"Last week, Harvard government professor Harvey Mansfield told students that the sexual revolution may not have served the best interests of young women. Instead, it had merely "lower[ed]" us to the crass level of men, who pursue sex thoughtlessly and without hopes of marriage. In a talk titled "Feminism and the Autonomy of Women," he suggested that men who grow used to "free samples" in the bedroom are going to leave women high-and-dry when it comes to committed relationships. And then he revealed his insights into the erotic: "[Today's] women play the men's game, which they are bound to lose. Without modesty, there is no romance—it isn't so attractive or so erotic," said the professor. The solution to the problem, clearly, was for women to start saying no a little more often."
What do you all think? Should women quit playing the so called man's game? I thought the articles and speech posed interesting questions. While I certainly wouldn't go as far as the Harvard professor in suggesting that the sexual revolution has made women grim. I think we are starting to see the counterrevolution reembracing some of the more traditional values of marriage and family.
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is nothing quite so beautiful as a modest woman who is confident in who she is and has firm boundaries. Someone who has her hand in a higher power and lives her life by guiding principles can be absolutely gorgeous, even when she is only blessed with otherwise average looks.
I totally support what Professor Mansfield seems to be saying. Less is more.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that he has some good points. I don't think that casual sex has good long term effects. Of course, my views are coloured strongly by my religious beliefs, so for all of you who think that automatically invalidates my views, feel free to dismiss me.
What I found interesting is the sneering tone in which the article was written. I don't think it was a fair treatment (to their credit, Slate doesn't pretend to be balanced) and I wish I could have the full text of Mansfield's speech.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I for one embrace the fact that I can choose to have the kind of life I want. Marriage and children, just marriage or a single life. A career or no career. I can be modest- or not. I have a choice.
The revolution gave me that choice. It didn't force anything on me, it gave me the possibility to actually do what I want to do without being judged as some kind of faliure to the human race.
quote:crass level of men, who pursue sex thoughtlessly and without hopes of marriage.
I'm insulted on many men's behalf.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you always had that choice. The only thing that changed is how society viewed it.
I know plenty of men who pursue sex thoughtlessly and without hopes of marriage...but I spend much of my time on campus. It is pretty crass, these guys who brag about getting laid. I mean, have some respect, be a gentleman...at least keep it quiet.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Not at all. Depending on where in history we place me trying to remain single and follow a career in law, say, I could get burnt at the stake as a witch, thrown in jail, put into a nunnery, shunned and ostracised, insulted, abused into submission, forcibly married off and then raped, locked up as mad...
Does that sound like a choice to you?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: it gave me the possibility to actually do what I want to do without being judged as some kind of faliure to the human race.
Ironically, this also made you much more likely to fail, since you no longer have the whole of society behind you. Individualism is not all it's cracked up to be.
quote:
quote:crass level of men, who pursue sex thoughtlessly and without hopes of marriage.
I'm insulted on many men's behalf.
Rightly so. However, the only thing that makes this statement insulting is the comma. Remove it, and it becomes quite true and uninsulting.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:this also made you much more likely to fail, since you no longer have the whole of society behind you.
So? You think I want to be protected and saved from making mistakes? You think I need the whole of society behind me in order to have the courage to carry out my dreams?
Also, if I for some reason was unable to make my husband happy, I would have failed. If I for some reason was unable to have children, I would have failed. If I could not look after those children I would have failed. If I could not make a good home, I would have failed. If I did not do what my husband asked I would have failed...
Let me count the ways in which, with the whole of society supporting my decision to be married and have and nurture children, I could have failed.
quote:Rightly so. However, the only thing that makes this statement insulting is the comma. Remove it, and it becomes quite true and uninsulting.
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: it gave me the possibility to actually do what I want to do without being judged as some kind of faliure to the human race.
Ironically, this also made you much more likely to fail, since you no longer have the whole of society behind you. Individualism is not all it's cracked up to be.
Not really. There just needs to be some sort of balance between the needs of the individual and all of society. Society has often backed things that were wrong, such as imposing unnecessary limits based on something arbitrary. We definetly need all sorts of people instead of just one sort of people doing the same exact thing even if it makes them miserable.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So? You think I want to be protected and saved from making mistakes? You think I need the whole of society behind me in order to have the courage to carry out my dreams?
I'm not doubting your courage, merely your ability. And it's nothing personal, it applies to everyone, both man and woman. Everyone is so busy trying to "carry out their dreams" that they don't sit down to carry out what's good for them and their neighbours. You get alot further when everyone is going in more or less the same direction than with everyone going off in their own, frequently opposite direction.
Also, I think you are unfairly stereotyping a society in which marriage is prized. Women were not simply baby-making machines, at least, not to everyone. And is that much worse, I ask you, than simply being treated as a disposable sex object?
Think about. There has never been a perfect, ideal world or system of society, but some are worse than others, and some are frankly less sustainable than others.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Society has often backed things that were wrong, such as imposing unnecessary limits based on something arbitrary.
Indeed. As well as selfish "rights" based on something equally arbitrary.
quote: We definetly need all sorts of people instead of just one sort of people doing the same exact thing even if it makes them miserable.
I never disputed that. However, everyone simply looking out for their own self-interest doesn't make them different kind of people, it merely makes them less interesting kind of people.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I wonder how much of what this lecturer is seeing is because it is what he wants to see.
I think that is a question we could ask about each and every person on this planet, and in most cases not get back a very comfortable response.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once again, balance is needed. If people cannot follow their dreams they make the people around them miserable. Society is improved and enriched and shaped by rebels as well as the traditional conservative types.
As for that article what about insisting that men be modest too? I do not like the idea of casual sex. I hate how our culture trivializes sex and turns it into something mondane, i am uncomfortable with the idea of having sex with a stranger, but should i judge people who do that? Perhaps not. Perhaps if the opportunity presented itself, I'd choose the same path. All I know is I'd be reluctant to have sex right away with a guy. I'd want to make sure he at least has respect for me first, but I am not sure if I could wait until marriage as I don't know if I want to get married due to a fear of weddings. (Stupid, I know)
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Women were not simply baby-making machines, at least, not to everyone. And is that much worse, I ask you, than simply being treated as a disposable sex object?
There are several things I want to say:
1. Not every man nowadays, either, thinks of women as sex objects. We established that earlier.
2. In the past, men thought about sex too. I really, really, really doubt anything has changed in that respect. The fact that talk about sex has become more socially acceptable has hardly made sex more of an interest in men's minds, only one that they can express more easily.
I mean, when you read all that old poetry. Shakespeare, Chaucer, Byron, Donne. There was sex on those men's minds!
3. Women have never been just baby-making machines. For thousands of years they have played various roles in the households of the nation, filling whatever gaps men left to do depending on the era.
It is the choice to choose which gaps I fill that I demand.
quote:You get a lot further when everyone is going in more or less the same direction than with everyone going off in their own, frequently opposite direction.
Did I say my dream had to be my own contrary direction? My dream could be anything... It could be to marry and help society work together. It could be to become the Prime Minister and help society work together. It could be to climb Mount Everest or go to the moon. What's important to me is that my dream is not restricted by rules that unjustly tell me I am either not socially adapted for such a role or that I am some kind of raving lunatic or cold-hearted asexual because I think otherwise.
I realise that women are different from men in many ways. I'm not saying that women are the same as men. However, if I happen to be a woman who wants to do something that is traditionally a more "masculine" thing to do I want to be able to do it.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm... I cant find any transcribed version of Harveys speech. I would like to read more about it before drawing any conclusions about what he meant. However, I had seen the Leon Kass writings awhile ago on "World O' Crap", http://blogs.salon.com/0002874/2005/10/18.html (warning - slightly vulgar at times) Her synopisis of it was quite funny, but there is a real anger behind the humor. I think most women find the things these men are saying partonizing in the extreme. I guess by most women I mean me. This quote from Leon Kass pretty much sums up what I find objectionable about the message he is trying to spread. "Here is a (partial) list of the recent changes that hamper courtship and marriage: the sexual revolution, made possible especially by effective female contraception; the ideology of feminism and the changing educational and occupational status of women; the destigmatization of bastardy, divorce, infidelity, and abortion;" The list continues on from there, but these things scare me the most. All these things are considered to be negative side affects of the sexual revolution, and they are all the things that have given women almost equal footing in our society. What he seems to be saying (and actually says outright at one point), is that sex is about power, and the sexual revolution was wrong to give that power into the hands of women, where it wasnt meant to be. I find this additude to be disturbingly Patriarchal. Sex is only about power because that is what men like this have made it into. They teach women that sex is something to be withheld and used as both a lure and a cudgel to get what they want. They teach men that sex is something to be avidly pursued, no matter the consequences, and that if they can convince a woman to sleep with them before they are married, they dont need to respect that woman. They speak about true eroticism and modesty, yet they have perverted a beautiful thing into something distinctly nonerotic. I dont know about you, but I dont find sex appealing when it comes with so many strings attached.
Second of all, the sexual revolution wasnt just about womens rights. It was about SEX. It was about educating oneself so that sex wasnt a terrifying, dirty thing only done in the dark. It was about teaching people, not just women, that the human body is a beautiful thing, to be enjoyed and appreciated for all the joys it can experience. It was about showing women that not only was it OK to have an orgasm, it was downright necessary, and just how to go about getting one for yourself. The sexual revolution was meant to bring both women and men onto an equal plane, where sex wasnt used or abused, but simply enjoyed. I for one and damn glad that I am an adult benefiting from the fruits of the sexual revolution.
This is not to say that some of the repercussions werent bad. I agree that, for some people, sex has devolved into something of very little importance. I find most pornography to be extremely degrading to women(unless it's french, then it's all good). I agree that modesty and self confidence go hand in hand. But this is true of humans in general, and a lack of modesty in anyone is a sign of deeper issues that should be addressed. I dont agree, however, that a sexually aggressive and aware woman cannot also be a modest woman. Same goes for men.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do these folks realize that the attitude they are trying to push is the very thing that caused the sexual revolution in a way? Their insistance on strict rigid morals just leads to more rebellion it seems...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought one of the more interesting things in the article was the new angle being taken on a very old idea. That now sex only in marriage wasn't romanticized and moralized it was being promoted from a it'll make you happy, pragmatic me focus. I don't think that the change in the message will make it more successful because I think it suffers from a lot of the problems of the original, when people try sex outside of marriage it does not tend to reinforce the message that it will make you unhappy and unfulfilled.
I don't know if there is a more successful way to pursue the message. With the deluge of information available today, women are pretty educated and aware of the possible pitfalls of premarital sex yet many choose to embark upon it anyways. I don't think a bunch of middle aged men are going to change their mind no matter how many new ways they think to wrap up the package.
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We've lost the emphasis on responsibility and respect, for yourself and for others.
I do not think that casual sex has caused society to crumble. I do think that casual sex without thought for the repercussions, without thought for accepting the responsibilities of the possible outcomes, without consideration of the feelings of others as well as your own, that I think causes problems.
Equal sexual rights for women should not mean that now women can act as crassly and mindlesly as men. It should mean that now women can approach sexual relations on an equal footing with honorable men.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trying to remember the quote, but it's something like "Why is it when women want to act like men, they have to act like stupid men?"
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does it always make people unhappy and unfulfilled? And how? And do these middle age men really have the right to tell people how to live thier lives when it really will just make them want to rebel more... I don't even HAVE premartial sex and an article like that makes me want to do it just to annoy them.... Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:the sexual revolution may not have served the best interests of young women. Instead, it had merely "lower[ed]" us to the crass level of men who pursue sex thoughtlessly
My wife has been saying this for years.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The sexual revolution lowered the restrictions on women that had never existed for men. No more (or greatly lessened) fear of pregnancy. No more need for marriage to receive intimacies. No more need to worry about consequences.
However, the sexual revolution was also a continuation of the movement in the twentieth century to lower many of the restrictions against women in every other aspect of their lives, and it shouldn't be judged as good or bad in any sweeping definition.
The bad part, IMO, is that the sexual revolution was when many people chose to throw off what they saw as a repressive and illogical moral code. Which is fine, and I think necessary, but they failed to acknowledge the need for a replacement code of ethics and responsibility.
By responsibility I don't mean no premarital sex, ever, or even no promiscuity. I mean the responsibility to respect yourself and your partner(s), to be honest in all relationships, to accept whatever consequences result, and to know when to put your own needs aside for the good of others.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do think that casual sex without thought for the repercussions, without thought for accepting the responsibilities of the possible outcomes, without consideration of the feelings of others as well as your own, that I think causes problems.
Forgive me for asking, but is this not the very definition of casual sex? If you take thought beforehand and afterwords and accept all that responsibility, etc... doesn't it then cease to be casual?
quote:And do these middle age men really have the right to tell people how to live thier lives
Yes, they most certainly do. It's called free speech. Everyone is free not to listen, but they definitely have every right to tell everyone what to do, whenever and however they want. It doesn't matter whether they are men or women, young, middle-aged or old. I can't stand it when people utter things like this, saying someone has no right to say something simply because they disagree with you. Everyone has the right to say whatever they want. Let's have that understood once and for all.
quote:The bad part, IMO, is that the sexual revolution was when many people chose to throw off what they saw as a repressive and illogical moral code. Which is fine, and I think necessary, but they failed to acknowledge the need for a replacement code of ethics and responsibility.
It's called throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and it's something that humanity has raised to an art form through long and continuous practice. It's also known as curing the disease by killing the patient.
posted
Well, I guess if a man found the fact that I wanted to have sex immodest and unattractive, this would be cause to end the relationship. Also, I find it very odd that Mansfield seems to think that MOST men want women who don't want to have sex. Um . . . yeah. About that. Not so much. I also have to say that I find men who think that it's ok for them to want sex but not for a woman to (Madonna-Whore complex, anyone?) mildly deranged. And kind of creepy.
There are of course men who have strong feelings regarding the circumstances in which sex should occur, but how many really want a partner who doesn't want to have sex? Isn't this why so many people end up in counseling? The end of physical relations, generally as a result of other emotional problems in the relationship? I think a healthy human being is not interested in physicality with someone they do not trust and like, whether it's a hug or intercourse; the level of physicality is dictated by religious and societal strictures, but the desire for physical touch and closeness is universal.
Anyway - I personally would not be remotely interested in a man who was turned off by my sexuality. It would clearly outline substantial differences in world views.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forgive me for asking, but is this not the very definition of casual sex? If you take thought beforehand and afterwords and accept all that responsibility, etc... doesn't it then cease to be casual?
Casual doesn't have to mean irresponsible. When I think of casual sex I think of sex without marriage or plans for marriage or even necessarily plans beyond, well, sex.
Doesn't bother me a bit were someone to prefer getting new lovers every week, or night, or hour. But I expect that person to choose wisely, to be honest at all times with each of those lovers about themselves and the situation, to be careful, and to be prepared to accept the responsibility for any consequences. If that takes the spontaneity out of it, well, waah.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What amuses me is that people who want to reduce the amount of non-marital sex always* try to do it by influencing women. Do they figure it's the man's natural role to push and the woman's to put on the brakes until after the ceremony? Why isn't he trying to convince guys that immodest women are unattractive and unerotic, and they should hold out for a sweet, innocent young thang -- since he obviously believes it's true it should be an easy sell! But nope, he's not telling men to stop asking, he's telling women to go back to refusing.
*I'm talking here about people trying to influence the broader culture. Within specific subcultures, such as religions, I know there are groups that emphasis personal responsibility for everyone and teach their boys to wait for marriage as strongly as their girls.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What amuses me is that people who want to reduce the amount of non-marital sex always* try to do it by influencing women.
Even with your footnote, this still isn't true.
One example -- there are groups involved in sex-ed classes that use scare tactics concerning pregnancy and STDs. These groups try to scare both the boys and the girls into abstinance, not just the girls.
If you replace always with often, or maybe even usually, then it becomes a believable statement. But I know for a fact that it is not 100%.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will happily replace "always" with "usually. . ." it's been a long time since high school, and I admit I wasn't thinking of sex ed classes. But can you come up with an example aimed at adults that targets men? I can think of ones about condom usage that target men on a safer-sex level, but no campaigns, speeches, or crazy people trying to talk them into not having sex at all.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There seems to be lots of talk (and some government funding, too) in order to "promote marriage", particularly among poor people.
There are even a few folks trying to focus on the idea of "healthy" marriage *affects shock* as opposed to just the idea that being married will move you out of poverty, regardless of the quality/health/stability of that marriage.
But yes - I would have to agree that generally the message about abstinence is aimed more towards women.
(*Thinking aloud* Perhaps because women bear the brunt of the "responsibility" for what may happen? I.e., raising the child and assuming the cost for that task? Or maybe because in a back-handed way *pun intended - and no it wasn't funny* women are recognized as having more power than we think? And that power has been, and continues to be, twisted by a few fearful men - AND women?)
I think balance is needed in the whole conversation. I absolutely think that the focus on abstinence and marriage does not help anyone when it is presented as a tool of power -
posted
I think it may be because since these freedoms are relatively new for women, women may be less secure in them. Try to tell a guy he shouldn't have non-marital sex and that women will find him more attractive if he is modest, and he will laugh in your face.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The United States had one of the highest adolescent pregnancy rates in the mid-1990s, as it did in the early 1980s. A question often raised is whether the high level of adolescent pregnancy in the United States is due to its high level of immigration or to its racial and ethnic composition. Even though the birthrates and pregnancy rates of racial and ethnic subgroups in the United States vary greatly, studies in the early 1980s showed that rates for white teenagers were among the highest when compared with those of other developed countries. This demonstrated that the U.S. differential was due only in part to the higher rates found among minority groups.14 Current information still supports this point: Among white adolescents (excluding those of Hispanic origin), the pregnancy rate was 57 per 1,000 in 1996 (unadjusted for miscarriages). This rate falls into the moderate category, rather than the high category into which the United States as a whole falls.15§ The abortion rate for white teenagers (19 per 1,000) falls into the low category, while the national U.S. adolescent abortion rate of 29 per 1,000 falls into the moderate category.
and later in the article . . .
quote: The rise in the mean age at parenthood and the decline in adolescent childbearing underlie the trend toward smaller families in Europe and the rest of the industrialized world. This trend reflects the increased importance of achieving higher levels of education and training, which is particularly significant in determining the transition to motherhood among females.32
However, a number of factors are likely to have had a greater impact on teenagers. The provision of sexuality education in the schools, which has increased in many countries (often as part of societal efforts to counter the epidemic of HIV and AIDS), is likely to have made a cumulative contribution to improved knowledge of contraception, ability to negotiate contraceptive use and effectiveness of contraceptive use among adolescents.33 Sweden's success in reducing teenage pregnancy rates and birthrates is credited to both improved sexuality education and improved provision of contraceptives to adolescents.34 More generally, the pragmatic European approach to teenage sexual activity, expressed in the form of widespread provision of confidential and accessible contraceptive services to adolescents, is viewed as a central factor in explaining the more rapid declines in teenage childbearing in northern and western European countries, in contrast to slower decreases in the United States.35
The high rate of teenage childbearing among minority and disadvantaged groups, documented in the United States and the United Kingdom, is consistent with the hypothesis that lack of opportunity and socioeconomic disadvantage contribute to teenage childbearing.36 There is also evidence from studies in the United States that better communication between parents and their adolescent children is associated with later sexual initiation and lower teenage childbearing.37 However, more research is needed in the United States and in other developed countries to examine whether trends have occurred in these and other explanatory factors, as well as whether the effects of these factors on teenage behaviors remain important and continue in the same direction.
And interestingly, warning: Shan is thinking out loud again as conjectured earlier (by shan, thinking aloud), because women end up bearing the brunt of responsibility for the results of a sexual activity, the idea of abstinence COUPLED THEREFORE WITH BOTH THE TIME AND THE OPPORTUNITY to increase education, job training, and explore other possibilities for life's journey are held out as a means of moving out of poverty.
quote:A review of recent research on the consequences of early childbearing in the United States concludes that "reduction of early parenthood will not eliminate the powerful effects of growing up in poverty and disadvantage. But it represents a potentially productive strategy for widening the pathways out of poverty or, at the very least, not compounding the handicaps imposed by social disadvantage."38 Avoiding childbearing during adolescence allows young women the chance to complete their schooling and to take advantage of work opportunities, and could have long-term benefits. On the other hand, having a child during the adolescent years may have negative social consequences, especially if the adolescent is unmarried and must rely on financial support from parents, government programs or other sources. Research in Europe has found some similar relationships between teenage childbearing and disadvantage, although the societal impact may be perceived differently where the level of adolescent childbearing is much lower than it is in the United States.39
Of course, this does not mean that the end of the story is with a woman saying "no" and holding out for marriage before she delivers up the goods It means that the woman has been raised in a home and community that value her as a person, with the right, duty, expectation, obligation, whatever you want to call it - to get her education, training, and career. Not to necessarily say yes, get married, get laid, and have a baby - all in deference to the "naughty men" that just can't control their sexual urges, therefore those poor women will have to be responsible for them . . .
*takes deep breath, steps back, reviews the post, and decides to let it stand as is with the acknowledgement that this is a touchy topic not only for self, but others, and apologizes for any offense . . . this is one of those times where Shan works out ghosts from the past*
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: but no campaigns, speeches, or crazy people trying to talk them into not having sex at all.
I guess I need to start acting crazier, then.
quote:Try to tell a guy he shouldn't have non-marital sex and that women will find him more attractive if he is modest, and he will laugh in your face.
posted
I guess all this makes me wonder if the cliches about men and women are still true. Do men do the initial pursuit to acquire a date and or sexual partner and women the later pursuit to acquire a husband and or suitable father for her children. It seems like the initial pursuit is certainly becoming more balanced but I'm not sure that the pursuit for commitment is.
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But m_p_h, you're a member of one of those specific subcultures I mentioned, who's members stress personal responsibility for both genders. I know I didn't footnote this one, but I was referring again to within the broader American culture.
I guess you could say that I'm being unfair by removing from the sample everyone who doesn't fit my desired outcome. *shrug*
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I expect that the "commitment" part of the pursuit equation will not become more balanced as long as it remains part of a social power structure that leaves women and children as the dependents.
posted
But don't some men long for commitment and stability too? There's only so much of fooling around a person can take before they just get exausted and worn out, men and women alike. Perhaps it is considered unmanly to want commitment. That would appeal to me though.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are some things the artice touches on that haven't been mentioned in this thread, and I'd like to point two of them out.
The first is the implicit assumption some people (like the professor) seem to be making that sex is the only goal that men ever have. Being "modest" -- that is, not "putting out" or "giving it up" -- is supposed to be enticing to men, convince them to stay with you, stick it out, sign on for the long haul, because... men are only interested in sex. If you give them sex they will lose interest, having gotten what they came for. In this view, the trick to "keeping a man" is to keep him wanting sex from you -- and this means withholding it either entirely or regularly. However, men as a group can't be assumed to have a single goal in every romantic interaction we have. I have a fling because both I and the other person simply want to have sex*, but I get into a relationship because I want to be with the other person. That includes – but is not limited to – having sex. Sex is part of a relationship, but it isn't the point of a relationship.
The second item is the implicit assumption that marriage is always the "goal" a romantic relationship. I don't think this is true. The "goal" of a relationship is to be with someone. That may lead to marriage, but it may not. One of my dad's closest friends has had the same girlfriend for decades -- they live in the same city, but each has their own house and they live roughly a 15-minute drive apart. I don't think their relationship is any less meaningful than those of the married couples I know.
*Even this is a simplification, since there are usually many factors involved.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those are good points. Especially about men only being interested in sex. Women could be that way too.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I know I didn't footnote this one, but I was referring again to within the broader American culture.
I fit that. I don't advocate that only my narrow sub-culture refrain from extramarital sex -- I advocate that everybody in the broader American culture do that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh no, women never just want sex . . . or a make out session . . . nope. *cough cough*
I actually seem to have a unique talent for finding guys who start talking about marriage like two weeks into a relationship, and I don't mean the esoteric "I want to get married someday" or "you will make some man very lucky" but marriage with me. Soon. Which freaks me out, because they have known me for TWO WEEKS. The whole thing suddenly seems to be more about their desire to get married, period, than it is about being in a relationship and getting to know me. Ergh. I think the focus on women as the ones who are desperately trying to get hitched is a bit off.
I also have to say that the thought of anyone purposefully supressing their sexuality with the express intention of getting their partner to make marriage vows is extraordinarily manipulative and not conducive to long-term marital bliss.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I know I didn't footnote this one, but I was referring again to within the broader American culture.
I fit that. I don't advocate that only my narrow sub-culture refrain from extramarital sex -- I advocate that everybody in the broader American culture do that.
Right -- But you, the person expressing the viewpoint, are within your narrow sub-culture. I don't think I'm communicating well, because you are totally not getting what I'm trying to say. :/
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The first is the implicit assumption some people (like the professor) seem to be making that sex is the only goal that men ever have"
This is so true. These articles are just as, if not more so, degrading to men as they are to women. The assumption that men have nothing more on their minds than shallow sex is insulting. It's just as bad as the assumption that women have nothing on their minds other than getting married and making babies. They encourage women to view men as the "enemy", or at least something to be conquered, using whatever tools you have at hand. Same goes for men. These ideas stem from incorrect assumtions, and try to bulwark them with invalid arguments. Any discussion about sex, or lack thereof, is going to be much better off starting from the assumption that men and women are equal in their needs for intimacy, physical relations, and emotional support. I dont know of many religions that actually openly address these issues, instead of just telling people god doesnt want them to do it.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right -- But you, the person expressing the viewpoint, are within your narrow sub-culture. I don't think I'm communicating well, because you are totally not getting what I'm trying to say. :/
In that case, I really don't get what you are trying to say, except that exceptions from the norm don't count because they are exceptions.
quote:It seems like the initial pursuit is certainly becoming more balanced but I'm not sure that the pursuit for commitment is.
Bingo! This is my concern as well. My concern is also that the overall effect is less commitment in society to long-term, stable marriage relationships. I do not *know* that this is the case, but I am *concerned* that it is.
quote:I expect that the "commitment" part of the pursuit equation will not become more balanced as long as it remains part of a social power structure that leaves women and children as the dependents.
But will men ever *biologically* desire the care of children the way women do? Social programs are great, but getting men to take every bit as much care and responsibility for children as women do might be a fruitless battle.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
