unable to respond non-erotically to an assertive woman, or even to a woman who is simply friendly at work.

Could you ever imagine a woman's sexuality being invoked as a matter-of-fact justification for a workplace dynamic? Not by a man saying a woman's wonton behavior made him act aggressively, but as a result of actual female sexual agency? That is a telling cultural observation.

[skrebbel]

I think I like your comment, but I'm not sure because I didn't understand it. Could you (honest request), maybe try to rephrase it in a way that non-English-language-PhDs can also follow?

Like, what is "supposedly immutable male sexual dynamics"? I understand immutable data, but not immutable dynamics.

[philwelch]

"Immutable dynamics" is an oxymoron, isn't it?

[praptak]

Nope, just a shorthand for "dynamics with immutable parameters". Parameters of a dynamic process might be immutable, no contradiction here.

[JonnieCache]

I agree with you, but I also think that there may be a case that male sexual (and more general) cognition/behaviour actually is less mutable than that of women, and that this might actually be one of the key gender differences. A meta-difference if you will.

Not saying that this is true, just that I am willing to entertain the possibility.

[Mz]

Interesting to see how many comments cite supposedly immutable male sexual dynamics as the cause of this phenomenon - like being unable to respond non-erotically to an assertive woman, or even to a woman who is simply friendly at work.

I don't actually see any reason to assume it runs one way. The (male) song "I didn't mean to turn you on" comes to mind.