A good buddy of mine who, in his own words, was a "man-ho" during his single years once told me that he planned to tell his sons to get whatever they could (sexually, if that's not obvious) while they could. I asked him, in all innocence, if he would give the same advice to his daughters, and he demurred.
(I do this sometimes. I'll ask a question in innocence and trip up someone, and then sort of feel like a jerk.)
Now, he obviously enjoyed himself. The women he was with for the most part enjoyed themselves, I think--though I'd guess a few didn't believe him when he said he wasn't going to settle down--he was extremely popular. He didn't seem to hold them in contempt.
But he didn't want that for his daughter. Very clearly. He was repulsed by the idea, I would say.
Cognitive dissonance emerges.
I sort of understand the madonna/whore thing better: There are women you "date" and women you "marry". (Though I've wondered if they're not good enough to marry why would you date them? And shouldn't good marriage material also be good date material?)
I also think, logically, one wants one's children to have good sex lives, within the parameters of whatever morality one subscribes. (I think that viscerally, one also doesn't want to actually think about it much.)
I guess what I wonder is, if it's really just that the "whore" side of the madonna/whore duality has become more acceptable, or if--sexual revolution or no--people still feel like they're sinning when, uh, fornicating, and if the evidence of that is a rejection of that lifestyle for their daughters at least.
Or is it just a hold over?
I hear more from women that "women aren't wired" to have the sort of sex that the sexual revolution has freed them to have. It's even reflected in some movies (like the Judd Apatow oeuvre) as a defect for women to pursue casual sex. (I guess that isn't too much different from the past; the lead female is never vigorously active with a bunch of different men.)
I guess I don't get what's going on. I think the old way, however hypocritical, was better. We all agreed that virginity, monogamy and fidelity were optimal, even as we fell short of it. But maybe I'm just a killjoy.
I should say that I'm writing here from the viewpoint of the individual. I think it's pretty clear that society would clearly be better off with virginity followed by lifelong fidelity. (Limited polyamory could theoretically provide stronger family structures, as long as fidelity was strictly kept.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I hear more from women that "women aren't wired" to have the sort of sex that the sexual revolution has freed them to have.
ReplyDeleteTrue. At least in my experience. I knew a few girls who talked tough about sex--basically like guys--in college. But one had a steady boyfriend who she ended up marrying; one was all talk and never slept around; and one turned out to be a lesbian senior year!
The only girl I've known who really truly slept around was obviously miserable. Whenever there was a new male employee, she's sleep with him as quickly as possible, but then would mope and moan when he lost interest. And they always did pretty quickly. I suspect that--as most things are with girls --it was more about competition and upstaging the other single female employees than it was about having lots of sex.
The only girl I've known who really truly slept around was obviously miserable.
ReplyDeleteI knew a similar girl, she felt the same way. She talked about casual sex like it was great and no big deal, but she spent a lot of time crying about guys not calling and feeling bad about having slept around.
Also, contrary to how it's painted in the popular culture, all of the men I know who act like whores are miserable. They'll talk about how great it is to get laid with random women, but then they're also profoundly unhappy, so it's hard to believe that it's really working out for them. Most all of them seem incapable of mature relationships, and I don't mean that they necessarily eschew commitment, but that they also tend to date irrationally and suffer a great deal of abuse when they really are into someone. And it makes sense since promiscuity generally appears to be more about external validation than sex. If someone just wanted good, regular sex, that person would more rationally pursue a long term relationship.
Plus, which is more manly and attractive: mastery over self or the slavish following of hormonal whims. To me, the latter always seemed rather weak and pathetic. In fact, one of the things I initially found very attractive about my husband was that while he was very much in demand, he didn't slut around.
The Boomers were wrong. Casual sex is overrated. It's not liberation; it's the absence of self civilization.
The Boomers were wrong. Casual sex is overrated. It's not liberation; it's the absence of self civilization.
ReplyDeleteI think that's the key graf there, even if you don't think casual sex is bad.
I should point out that the aforementioned man-ho friend got married and is happily monogamous, but he never gave any indication he was unhappy during his "dating" years.
He did, however, end up forever entwined with a crazy woman who bore him a son. (Good kid who's being tortured by his mother to get back at his father.)
He had an interesting episode with a psychic once that relates to this.
contrary to how it's painted in the popular culture, all of the men I know who act like whores are miserable.
ReplyDeleteIt's nice to think we're not so different. I like to think that's true for most men.
I think feminism went a long way toward screwing up the natural--and very satisfying--relationship between committed men and women. (Newsflash, I know.) It tries so hard to convince women they're missing out on something by not being promiscuous.
One of my favorite things from the show Arrested Development: their spoof on "Girls Gone Wild" was called "Girls with Low Self-Esteem". Which also speaks to Freeman's point about external validation.
knox--
ReplyDeleteThat's funny; that's about the only thing about Arrested Development that I know, the GWLSE.
Yesterday when I was looking for that Carlin bit on ugly pro-lifers, I came across another bit he did on feminism. The guy had enough integrity to realize that free speech trumped politics, which I respect, and he ripped the feminists pretty hard.
'course, being Carlin, he basically agreed with their misandry, he just also disagreed with their idolization of the "man's world", which he also despised. Heh.
The thing is you can be a womanizer who loves woman. And a man of the world does not despise or denigrate a woman of "experiance." The guys who worry so much about virginity are the ones who have the performance anixiety. If you are a loving man, what do you care what your lady did before. If you love her and cherish her that is all that matters.
ReplyDeleteOf course on the other hand all you broads are fuckin' crazy.
ReplyDeleteYou girls should just get the right shoes and it will be all right.
ReplyDeleteI suggest pumps.
Heh. I will take issue with this:
ReplyDeleteLimited polyamory could theoretically provide stronger family structures, as long as fidelity was strictly kept.
If by stronger you mean families getting stronger by experiencing widowhood. :) I don't know why anyone puts up with the multiple wife or multiple husband thing. Seems like an inherently oppressive arrangement.
But then again, some people are probably into that...
Well, I'm not sure I necessarily mean multiple wives/multiple husbands. (I've often said a man with two wives deserves what he gets.)
ReplyDeleteBut this is also why I say "theoretically".