Female Sexual Opression

[RavenTDA]

First of all keep this topic clean. It's capable of debate if we all act mature enough.

Anyways I'd like to bring up the double standard issue of how Females and Males are treated very differntly when it come to terms of sexual promiscuity. Like for instance if a girl has many partners "omg ew she's a slut" but if a guy does "omg high five man you are awesome!"

It's been around for generations and not singled out to this country alone. Like some of the middle eastern countries, it's their culture to cover their entire body from head to toe.

So my question is why do you think it is this way, and how could it be changed if it ever will be changed, and so on.

 

[rexxzecutioner]

It is an attribute in many many species of animals for the dominant male to have as many female partners as he can. I believe this trait carried over and is really ingrained in a lot of our culture. Of course we have a good amount of social engineering to work against that, but this is really the norm in the animal kingdom for many species, as far as I am concerned.

Why it is not true for females in many human cultures extends to even the oldest religious practices.

 

[PK8]

Well...it certainly sucks that I can't think of a way this'll be changed. I often asked myself this quite alot and I'm glad you brought it up and I too am seeking some answers. :P But yeah, I totally don't like those guys that are like "I've alot of girls, I'm a pimp!" and so on...so yeah.

 

[Venetia]

Firstly, I love you, because I was thinking about bringing up this topic.

Nextly, here's me opining. Just what everyone was hoping for, I know >_>;;.

Gender roles in sexuality are obvious, and I'll mention what I think of it altogether.

There will undoubtedly be several fellas here who say, "omg womenz get treated the same as me lulz", because they've never really realized the ubiquitous and subtle ways in which sexual discrimination takes place.

It's different from racism, and here's why: it's not taboo. A guy holding open the door for me and snubbing a dude is smiled upon, and a hospital specializing in only women is smiled upon. It's commonplace to assume a woman has no technological expertise, as much as it's a general assumption that I want kids and like jewelry. It's not a taboo to assume these things--everyone does. You ask a kid if Barbie is meant for girls and G.I. Joe is meant for boys and they'll tell you, 9 times out of ten, that you're right.

What I mean by taboo is that if you were to openly assume that all Mexicans love burritos and all those of African descent are good at basketball, it's racist. But only a select few will call you sexist for carrying the same assumptions about women.

Fact of the matter is, there will always be gender roles. As a hunter-gatherer society at its core, we as a species will always have and fall into gender stereotypes in atleast one way or another. It's the same way in all animals; there is usually very little role-bending or role-sharing excluding very select species, such as the seahorse or the lovebird.

While all races are only different in small ways, women are very, very different from men. We are have different susceptibility to disease. We endure pain differently. We enjoy sex differently. We have a very different skeletal and muscle structure. Our brains are shaped differently and transmit neurons differently. You wouldn't think immediately that a woman is so completely different but it's amazing how much extra stuff is tacked onto that extra appendage of the "XX" chromosomal pair.

As a higher society with less of an emergence on physical needs overall, it is obvious that the lines between genders will blur more than ever, and that's a really good thing. I think I deserve as much money as Johnny Manmeat over there who's doing the same job as me. I think I deserve to join the same clubs as him and enjoy the same tier in society as him.

But I also don't mind the differences, and I don't think it's completely wise to restrict the sexist nature altogether.

Women-centered hospitals are important because, as I said, women are very different physically, and they're usually mostly natal-care and gyno's, anyhow. Women-centered gyms or fitness clubs are needed because we're intimidated by men who have a tendency to leer or judge us. Men are allowed to join these things legally, just most tend to shy away because they fear being perceived as feminine.

On the same token, I don't see a problem with man-centered things, just so long as a woman is still allowed to join if they really care to.

One thing I'm not too happy about, though: Leadership. When I assume leadership roles, I'm often seen as a bossy bitch, even though I'm as mild-mannered and easy to get along with as a ... (Uh, I can't think of an analogy.) When a dude assumes a leadership role, he has "initiative". That's one thing I could really lose and be a lot happier about.

But as for promiscuity, there'll always be a slant on it. Even women pass judgments on other women who "get around". However I think it's improved quite a bit. Used to be a chick couldn't even sleep with another man after her husband died or would be killed for becoming homosexual--now it's definitely a lot more lenient.


Anyway, that's my two cents. (More like ten dollars.)

 

[RavenTDA]

It is an attribute in many many species of animals for the dominant male to have as many female partners as he can.

I don't see how dominance has anything to do with sexuality. That aside, even if it's an instinct for males to to seek out partners that doesn't mean their partners should be nonsexual. If we can conculde that it's instict to procreate wouldn't that botch things up if one half of it wasn't sexual? While it's usually the role of the female to be chosey with her partners to promote that the stronger ones to pass on their genes, limiting them to be unsexual would mean they were more than just chosey they just don't at all. I do agree that in the usual case males are more sex driven than females, but I don't see how or why females need/should be unsexual. Why can't a female be chosy and still have many partners to procreate if we are talking strickly on a natural level.

Of course we have a good amount of social engineering to work against that, but this is really the norm in the animal kingdom for many species, as far as I am concerned.

Why it is not true for females in many human cultures extends to even the oldest religious practices.

Indeed humans with culture tend to divert from instincts. But if we are talking about religious practices then wouldn't that mean that BOTH male and female should restrain themselves from sex unless it is after marriage and ONLY for procreation. That's from the Christian stand point isn't it? So then why still in our culture despite religious infulences do we have this double standard?

@Venetia

Wow ^^; I think you kinda went off on a big tangent there. You seem to be hung up on gender roles which is an off shoot of the issues behind sexual opression for females but I want to keep this strictly to sexuality. That's like a whooooooole other debate.

But as for promiscuity, there'll always be a slant on it. Even women pass judgments on other women who "get around".

Exactly. This isn't just a limit of men supressing women. I'm talking about how it's in our culture in general. Why is it this way? Why do even women do this to eachother?

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

I'll tell you where the double standard comes from. Over testosterone prone fathers. They polish their shotguns and sit on the porch with their shit kicker boots when you go to take your daughter out - even try to stare ya down which is funny, since they're wearing shit kicker boots. At the same time, they see their son with a chick they smile, give him a pat on the back, and walk away - 'that's my boy'.

It's a case of, I wanted girls so you have girls, but I'm a guy and I know what guy's want. Sucks, horribly, but some people are just ignorant of the fact they're even doing that.

 

[rexxzecutioner]

I don't see how dominance has anything to do with sexuality.

How can you not? Dominance means you are the alpha male, the ruler. You get what you want when you want. Males are wired to have sex, much moreso than women. Testosterone is quite a volatile chemical, and sexual hormones in males increase the libido to astounding levels. Having multiple sexual partners is a method to increase prosperous populations. The fact that it is obsolete now does not mean that it wasn't useful at one time, we simply retain the biology. This, I believe, is part of the reason that multiple partners for males it not seen in such a negative light today(not through any direct influence of course) because our cultures have been influenced since the beginning by this sort of behavior.

 

[Diedrupo]

Women are supposed to have multiple partners, if you look at the way animals procreate and realize that we are really no different than any other animal.

Sure men are capable of being horny at any time, but women get incredibly horny for about a week every month (i'm generalizing, but it's during ovulation, and this is basically the same thing as a female animal being in heat), and they aren't supposed to just get fucked by the same guy every time they are ready to have kids.

It's just shitty human culture that's ingrained this in people's heads, that's all. It'll change over time when people get smarter and uh stop being influenced by old traditions and religions.

 

[lunarhiro2002]

whats wrong with saying its bad to have multiple partners?

There are far more benefits to remaining in a 1 to 1 relationship if you are married. Less chance of viral infections, your not degrading yourself by being a slave to your lebedo...list goes on and on.

As for the treatment of men being better with the more women they sleep with...I don't think that will ever change as long as everyone is aloud to believe whatever they want.

 

[RavenTDA]

How can you not? Dominance means you are the alpha male, the ruler. You get what you want when you want.

Which I still don't see how that has to do with sexuality. That has to do with agression yes but in sex there are both roles of dominance and submission. I don't see how a submissive person would be less sexual. Less agressive yes, less sexual no. I don't know what you mean still.

Males are wired to have sex, much moreso than women. Testosterone is quite a volatile chemical, and sexual hormones in males increase the libido to astounding levels. Having multiple sexual partners is a method to increase prosperous populations. The fact that it is obsolete now does not mean that it wasn't useful at one time, we simply retain the biology. This, I believe, is part of the reason that multiple partners for males it not seen in such a negative light today(not through any direct influence of course) because our cultures have been influenced since the beginning by this sort of behavior.

Okay I agree with you on males are more likely to have sex on their mind and so on like I said before. But what I don't understand is the logic behind how that has to do with women being shunned on being sexual. Yes in general men will seek out sex more but why is it viewed so bad if a woman gives in to a seeking male?

It's a case of, I wanted girls so you have girls, but I'm a guy and I know what guy's want. Sucks, horribly, but some people are just ignorant of the fact they're even doing that.

Good point. Okay so maybe perhaps there's an angle of Male competiviness and protectivness that has them want to drive away other males from their "pack". Okay that supports theories of nature.

whats wrong with saying its bad to have multiple partners?

There are far more benefits to remaining in a 1 to 1 relationship if you are married. Less chance of viral infections, your not degrading yourself by being a slave to your lebedo...list goes on and on.

Uh...what are you arguing? Topic is sexual opression of women not multiple partners are bad.

Women are supposed to have multiple partners, if you look at the way animals procreate and realize that we are really no different than any other animal.

Sure men are capable of being horny at any time, but women get incredibly horny for about a week every month (i'm generalizing, but it's during ovulation, and this is basically the same thing as a female animal being in heat), and they aren't supposed to just get fucked by the same guy every time they are ready to have kids.

It's just shitty human culture that's ingrained this in people's heads, that's all. It'll change over time when people get smarter and uh stop being influenced by old traditions and religions.

Agreed Died.

So now if it's nature for the males to protect their pack and ward off other males and also nature for women to seek out males that one week they are in heat... It's not really just basically nature that has women in this role in our culture, because of the fact she does go into heat, because at that moment in time it would be postive for her to be sexual.

 

[rexxzecutioner]

Speaking of sexuality from a biological perspective, not as a choice. And I gave reasons from my speculations as to why I think that women seeking multiple partners is shunned and why it is not true for men. It is an evolution of culture that stems from these primal practices.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

It honestly dates back to kings and pharaohs and tribal chiefs. Spread your seed and all that nonsense. The male dominant ruler claimed the females that was his, no one could have them, but he could have more. It created a stigma of a woman having to be submissive to one dominant male. In other words, it created a circle of bull shit.

In matriarchs (is that the right term?) the funny thing is it wasn't always reversed. Not all ruling females had multiple male partners. Some, were the other woman. It wasn't so uncommon even then to see the male still have more partners - but it comes from the same ideology.

In old world, woman was meant to carry a child. Man was meant to spread his seed. A woman can only be pregnant by one man (at a given time), but man has no limitation and can impregnate as many women as his physical conditioning could allow.

People just mixed it up and got chauvinistic. Then, they felt so challenged they tried to back up such mistakes with... that's right, more bull shit.

EDIT:
An evolution of culture? I've always hated that saying.

 

[rexxzecutioner]

Progression? Semantics shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Venetia]

I think a weird "factoid" is getting out here that needs to be squelched: Primates don't go into "heat". We ovulate. A woman's body will go through some changes during a select few days, but there's no evidence that their libido increases. During the menstruation period of the "cool down" phase of ovulation, it's quite the opposite: the idea of sex should become unpleasant because the act of it is futile for a little while, naturally speaking. It's not always a week, it's different for every woman. Some women don't ovulate at all, but they still experience sexual drive. It's not related in our species. Some women don't even know when they're ovulating (hence ovulation testers for those who want to become pregnant).

I tend to go off in tangents but the wall of text I presented earlier is still relevant. Women are sexually oppressed because of gender roles which are ingrained in us naturally, and I was just taking a hundred years to get to my point. I'm not "hung up" on gender roles, I was trying to delineate them for those who may be oblivious to them.

The simple instinct behind it is that humans have a patriarchal harem-type sexual deviance, as has been stated before. We instinctually separate genders. Women are the protectors and creators of the young, and they are the gatherers. Men are the protectors of the herd, and they are the hunters.

Look at it biologically: Women produce a single (sometimes two) eggs every cycle, which is typically a month. Men create millions of sperm a day. Testosterone is an aggressor, and estrogen is a suppressor. Human women are physically designed to accept one partner at a time because that's all they need to do the job of fertilization. We also get more emotionally attached to things, like partners. Men are physcially designed to "hunt" for prospective partners and are (for the most part; our intelligence affects this) biologically less emotional and less partner-driven.

Also, women are "catty" toward one another because we too feel the innate urge to win. Win the best males, win the best children. Even if it's not on the mind at all the instinct to be the alpha female is still there. Women'll berate other women for "getting around" but it all comes down to jealous tactics that'll score them points over their competition.

 

[Roman Candle]

hunter-gatherer society at its core

???
Hunter-gather societies were the least specialised societies in the history of mankind, including by gender.

Misogyny is, I think, mostly driven by the fact that lots men can't stand the fact that women have control over them, through sex. Women have the choice to say yea/ney, but men don't have the choice to not be attracted to women they find attractive. I suppose that calling women sluts is a way of trying to take back that control.

It's always nice to put down people who've been doing what you want to do, (like having sex). I think jealousy comes into it too.

not degrading yourself by being a slave to your lebedo

You sound as if your libido is not part of you, but something external. I, Mr. S, am thirsty, hungry, horny, sleepy, emotional, and logical too.

PS
Humourous typo:
You sound as if my libedo is not part of you.
^_^

 

[rpgfan_2007]

....

 

[Venetia]

Let the flame wars begin over that one ... Damn ...


In some cultures, specifically the ones never touched by strict religion, sleeping with a man other than your husband was not just allowed, but praised (especially cultures which praised nature over deities). You're speaking really figuratively, not realistically, fairly, or proactively.

Love is an abstract emotion and cannot be applied to physical results. Because a woman is being "penetrated" it does not "violate" her, although I can see your reasoning. Why? Because it's not "love" that's being denied in promiscuity, it's jealousy being shunned.

The great risk factors for sex are pregnancy and disease. Pregnancy has become a much smaller issue due to birth control. Disease can be contained by safe sex practices and many of them can be cured (outside HIV and herpes, and herpes can be tamed).

With these great risks hugely reduced, the only thing to worry over is developing an obtuse attraction to someone you sleep with that, in the end, you're not really compatible with. There's no way for every woman to marry their one and only true partner, because people change and can grow apart over time.

I don't particularly like the idea of anyone "slinging it" around, man or woman, but we can't police their right to pleasure just because we get jealous or afraid.

Lastly I'd like to mention: "Virginity" is the state of the hymen (please see an anatomy book if you're unsure) either sloughing off or being penetrated. The hymen is always busted after the first menstruation. The concept of taking a woman's virginity stems from a time when underage girls were married, whom had not had their first menstruation and were thusly "intact". So unless you sleep with a 7 year old girl (some start as early as 8), you're not going to sleep with any girl that has not lost her hymen. It can also be severed in severe sports or impact-related injuries.

Viewing virginity as a thing to be taken is a backwards, uneducated, ... Downright retarded point of view. You can't deny a woman her right to choose a partner based on abstract "moral" values based off antediluvian concepts.

 

[rpgfan_2007]

.....

 

[Roman Candle]

Don't stoop, Venetia :D

Controling women's sexuality was obviously important because you had to know that your children were yours. Imagaine if you left your farm to your 'son' who turned out to be begat of a shepherd or some such. Shudder.

PS This is not aimed at you, rpgfan. Please don't reply to me.

 

[rpgfan_2007]

.....