From: pcg@aberystwyth.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: "sexual favors" as a "power base"
Date: 20 Aug 1992 21:24:50 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
Reply-To: pcg@aberystwyth.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi)
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

On 16 Aug 92 14:29:46 GMT, muffy@mica.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy) said
things on which I mostly agree, but maybe she is interested in knowing a
little comment on the outlook from the 'adversary' gender:
 
muffy> (John MAX Skaller) writes:

MAX> Most women seem to DEMAND an exclusive relationship in return for
MAX> sexual favours. That is their traditional power base in modern
MAX> society.

Ah yes, quite common stereotype.

muffy> Actually, my understanding of the way the "traditional" roles
muffy> work is this (note that these are stereotypes, not assertions
muffy> about how people actually are):

I tend to agree that the stereotypes your present later are largely
true, but actually they are a particular set of stereotypes, and they
are those that women think men have. There are other important sets of
stereotypes, those that women try to impress on other women, those that
men try to impress on other men, and those that women try to impress on
other men, and so on.

For example, a typical man->woman stereotype you mention later is 'be a
good girl, find a good man and marry him and be a good housewife that
keeps her place', a typical man->man stereotype is 'all women are whores
and will take advantage of you, especially if you fall in love with
them, yet you cannot avoid that, just be careful they don't cheat too
much', while a typical woman->woman stereotype is 'men are all bastards,
just get even with them, and find one that will keep you and harass you
the least', and so on.

muffy> o Men are told that they should desire lots of sex from women and
muffy> that they should go to great lengths to get it.

In some cases yes, as 'scoring' makes your image better, both wrt women
and men.

But what really most men are told/experience is that getting sex from
women is extremely expensive in terms of time and other resources, and
that feelings are not important as to that, so they should take
advantage of any opportunity, as nobody knows when the next one will
come, and at what cost.

All this while women can get sex just for the asking, and they even
*expect* so ("hell hath no fury like a woman scorned").

muffy> o Women are told that they should not enjoy sex, but that they
		   ^^^^
Usually by *men*.

muffy> should submit to it in the context of marriage for the purpose of
muffy> having children.

Women are also told, usually by other *women*, that they should not
enjoy sex, but also because if they enjoy it they will not be able to
ration it, and rationing sex to men is the only way that women have to
have a hold on them, as they are otherwise at a disadvantage in most
other contexts.

Many women are also told, usually by other women, that not only they
should not enjoy sex to avoid losing control of themselves and of men,
but they should also never fall in love, because that weakens their
bargaining position even more, as they might then do kind things to men,
instead of making me do kind things for them (another common stereotype
that men have).

  Interestingly enough also some men get told that they should never
  fall in love with a man, that it is not manly to become involved
  with one, but this seems to be not very common in non primitive
  cultures.

muffy> o Men are told that if they can have sex with a woman without
muffy> marrying her, that's great, but she's a "slut."  Such a woman is
muffy> not desirable as a wife, and it is not *necessary* to marry her,
muffy> since they can get sex anyway.

Not really, even in old times. I think the more common version is that
they should not marry a woman that has gone with many other men, because
this is an indication of future behaviour. Men want a woman that is a
saint with other men, and a whore with them. Yet even men who have this
stereotype will still marry one that has been a "slut" with other men if
they don't care being cuckolded or if they think that she, by meeting
them, has had a personality change.

muffy> o On the other hand, if they can find a woman who won't have sex
muffy> with them without marriage, then they should grab her and marry
muffy> her, because she's a "good girl."

Actually this is not as common as you may think. Let me repeat that my
impression is that what really matters is fast promiscuity with other
men, as proxy for future unfaithfulness, not with themselves, even if
some use all past sexual activity as a proxy.

So, while I don't think that the two above stereotypes are those that
many men actually have, I do think that it is a fairly common stereotype
for women to think that men actually think like that.

muffy> o Men are supposed to want a "good girl" to marry so that they
muffy> will be sure that she is faithful to them, will act as their
muffy> property, and therefore any children will be sure to be theirs.

Ah yes, this is very common. I think it is a genetic trait, even more
than a cultural stereotype. Hard to find fault with it, actually. In
this men and women really have, because of physiology, completely
different starting positions.

muffy> o Women are supposed to look for a man who will be well able to
muffy> support them, via marriage.  There is really nothing in there
muffy> about faithfulness, other than that it might be nice.  The
muffy> agreement, therefore, is that he will support her and his
muffy> children as long as *she* is faithful to *him*.

Ah yes. About the worst thing that can happen to a man in most
stereotypes is to be cuckolded by a woman they expensively support. This
is catastrophic to them, both in practical and image terms. In some
societies it used to be required of such men to *kill* the woman and her
lover(s) to regain face.

muffy> o In return, men promise to be faithful, too, but how does this
muffy> really work?

muffy> If a woman is unfaithful, her husband can divorce her and not
muffy> support her any longer. If a man is unfaithful, what can the
muffy> woman do?  She depends upon him for support.

Get another man that will support her. They all still regard it as their
duty, no questions asked.

muffy> As you say, she could withhold sex, but since he is now getting
muffy> sex from elsewhere, that doesn't really matter, does it?

Ah, this is really one-sided. The balance of power is far more
favourable to the woman than you think. Men know that getting a woman,
for casual sex, or for a relationship, is incredibly difficult and
expensive compared to a woman getting a man.

Men know that they have to beg and grovel and posture just to get sex,
and they believe all that women have to do is to open their legs. Men
are terrified of their wives doing so and cuckolding them.

Their stereotype is that if a woman is abandoned by a man she can always
immediately find another man by offering her sexual favours, while if
they are abandoned by their woman, getting another one will be terribly
difficult and long.

  About the only case in which this is not true is when the abandoned
  wife is old and poor, and the husband is rich; only then it will be
  easier for him to buy sexual favours from a woman with his money, than
  for her to buy money from a man with her sexual favours.

Even worse, most men are terrified of *not* being abandoned by a woman
that secretly has another man, as then she is getting money from them in
order to support herself and the other man's offspring, and she and the
other man are getting a free ride.

I think I have seen surveys in which it came out that a majority of men
were not really interested in having other partners than their wife, and
were terrified of being left alone by their wives, because they knew it
would be far more difficult for them to get another partner, especially
if they were very busy with their careers. Indeed for many men with a
career it is already difficult to keep the partner they have already
got, and many are scared that she can do what she wants while they try
to get along in the rat race.

  One interesting aspect of this is that apparently a lot of
  professional whores report that many of their customers are middle
  aged salarymen that buy not so much their sexual services, but their
  company and their availability to hear their lamentations, of which
  the stereotyped one is 'my wife does not understand/care about me'.

muffy> So, the effect of all these expected roles is to force women to
muffy> be faithful, while merely asking men to *say* they will be,
muffy> without anything to actually force them to be, other than some
muffy> sort of moral sense.

Ah no, the effect of these stereotypes is to make women sure of being
able to get a man at will, and play one against the other, and to make
men thoroughly paranoid about this, which has made overreact until now.

muffy> Now, in the context of "modern relationships," things change a
muffy> little.  Women can now have sex with one or two people before
muffy> getting married.  They can also support themselves to some
muffy> degree, so that getting married is not a necessity.  However,
muffy> once they *are* married, things are often much the same.

Yes, but the greatest improvement I see is that since birth control
exists, access to sex is becoming less lopsided in women's favour, as
the sex racket is no longer supported by high exit costs, and
this makes it possible for men and women to start having sentimental
relationships instead of blackmail and power games, something for which
both seem somewhat ill prepared, hence all the psychological problems
we see around us.

But in the medium term things are bound to change again; what birth
control means is that women no longer pay a high price if they do not
uphold the sex racket. But this does not remove the incentive for the
pregnancy racket.

Currently many women simply don't want offspring and thus have taken
themselves out of the pregnancy racket too, which in a sense is good
because it means that their relationships with men then can be more
based on sentimental matters.

But eventually (my guesstimate is about two generations at most) women
that do not have a strong maternity instinct (because maternity is such
an inconvenient business that it takes a strong instinct to substitute
for the bait of sexual pleasure, once this has been disconnected from
pregnancy by way birth control, or for obsessive societal pressure, as
the combined matriarchy/patriarchy was able to exert) will birth control
themselves to extinction, and thus eventually only women that have
strong reproductive instincts will remain. And these will all be in the
same position wrt men, and will have a strong incentive to drive as hard
a bargain with them as possible. Or maybe a better, less confrontational
way will have been found.

muffy> Once they have children, it is much harder to support them on
muffy> their own, so they are again compelled to attempt to stay with
							    ^^^^^^^^^
muffy> the man for financial reasons.
       ^^^
Yes, but you seem stuck on the idea, which is really a stereotype, that
once *the* man has abandoned a woman, she cannot get a new one, and
solve her support problems again. Clearly for a woman it is easier to
keep an existing man, as this does not require investing in a new
portfolio, but if you had written the more realistic:

muffy'> Once they have children, it is much harder to support them on
muffy'> their own, so they are again compelled to FIND AGAIN
muffy'> A man for financial reasons.

it would be more clear that the issue is finding a new partner, not
really not having any choice other than staying with *the* one, and for
a woman, in general, finding a new partner is easier than for a man,
except for really primitive cultures where widows and divorcees are
untouchables -- but then some other societies *force* a man to marry the
widow of a relative, leaving neither of them any choice in the matter,
just to make her costs of finding a new man null, while no such easy way
out exists for widowers.

Reconsider: a couple splits, just like that, with nobody else being
involved. For the man, so he usually believes, with some reason, finding
a new partner, or even occasional sex and company, will be far more
difficult than for the woman. Also, if he finds a new partner, he will
have to support her, while if she finds a new partner she will be
supported by him. Men perceive this as being unfair, and think that
women, by having it easier when it comes to getting a new partner, look
at men as portfolio investments.

Naturally if the couple splits because either one of the partners has
gotten involved with somebody else, the abandoned spouse, whether man or
woman, will be in a weaker position. But again an abandoned woman,
especially if young (and usually women are younger than their husbands)
will have it easier getting a new sexual or marriage partner than a man,
and in almost all cases she gets alimony.

What makes many men mad at alimony is "knowing" that since women can get
men just by asking, or offering themselves, while men have it quite more
difficult, their ex-wife will be able to enjoy the easy sex life of a
divorcee, while they work hard to subsidize it, and be wankers. This is
probably related to a large part of the ex-husband rapes that get
occasionally reported, or, less brutally, to the attempt by many
ex-husband to cajole the ex-wife into sex 'for the sake of old times'.

muffy> In addition, while women can support themselves better now, the
muffy> situation is still not good.  The slight improvement is that they
muffy> have less trouble getting child support when divorcing.  So, now
muffy> men can find many more women to have sex with without marrying
muffy> them.

But 'men' as a group are still footing the bill. And as you say, the
slight improvement is that divorced women can have more sex with men at
large on their ex-husband's money, or at least this is how most men
perceive it.

muffy> Meanwhile, once in the context of a marriage, men still have more
muffy> power.

No, no, this is completely ridiculous. This could only be true if men
could have sex from women just by asking. In reality it is women that
have the privilege of being able to find a new (sexual, and maybe
providing too) partner, more or less just by making themselves
available. Many men I know, I am afraid, get married almost only to
avoid having to beg and grovel and posture for sex and company every
time, on every date.  Many women I know marry simply because they are
tired of being promiscuous, and they want a more steady life.

You are only too easy to ignore this thought that actually looms largest
in most men's head: women can get men just by asking, I've got to work
hard.

And it's not a stereotype, it's actually broadly true.

At times I think that most of what is called the oppressive patriarchy
is just a "defensive" (over?)reaction to this unavoidable fact. I am
very worried when it will become apparent to men that their power
balance with women has equalized on all aspects, *except* this crucial
one, that leaves them in a very weak position.

Most men strongly believe deep down, as MAX was saying above, that women
are careful to offer sex *only* as a reward for services rendered (that
can be material or psychologic, e.g. most often sex is the reward a
woman offers a man for indulging her neurosises), and that women can
ration it at will (by being raised, and maybe bred, to be coldblooded
bitches), and will completely deprive them of it, and thus of any chance
to pass on their genes, if they are not submissive enough.

  Note that sexual pleasure is not as overridingly important to men;
  male orgasm is short if sharp, and men may regard intercourse as
  desirable for reasons other than sexual pleasure, e.g. ego boosting
  (most men are very insecure about their erections, another thing that
  many women use to blackmail them), and siring offspring, which to them
  is a much bigger issue than to women, as men perceive securing access
  to female reproductive facilities as incredibly expensive and quite
  hard, as well as requiring competition with other males; women don't
  need to compete with other women to get a womb, they are born with
  one, and it takes nothing for them to get a sperm donor.

muffy> The only real power that women have over men is if the man really
muffy> wants one particular woman, in which case she can ask him for
muffy> something in exchange for a relationship.

The real power that women had over men is that since all women "waste"
nine months if they get pregnant, and chances of getting pregnant after
sex were pretty high, none of them had any incentive to break the
sex-rationing racket, by lowering the price for access to their
reproductive organs.

The countervailing power that men have tried to have over women was to
establish artificially a social-position racket.

Both rackets are crumbling, the first because of the pill, the second as
a consequence, but the sex rationing racket is probably genetically
embedded into women's behaviour, which probably is not as true of the
social-position racket run by men.

  Indeed one of the things that has always stricken me as remarkable is
  that a dominating caste, men, has relinquished so much power in such a
  short time and with so little bloodshed, after such a long period of
  taking it for granted. Actually I think I sense in most men a kind of
  relief over this, as having an adversarial position to women, to which
  men were always told they should be kind and devoted (if only they
  were not cynical bitches!), really was a burden. In some cultures men
  were supposed to be able to have sentimental relationships only with
  other men, which is quite a drag :-), as women look more interesting,
  by and large, to men, who are more curious about them then about other
  men. I have "interviewed" a lot of "scorers", and they all felt quite
  down and cheap, especially because they thought mostly that "scoring"
  was quite boring, and only a poor substitute for a sentimental
  relationship, which they felt most women are not available to
  entertain. You might feel scandalized by this, because most women
  complain that men don't offer sentimental relationships, but I reckon
  that many women say this only because they think that a sentimental
  relationship is not like a friendship on equal terms only passionate
  and a little deeper, but is just a man adoring/depending on them,
  which is a stereotype.

muffy> However, the same is true for women who really want one
muffy> particular man, so there doesn't seem to be an imbalance here.

What you are saying here that when it comes to feelings, then there is
no racket. But men are still at a minor disadvantage because of social
conditioning: men are told, often enough, that they should fall in love
with women and really, really be devoted them; women are told, often
enough, never never to fall in love with men as this weakens their hold
on them.

I know many a woman that has a twin track life: she is very cold and
never falls in love with men that could be useful to her, and only
allows herself to get emotionally involved when it doe not count. This
is quite stereotype, that has been even immortalized in literature
countless of times. Some of these women do dislike this, but they
consider it a fact of life, some actually quite like it, as it gives
them a feeling of power.

Men are supposed to love and be devoted to women, and those that use
women are considered cynical bastards, and are not considered well. On
the other hand both men and women, by and large, expect women to behave
as cynical bitches. Uhmmm. I wish that a lot more effort were put into
artificial wombs. That would do more for feminism and equal
relationships between men and women than anything else.


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.