I'm sure you've all seen some variation of this quote, be it a facebook version or otherwise. This particular quote irritated me with the final, "That shut her up."
Quick lesson: rephrasing the problem in a way that seems witty and funny does not negate the problem or make the person who points it out less correct. You didn't shut her up, you proved her point by showing how insensitive you are to the issue.
"Stop being a shitty lock."
I would like to quarrel with the idea that women are supposed to be locks, that virginity is something that needs to be locked up and protected. This isn't the middle ages, a woman is not worth more if she hasn't had sex. Being a virgin does not make someone more moral, or "pure," or better than other people. It just means she hasn't had sex.
Funny how you could have just looked that up in Webster's.
If a woman does not want to have sex with a man, it's not because she is keeping herself locked up. She has not "maintained" her virtue, she has not won the age-old battle of men versus women. She has simply decided that she does not want to engage in sex with this man. Maybe it's because she doesn't have a condom and does not want to risk STDs. Maybe it's because she has to get up for work the next day. Maybe it's because she doesn't want to have sex with men she is not in love with. Maybe she's just genuinely not attracted to him.
Regardles of the reason, viewing her as the victor is unhealthy. Now the man leaves dejected, emasculated and less of a man. See how this depiction is starting to look unfavorable for BOTH parties involved?
If the woman did want to have sex, she did not lose her virtue or become a slut. Consenting parties both get to have fun and feel good. What's so bad about that?
Also, this completely ignores the possibility of a woman seeking out a man for sex. A man can say no and still be a man, and a woman can ask for sex without being a slut.
We expect everyone to fit into this incredibly small and constricting boxes of "gender" that leaves a surprisingly large amount of people out. That's not good for anyone, even the people who somehow manage to attain those ridiculous standards.
Sex isn't a game. No lock, no key, just two people of equal worth and value having a healthy and enjoyable time.
In the words of the atheist bus ads, "Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
But Chelsea! Don't you know that a woman seeking out a man is just a filthy harlet of society?
ReplyDelete/sarcasm
the only response to the double standard that actually has a bit of merit that ive found is from comdeian Jim Jefferies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6UAtYlo7Io And the only point is that having casual sex is easier for a girl than it would be for a guy... In general guys are often seeking a girl that would just say yes... Girls just have to wait and say yes... This isnt true all the time but on the whole its safe to say that if a moderately attractive or better looking girl goes out looking for sex she's going to find it far more often than not, she can likely plan on it.. For guys well we can go out and hope to "get lucky"...
ReplyDeleteI think that this entire effect is caused by the fact that men (as a rule, or at least, as society says is the rule) tend to seek sex from women. TV (since I have no idea if this is how things are in reality) says that if a woman wants sex, she goes to a bar and waits until someone up to her standards arrives and courts her. If a man wants sex, he goes and... well... finds a woman to court. As long as one gender courts the other, there will be that sense of competition, where the seeker 'wins' when they get laid and the sought 'loses'.
ReplyDeleteIs it fair? No. Is it universally true, by any means? No.
(Also: using the simile about locks and keys, virgins are TERRIBLE - who wants a lock that can't be opened, or a key that can't open any locks?)
Anonymous you have an unhealthy view of sexuality.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, the sought does not lose, they WIN by being able to select the best applicant from among the group.
Second, your whole seeker/competition model is erroneous as it makes the assumption that women are not interested in casual sex, and therefore if they are courted they are going against their will and thus losing.
There are many reasons to turn down casual sex: the guy is unattractive, she's in a monogamous relationship, she's on her period, she doesn't have protection, she's got other things on her mind, she doesn't feel like socializing, and the most important to my discussion: she doesn't feel safe with him.
As much as it pains me to say, the courtship is necessary in our culture and society. Women are exposed to much more danger in a casual-sex-with-a-stranger-at-the-bar scenario.
Men commit a VERY high percentage of violent crimes, and going somewhere private with a strange man from the bar exposes you considerably to rape, murder, and abuse. Pregnancy is much less escapable for women.
The reason that many men fail as seekers is because hitting on a woman is not only about getting her to feel attracted to you - it's about earning her trust.
To be fair, it's very difficult. Men almost never experience the same safety concerns so it's difficult to identify what behavior could set off alarms and what will put her at ease.
Pat - I believe that this is principally why a girl actively seeking casual sex will find it easily and a man will not. A man does not need to overcome these hurdles NEARLY to the extent that a woman does.
Erik - you're probably right about my view of sexuality, but I think you're wrong about why. My point was, as long as one sex is being courted by the other, they will be viewed differently. When ten guys try to hook up with one particular girl at a party, and only one succeeds, it looks like they succeeded where the other nine failed... which makes it look like the one guy won and the other nine lost.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, since women are being sought after (and, for the record, this is my trying to justify the mentality - this isn't how I think. Then again, I'm posting as Anonymous, why do I care? Anyways!), the harder a particular woman is to 'acquire' the more valuable she seems. So, in a sense, woman who are, well, more casual about casual sex ARE losing - losing perceived value.
Couldn't you make the argument though that a woman who has had sex more would be more desirable? She's more experienced and therefore there's a higher chance of her being "good" at sex, so wouldn't that make for a more enjoyable time? More enjoyable time should be a higher value, not difficulty of the chase.
ReplyDeleteAnd furthermore, wouldn't a woman who was difficult to get in bed with be less desirable? Doesn't that make her frustrating and unnecessary? Women A has had sex with 1 man and there's 10 guys after her, Women B has had sex with 10 men and there's 1 guy after her. Both are equally attractive. Why would you choose to go after woman A again?
This system of assigning points to women based on how difficult they are to have sex with seems arbitrary. You could assign the "value" you describe for any number of traits, and difficulty is just one of them. I'm simply proposing that we assign value based on healthier things. Instead of "how many men has she had sex with" let's ask "will we have a good time in bed?" Instead of "how many men want to have sex with her" we can ask "am I personally attracted to her?" It's okay to prefer to have sex with certain women, but only because of her sexual partner count and those your competing for? That's just childish.
And while I understand you're trying to "explain" the mentality, your explanation shows just how immature it really is. It makes it sound like all men never aged beyond 13. I have a higher opinion of men.
I agree that the other nine guys pursuing the same woman are, indeed, "losing." I just meant that the woman herself is not losing.
ReplyDeleteAlso I have never once perceived a woman as being more desirable because she was difficult to attract. Women who ARE desirable tend to be difficult to attract, but that's only as a result of other qualities making them desirable. The difficulty in attraction then stems only from her increased number of options and ability to increase her standards while still attracting quality suitors.
I think it's unfortunate that one gender tends to be more proactive about initiating relations, but I hypothesize that it goes back to this issue of personal safety.
Pursuing someone implies consenting to being with them in some capacity, and women (rationally) tend not to give consent without some proof of trustworthiness. For this reason, a woman would be unlikely to court a stranger.
Like I said, this is a difficult concept for us to grasp. It's not something we have ever been exposed to, and likely never will.
1. It is proven that orgasms for men and women are different - i mean to say that women require a "emotional" connection to gain an orgasm... by this i mean to say that the way orgasm works for women is through the spinal cord and for men its a reflex which we cannot control... (sorry its been awhile since i read the scientific article about it to write this more clearly... this is proven its not some mumbo jumbo... i just really cant remember the exact wording for it)
ReplyDelete2. Virginity in the past was held dear at first because it meant that she would not have any diseases which were undesirable, also it is understood that through sex one can bond with another quite easily... just because of the nature of it...
Organized religion took one or both of these factors into creating the idea that one should not have sex before marriage... mainly because it promotes more stable marriages and in some views a more structured society...
3. So what if a guy wants to have sex with alot of girls... so what if it was vice versa... the main issue at stake is what is healthier sexually... that is the real issue... this really is just a battle of mind over matter... thats the true battle our society faces
4. to be honest the whole underlying arguement no one really answers is whether it is better to have a patriarchal or matriarchal society... we argue for equality but really there is no equalriarchal societal model...