The prevailing societal brainwashing dictates that sexuality and sex "reduce" women, whereas men are merely innocent actors on the receiving end. By extension, our virginity or abstinence has a bearing on who we are as people -- as good people or bad people, as nice women or bad women. Women's ability to be moral actors is wholly dependent on their sexuality. It is, honestly, insane. Love this. Great depiction of a terribly harmful social norm. As far as the patriarchy bit, she lets us come to our own conclusions -- what does hubski think about "It terrifies us to even fathom that a woman could take ownership of her body" for example?The most striking view I was indoctrinated with was that sex is something women “have,” but that they shouldn’t “give it away” too soon -– as though there’s only so much sex in any one woman, and sex is something she does for a man that necessarily requires losing something of herself, and so she should be really careful who she “gives” it to.
I don't think that's quite what is behind it. I think the "giving away" is what is behind virginity obsession. The fact is that humans thrive on challenge and reward. Things we get too easily don't seem as rewarding, and therefore seem less valuable. This goes for both males and females (likely homosexual couples too) - though probably the key dynamic is hetero male-chasing-hetero female. If she sleeps with him easily, it's less of a "score" for him. He doesn't feel that he has attained so much. That's what is meant by "easy", not that she is going to run out of sex. The reality is that there are drawbacks to indiscriminate sex. Disease, unwanted pregnancy, the fact that many hyper-promiscuous people have low self-esteem and are using sex to assuage that. So someone not seeming at all picky, at all discriminating - male or female - loses attractiveness as a result. Not only are they not hard to get, they are actually desperate. So in summary being more discriminate with whom you have sex with is (a) wise and (b) a more desirable trait, for BOTH genders.
Say what now? It would be more accurate to say that "it appears that more promiscuous females have lower self esteeem." It's certainly far from a fact, and it's not a fact that they are using sex to assuage that.the fact that many hyper-promiscuous people have low self-esteem and are using sex to assuage that.
From that study you quoted: > Results showed that low global self-esteem increased the likelihood of suicidal thoughts, being bullied in school, alcohol consumption in boys, and risky sexual behavior in girls. I'll go with that. I have no issue with acknowledging that it's far more - or nearly exclusively - a correlation for females. Certainly I've observed it more, if not exclusively, in females. Perhaps they're not actively using it to assuage it, maybe it just makes them easier targets. Same result either way. I guess I put "people" because I've become hyper sensitive about making gender generalisations due to the current fervid outrage against them (and accusations of "slut shaming" about saying anything perceived as negative about women and sexual issues). I've always believed it should be possible to be completely confident in ones sexuality and as promiscuous as you please, in a totally healthy and positive way. The reality is that I have personally never met or heard of anyone hyper promiscuous (in terms of endless one night stands with strangers, relationships never lasting more than weeks, large amounts of casual partners) who didn't have some kind of issue. In retrospect I think it's because healthy minded people tend to eventually meet the same and fall into more permanent relationships with them. If you're having amazing sex, and getting on well, it tends to be that most people cement that. (Same goes for polyamory and even swinging - it's still all quite structured and controlled, not completely indiscriminate).
I confess I was interested to know what your defintion of "hyper-promiscuity" was and how it differed from "promiscuity." I have a very feminist and so-on friend who believes just the word "promiscuous" is loaded. This seems relevant to me because it seems almost like you are using "hyper-promiscuous" to mean what "promiscuous" really should mean, but the word has been warped by society and puritannical elements to mean - well, more sex than maybe we're comfortable with. To be fair, there may be people who don't want permanent relationships who have nothing wrong with them (though could an argument be made that simply not wanting permanent relationships is a problem in and of itself? -please don't tell me! (just kidding) ). I'm glad you mentioned polyamory and included it under that umbrella. It would have been a counter-point I'd have offered up if you had not.
Both "having sex" and "having a relationship" involve emotional groundwork. The latter tends to diminish the effort for the former. If you're jettisoning your "relationships" regularly you're putting in an awful lot of "needless" effort from an economic point of view. It's an irrational choice that only makes sense if there is a unique draw to the initial groundwork of having sex or a unique repulsion to the repeated groundwork of having a relationship. As flirtation doesn't necessarily have to result in copulation for the endorphins to flow, the latter is a more likely explanation.The reality is that I have personally never met or heard of anyone hyper promiscuous (in terms of endless one night stands with strangers, relationships never lasting more than weeks, large amounts of casual partners) who didn't have some kind of issue.
Interesting perspective. Taking these in order -- in the (intelligent part of the) first world, disease and unwanted pregnancy are essentially nonfactors. Yes, those are powerful historical reasons not to have indiscriminate sex, but we can throw 'em out with the bathwater in enlightened places. The last point, about promiscuity and self-esteem, is a little off in my opinion. Cause and effect are reversed. Promiscuity isn't causing the low self-esteem, it's being caused by it. So your point is less a comment on promiscuity and more a question of how can we help people who don't respect themselves. That said, I agree with you about the pseudo-evolutionary point about what humans tend to want in partners. Both men and women I think in general would rather be in a long relationship with someone who has in the past been less promiscuous, for the reasons you mention. That's just a guess. I would respond: wise in some parts of the world, but wisdom is a bit irrelevant in the cleanest and safest places. The desirability part makes sense to me, even I don't like that it is the way it is.The reality is that there are drawbacks to indiscriminate sex. Disease, unwanted pregnancy, the fact that many hyper-promiscuous people have low self-esteem and are using sex to assuage that.
So in summary being more discriminate with whom you have sex with is (a) wise and (b) a more desirable trait, for BOTH genders.
Yes - that's what I meant, albeit I put it clumsily. Though I think it's fair to say that in some cases you get into a vicious cycle where the promiscuity (due to the type of partners it attracts, and the societal response to promiscuity) tends to further perpetuate the low self-esteem. > wisdom is a bit irrelevant in the cleanest and safest places Fair enough: I don't know how old you are, but I grew up in the 1980s (in terms of when we learnt about sex) very much under the shadow of AIDS. For Gen Xers like me, the link between indiscriminate and unsafe sex, and illness and death, was forged during our formative years. It isn't something I consciously think of or worry about these days, certainly HIV/AIDS is no longer a death sentence. But it's still part of the sexuality background that we all grew up with, and I guess I can never regard it as a non-factor, even in "the intelligent part of the first world".Promiscuity isn't causing the low self-esteem, it's being caused by it.
That question is part of why I tagged this with "grrlski". Going to mull over that question a bit more before responding. Got too caught up in the SU-Duke basketball game and now I'm too worked up to give a good response to anything. Okay, now that I'm sufficiently calm (thanks Astronautalis) and have had some time to think. I think that that question is something that occurs very often in society. Look at how the double standard between guys who have a lot of sex and girls who have a lot of sex. In general, one is highly regarded and the other is disparaged. Men are allowed to have as many partners as they want with impunity, but women are subjected to being derided or looked down upon for the same thing. Another aspect to the repression of female sexuality is the culture surrounding female nudity. People are much more comfortable being subjected to depictions of violence through movies, video games, etc. But the possibility of female nudity is somehow worse than that. Obviously for this part I'm referring almost entirely to North America. I do think that part of this is the viewing of the female body as a sexual object, and the dichotomy of nudity that exists all around the world. Meanwhile, in countries in the middle east where woman are forced to cover their forces is the extreme version of that question you have posed. Additionally, all of the above can attempt to be rationalized or excused by people other than the woman herself. I know I've observed people trying to excuse others sexual behavior as a matter of fact and it's rarely provided an answer of "well, it's her body and we should respect that".Love this. Great depiction of a terribly harmful social norm. As far as the patriarchy bit, she lets us come to our own conclusions -- what does hubski think about "It terrifies us to even fathom that a woman could take ownership of her body" for example?
Is it weird that I almost think the opposite? In my opinion, in the 21st century men almost have a sort of responsibility not to sleep around because there exists a stereotype and we should subvert it. I respect the hell out of guys who are in long stable relationships, or at least I don't disrespect them because they aren't sleeping with tons of people all the time. Not to say I judge anyone for the amount of sex they have, because there's not "only so much sex in any one" man (my favorite bit of the article; spot on). And then on the flip side after examining what I think about all this I find that I sort of respect girls who sleep around a lot. Same reason -- they're refusing to let societal stereotypes dictate their actions. So it leads to an odd reversal of the double standard. I'm drunk and rambling a bit, but still. I'm never sure what to say when I encounter the idea that you mention -- slut shaming vs. male non-slut shaming. Kind of, "what the hell?" Obviously a real thing but oughtn't we be getting to a more enlightened place soon?Look at how the double standard between guys who have a lot of sex and girls who have a lot of sex. In general, one is highly regarded and the other is disparaged. Men are allowed to have as many partners as they want with impunity, but women are subjected to being derided or looked down upon for the same thing.
I think that if you are a girl, and you like sex, and you don't mind or even like having multiple partners, it can be hard to deal with society's opinion of this. As a result I can understand why you might feel respect for those girls. It's hard to face up to societal expectations, which often manifest in people's opinions and very vocal ones at that, and say "So what? This is who I am and what I like." Often, you have to do that sort of thing continuously. I feel like those girls who manage to do both (have lots of sex with multiple partners enjoyable, and bite their thumb at society at the same time) are strong women. They've decided or found out what they like and even though society is going to give them a hard time for it, fuck society. And good for them for feeling comfortable being themselves - or, more accurately, making the world deal with who they are as people and not letting themselves get browbeaten into "safe" stereotypes. find that I sort of respect girls who sleep around a lot
I think either gender faces sanctions when they flaunt their digressions from the norm. It isn't women who have a lot of sex with multiple partners that face blowback; it's women that visibly have a lot of sex with multiple partners. And while men face different stigmas, they still face stigmas - man-whores don't get invited to family barbecues. A society based on family units will recognize the need of men (and, to a much lesser extent, women) to "sow their wild oats" but positions of responsibility invariably go to the stable. It's the "bite their thumb at society" part that always gets people in trouble. No one gives a shit what you do behind closed doors unless you're running for office but as soon as you bring it out onto the porch, all of a sudden everyone's got an opinion.
A maxim. And fuck them and theirs, haters gon hate p.s. please tell me if that link works, I had to copy it funnyeither gender faces sanctions when they flaunt their digressions from the norm.
all of a sudden everyone's got an opinion
I haven't encountered many people that feel that they have that responsibility. If anything I've met many who want to sleep around with as many people as possible and get annoyed if they don't "score" on a given weekend (needless to say, these are people that I'm not friends with). My college has a "slut-walk" every year to raise awareness to the idea of slut-shaming and the double-standard surrounding it. While the purpose is to raise awareness, I think it's mostly a useless exercise since it doesn't actually open a discourse to discuss these ideas and why they exist.
> Look at how the double standard between guys who have a lot of sex and girls who have a lot of sex. In general, one is highly regarded and the other is disparaged. Up to a point. There is also a point where a guy who literally sleeps with anything become an object of ridicule and significantly less attractive to discriminating women. Sure - he can probably do 100 woman compared to a woman doing 10 men for the same judgment, but the stigma still exists.
In general, I think there is an unfair social expectation that women experience anything sexual less than men. I would consider a woman taking ownership of her body if she chooses how to explore and enjoy her sexuality regardless of the norm.what does hubski think about "It terrifies us to even fathom that a woman could take ownership of her body"
Once you sell something, you don't exactly own it anymore. In my opinion, she lost ownership of her body the day she took money for it to be used.
Square those two statements for me, if you want.In my opinion, she lost ownership of her body the day she took money for it to be used.
I would consider a woman taking ownership of her body if she chooses how to explore and enjoy her sexuality regardless of the norm.
For me, its the exchange of money that makes me lose respect for what she has chosen to do. By " she chooses how to explore and enjoy her sexuality regardless of the norm", i meant that I think a girl has taken ownership if she chooses to be a "slut"-sleeping around and doing what she wants for her own pleasure. I don't think we are fair in treating women who have had many sexual partners in comparison to guys who act the same way.
Very similar to insomniasexx's perspective. I'm just not on the same page as everyone else on this. I think the exchange of money makes it empowering. She's using our society's shamefaced obsession with porn to pay for a college education. College educations are pretty empowering. So I'm running into trouble reconciling your point about respect with the practical results of her actions.For me, its the exchange of money that makes me lose respect for what she has chosen to do.