From: pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi)
Subject: Re: who "benefits" from sex roles? (Re: men's issues vs. women's issues)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Reply-To: pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi)
Organization: Prifysgol Cymru, Aberystwyth
Date: 22 Aug 92 21:03:25 GMT
	<24JUL199207433737@erich.triumf.ca>
	<1992Jul29.191026.7735@ucc.su.OZ.AU> <2A786B6B.17268@ics.uci.edu>
	<robert.713050512@labyrinth>
	<MUFFY.92Aug15174439@remarque.berkeley.edu>

On 16 Aug 92 14:30:22 GMT,
muffy%remarque.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy) said:

>Why *are* men expected to be rapacious?

muffy> To prove to other men that they *can*.  This seems to me to be
muffy> something that is encouraged by men for men.

Or maybe because sex for them is consequence-less (they don't get
pregnant), and it is very expensive and hard to obtain.

>Why *are* women expected to be sexually conservative?

muffy> Two reasons.  The societal training/pressure is still for women
muffy> to be "good," meaning to not want sex.  The idea here seems to be
muffy> that if a man "gets" a woman who is a virgin, he has done
muffy> something much more difficult than getting a woman who is not, so
muffy> he has won some sort of prize.

Or maybe because past promiscuity is reckoned to be a good proxy to
future promiscuity, and to the chance of him being cuckolded and having
to raise unwittingly another men's offspring.

muffy> This, like sleeping with lots of women, gives him something to be
muffy> proud of.  Naturally, if she then *stays* with him, that gives
muffy> him even more to be proud of, since she is showing that she only
muffy> wants him.

In part yes.

muffy> The more practical reason is that women often can't afford to
muffy> have sex because of the risk of pregnancy.  Even now, there is
muffy> not adequate access to birth control or information about it, nor
muffy> is it 100% effective.

In other words all women are forced to belong in a sex racket and ration
it to men, because any woman that tries to break the racket risks to pay
theb huge price of a maternity, and thus none of them has thus an
incentive to break the cartel, while this is not true of them, that have
to compete fiercely for the sexual favours of women, as:

muffy> If she *does* get pregnant, the man can just leave, so it's not
muffy> all that risky for him.

>Who, in the family, usually instructs the girl not to have sex until
>she's married or that men only want one thing?

muffy> Her parents.  My mother didn't tell me this at all, but she's
muffy> rather unusual.  It's my understanding that mothers in general,
muffy> however, do tell their daughters this, but then, so do fathers.

Fathers often say "Be a good girl and a good man like your father will
marry you and make you happy like your father did, if you stay in your
place like you should do with your father". Mothers often say "Be or
pretend to be a good girl, so you can sell yourself better to men, that
are all beastly bastards like your father, and only care about you, so
you just should use their prejudices".

muffy> I understand that fathers were even more initimidating to
muffy> any man that their daughters were around (interviewing them,
muffy> asking about their intentions, etc.)  Meanwhile, these same
muffy> fathers are encouraging their *sons* to go out and have sex.
muffy> Indeed, one of my friends' fathers took him to a brothel in
muffy> Nevada to "get him started."  I'm sure that he did *not* do
muffy> anything of the sort with my friend's sister.

In olden times fathers were often required to pay a substantial sum to
get their daughters wedded, the larger the less "good" their daughter
had been. Some fathers use to be financially ruined by this, or socially
disgraced if they could not, and had therefore a strong incentive to
keep their daughters in as "new" a condition as they could. Note also
that dowries used then to belong exclusively to the bride, even if they
were otherwise legally wuite subjected to their husbands, and wives
usually derived a large degree of independence and even power over their
husbands from it.

>Since we know that women enjoy sex too,

muffy> In fact, it is not clear that women, in general, enjoy sex nearly
muffy> as much as men.  It's only lately that men have even been that
muffy> concerned about women having orgasms, and there are many women
muffy> who have had sex many times and never had one, which is *very*
muffy> rare with men.

In practice, most sex acts are quite short and unpleasant for both
parties, even if men almost always orgasm, because male orgasm is not
quite overwhelming and long. If they can get an erection of course,
which is a peculiar disadvantage that women don't have, and a difference
that puts men at a serious disadvantage.

On the other hand women require more time and patience to orgasm, but
this can quite reliable, and looks (to a male -- but then subjective
experience is quite difficult to compare) quite more overwhelming and
longer then the male one, which is expected, because sexual pleasure has
to be a far more powerful bait for women than for men, as most of the
labor for reproduction is done by women.

muffy> Given all this, why *SHOULD* women enjoy sex?  All they're there
muffy> for is to satisfy the man.

Not really. All women are there for is to get impregnated, and for me to
impregnate them. That either derives a lot of pleasure from the thing is
not terribly important, and they occasionally do only to bait them into
trying again. Men, as I wrote before, tend to orgasm more easily than
women, but then they don't get erections as easily. Not a problem for
the coninuity of the species: another man can always take his place.

muffy> Bleah.

Yes, I agree. Maybe a part of the feminist work should be to try to
persuade men to score not in terms of conquests, but in terms of orgasms
generated. Reich would be happy! :-)

  Actually, this has already happened in circles, and women now tend to
  complain about many men's obsessive concern with female orgasms. Men
  cannot win :-).

>how do we explain why women desire sex only within a relationship,
>whereas men enjoy sex regardless of a relationship?

Ah just a moment: maybe things are not like that, and they are a little
more subtle.

Maybe some women are prepared to offer regular sex only to reward a regular
relationship that offers them definite benefits, rather than giving away
access to their reproductive organs just to divulge themselves without
extracting any advantage.

Maybe some men are always ready to take advantage of any offer of sex
because they know it usually is so expensive and difficult to get
('free' love is a woman's privilege, by and large) that any opportunity
should be taken.

It's also agreeable that:

muffy> Well, look at the above.  How does a relationship change this?
muffy> Well, if a man actually *cares* about the woman he is having sex
muffy> with, he might be more considerate about whether she is actually
muffy> enjoying it or not.  Therefore, her chances of enjoying it go up
muffy> quite a bit.

muffy> In addition, if you're looking at traditional roles
muffy> and such, women are basically told that they should *not* enjoy
muffy> sex, but just submit to it for the purpose of having children and
muffy> getting a man to support them.

Also, many women are told not to enjoy sex or fall in love, as this
would weaken their bargaining position with respect to men, and get them
into trouble.

>If this is a man-thing, how do men, who want multiple partners at least
>until marriage, benefit from women being conservative?  That's not
>completely obvious;

muffy> Well, actually, it's pretty obvious.  They benefit because they
muffy> are possessive and territorial.  If "their woman" sleeps with
muffy> someone else, they lose the respect of the people around them,
muffy> they are considered "less of a man," etc.

muffy> Therefore, men want to find a woman who will have sex only with
muffy> them, which makes them important and worthy of respect. In
muffy> addition, even with multiple

These are all, as most of the other reasons you give, fairly
superficial, cultural, reasons. At least in this case the answer is far
more brutal: a man that does not care about being cuckolded stands a
greater chance of having his genetic line become extinct than one that
does.

>but it is obvious how women benefit from withholding sex until a
>relationship is established.

muffy> Well, it may be obvious to you, but it is not to me.  The only
muffy> difference I really see is that the woman will get more respect
muffy> from the people around her if she does not have sex right away.

No, no, these are still superficial reasons. The stronger reason alluded
to above is that all women have interest belonging to a racket/cartel
about sex, or rather reproduction, and to uphold it; those that cheat on
the racket stand a chance of having to pay the cost of an
unwanted/unsupported pregnancy.  So it is an almost watertight cartel.

muffy> However, this "benefit" is only gained by the loss of sexual
muffy> freedom.  She can't have sex EVEN IF SHE WANTS TO, or she will
muffy> lose this.

Maybe the reason is that, without birth control, she can have sex only
if she wants to get pregnant too, and every time she is out of the game
for a long time. Birth control is what gives women sexual freedom, by
decoupling it from the huge cost of maternity, and it is by no means a
chance that the position of women in society and their attitude to sex
has changed the more birth control techniques have improved (and the
more infant mortality rates have become lower). By making it possible
for women to have sex without maternity birth control has also seriously
weakened the sex racket, as there is not longer any direct price to pay
for exiting it.

>That's the real question: who would most benefit, and least benefit,
>from an open sexual atmosphere in the dating realm, and why?  Answer
>that, and you'll know who most benefits from the current situation.

muffy> Well, unfortunately, I do not think that there is a good answer
muffy> for this, nor do I think that you are correct that the answer to
muffy> one question will answer the other.  The situation is very
muffy> complex, with many pressures on both sides.

muffy> [ ... for women ... ] I think that the loss would not be as
muffy> significant as the gains.

Maybe the answer is: both! Power gaming, whether reciprocal or not, and
independently of which gender has the stronger racket, means that
*neither* genders have the chance for a sentimental relationship,
whether they are on top or not. And this is sad for both of them.

Indeed in many primitive/repressive cultures only homosexual love was
reckoned to be of the sentimental kind. Even today many men and women
agree with that, and have intimate 'friendships' with MOTSS, and get on
with other only because of social pressures, or reproductive instincts.

This is sad, because, for those that are not 'born homosexuals' (in itself
a controversial statements), there is much delighted to be reaped in
discovering life with somebody with a quite, but not entirely different,
setup, as curiosity and diversity are, for many, usually men, the
tastiest spices of life, and love.

muffy> Right now, it seems like a lot of men just can't help thinking
muffy> about sex when they see women, which makes it rather difficut for
muffy> women to work with them, etc.

Uhmmmm. It is hard for me to believe that this is not a problem for
women too. Apart from the fact that men have a fairly stable level of
sexual desire, and women instead have it more cyclical. Here maybe you
should said 'men just can't help _displaying interest_ when they see
women, while women can be less obvious'.

>Who's feels threatened and why?

muffy> I understand that a lot of men are threatened by women who enjoy
muffy> sex.  Probably because that means that their "performance" will
muffy> be compared to others, and might be found lacking.

You know, every man has this problem that deep down he does not know
whether he will be able to perform at all, this time or for the rest of
his life, so this need to be reassured is probably less silly than it
looks.

But men feel worried about it also because a sexually active woman is
reputed to be more likely to cuckold them, which is really awful for a
man.

I have often been astonished by how insensitive women seem about men's
worries about erection and cuckolding, which is probably because both
things simply cannot happen to women.
--
Piercarlo Grandi                   | JNET: pcg@uk.ac.aber
Dept of CS, University of Wales    | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@aber.ac.uk

--
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.