So I can not fracking sleep tonight. This fever is refusing to go away, even after I’ve waged a fierce two-pronged attack on it with Advil and Tylenol, and I feel like I’m about to hork up a lung. Truly, I am a walking shambling catastrophe.
The fourth night zaiah was here, and the first night I had this damn fever, I woke up from a very strange dream. My dreams tend to be a bit weird to begin with, but when I have a fever, look out.
This is actually a post about societal fears of women’s sexuality and sexual double standards. Bear with me; I’m a bit fuzzy-headed at the moment, and apt to be preternaturally rambly. Now where was I?
Oh, yeah. fever dream. Anyway, I had this dream, and in this dream I’d met and made friends with a woman. Don’t recall her clearly–long black hair, big brown eyes, that’s all that stuck.
Anyway, in the dream, shortly after we became friends, a group of researchers pulled me aside and explained to me that she wasn’t actually a woman at all. She was a synthetic construct–body engineered and grown in a vat, brain a gigantic supercomputer kept in a huge facility elsewhere in town and remotely operating the body. She was not aware of any of this; she was actually an experiment in artificial intelligence, socialization, and the development of self, carefully monitored over the past thirty years. The place where she lived–a gorgeous penthouse suite, indoor pool and all–was closely monitored ’round the clock, and all her interactions with the outside world were carefully regulated. She was encouraged to keep a private diary, which she believed was secret but which was actually published monthly in a trade journal about AI and machine consciousness.
They took me up to the control room and let me read some of the back issues of the journal. One of her diary entries was particularly strange; she’d somehow got her hands on a book of basic anatomy, and was utterly perplexed that the book showed things that she didn’t have. Specifically, the book showed reproductive and sex organs, and she had nothing of the sort–no sexual organs whatsoever between her legs. No labia, no vagina, nothing. The researchers, somewhat shamefacedly, said they had been too embarrassed to put them in the design when they were growing the body.
I woke up really, really pissed off, with nothing to attach the pissed-off-ness to. It took some introspection to figure out what the pissed-off-ness was connected with; this bizarre and nearly universal sexual shame that we as a species seem to attach to female sexuality.
I’m not talking about the schizophrenic Puritanical sexual asshattery that we in the US attach to sex in general. I’m talking about a hatred of sexual expression in women that’s so virulent that entire societies will surgically mutilate women to prevent them from enjoying the act of sex.
And make no mistake about it–the impulse to label sexually promiscuous men as “studs” and sexually promiscuous women as “whores” is no different in kind; it is the exact same impulse, merely taken to a different but equally illogical conclusion, that drives folks to get out the scalpels.
And it’s frickin’ everywhere. It’s not just a handful of societies. It’s not just a few places. It’s everywhere. The ancient Israelites had all kinds of weird religious rules about touching women when they were ‘unclean,’ that speaks to a level of institutionalized abhorrence and fear of basic reproductive biology that’s mind-boggling. In Hindu societies, a woman who committed adultery was publicly executed after first having her sex organs cut off with a knife–and the real kicker is that for this purpose, “adultery” could be defined as “talking with a man and touching his clothing.”
This is a level of fucked-up-ness I can’t quite wrap my head around. Seems like everyone’s just scared silly of women’s sexuality. Seriously, WTF?
The part that really blows my mind, though, and the part I really don’t get, is the extent to which women themselves buy into this kind of thing. One thing that consistently mazes me on online forums that have anything to do with discussions of sex or sexuality–any time a woman talks about how much she likes sex, or about enjoying any kind of non-traditional sexual arrangements, especially things like polyamory or (God forbid) casual sex, there will be a handful of guys who’ll say things like “slut!”–but they have to stand in line behind all the women who’re screaming it, too.
And I really want to grab some of these women and shake them and say “WTF is wrong with you? Don’t you understand that by slinging around words like “slut” and “whore,” you’re participating in your own sexual disenfranchisement? What are you thinking?”
And I’m not even talking about the fun use of the word “slut,” as in the “My, aren’t YOU a naughty little vixen? I have just the thing for a naughty slut like you!” that dayo so enjoys hearing.
So, naturally, since I couldn’t sleep, I decided that zaiah shouldn’t sleep either, and woke her up to talk about it.
Enlightening conversation, it was.
She is of the opinion that, popular opinion to the contrary, women are if anything fare more competitive and far more hierarchical than men are. Take a group of three female friends in a bar, she says. Each of them knows precisely what her place in the hierarchy is. If they spot a group of three men across the bar, they’ve already decided which one gets who before the first words are even exchanged. Should one of the men approach the “wrong” woman, her friends will smoothly step in and cock-block him, and order is restored. With, naturally, the men none the wiser.
It starts in grade school, she says–a formalized, competitive hierarchy of popularity and subtle social status, with rigorous standards about which women are eligible to compete for which men. It continues through high school and college, and even carries out into the adult world–often, she says, women wear makeup and jewelry not for the direct benefit of men, but rather to signal to other women their status and intentions in the competition.
And it’s a ruthless competition, with a high cost for those who refuse to buy in.
The cost of not buying in? The women who don’t compete in this way, or who pursue men deemed above their status or outside their league? These are the women labeled “slut” and “tramp”–not by men, but by other women.
Color me astonished; I’m forty-two years old and none of this had ever occurred to me.
So, yeah. Dreams and fever: interesting combination. Now I’m going to take some more meds and try to go to bed.
I’m clueless too. . . . I don’t know how to play those games about status and heirarchy.
I am clueless as well. I think it’s due to a combination of being an Aspy, and therefore clueless about most social intricacies, and that for the most part I have never been interested in the same type of guys as my female friends are.
Up until my early twenties all my female friends were of the traditional variety (at least in regard to their mating preferences), that being the girly makeup wearing type who dug guys who were the “popular” guys in the high school sense of popular; they pretty much went after the most socially desirable guys that they could get. I, on the other hand, wear makeup half a dozen times per year, haven’t worn a dress in a year and a half, and would much rather have my guys play D&D than football. Thus, I never really competed with them.
Once I reached late college age I decided that monogamy was optional (I’m still mostly monogamous by nature, I just don’t like those types of rules), and just about all my female friends, except the few I kept from high school and earlier, are poly; most of them being either girls that were/are dating guys I was/am, or girls that are a couple steps removed from romantic relationships I’ve had. So again, there’s really no competition there.
Ditto on nearly every point.
I’ll go a step further and say, I am seriously put off by the women who value status amongst themselves and who compete for the males they want. There’s no gentleness in them and no acceptance. These, the worst of them, are the women who supported Ms. Palin. Ew.
I’m clueless too. . . . I don’t know how to play those games about status and heirarchy.
And for some of the very things you mention here (competition between women only or men and women, etc.) I’ve pretty much have given up on dating and all things pertaining to seeking out a relationship. I also find myself wary of some of the women in my life. I am subconsciously aware of this “competition” and it annoys the hell out of me.
I’d rather be the seeked than the seeker.
Wouldn’t we all.
BBW… busy black woman
I just think that someone seeked me then maybe I’d have a better chance at making some *sparks* happen… My time is too precious for me to waste.
And for some of the very things you mention here (competition between women only or men and women, etc.) I’ve pretty much have given up on dating and all things pertaining to seeking out a relationship. I also find myself wary of some of the women in my life. I am subconsciously aware of this “competition” and it annoys the hell out of me.
I’d rather be the seeked than the seeker.
It starts even before grade school.
It starts, a lot of times, from birth. Depending on the family, of course.
It starts even before grade school.
For a long time, I subconsciously bought into this. I didn’t even realize I was doing it until I was long out of high school and living in my parents’ spare bedroom. It took me four years to allow myself to be myself, instead of dealing with the female hierarchy.
After a lot of soul-searching and a long time hating myself, I’ve realized that I’m stronger and happier than the women living the “norm”.
I told a friend a few days ago, “feminism has come so far, and yet there’s so much more to be done.” Sure, we can wear pants and get jobs in all sorts of fields (glass ceiling notwithstanding), but we still limit ourselves sexually and emotionally.
…Didn’t mean for this to get so long. Sorry! First comment here was tl;dr. ^^;
the shifting of our ideologies on sexuality would require a total upheaval of our current thought system/pattern. Until the patriarchal elite lose their handle on society will it be able to break such sexist beliefs.
I agree totally. I just kind of needed to vent, you know. 🙂
You know, there are a lot of institutions and social patterns in the world which serve to limit people in general and women in particular. That’s fairly obvious. But I think there’s an implicit assumption in “patriarchal elite” that those institutions are organized, consciously self-serving, and basically imposed from the top down.
The OP, and some other stuff like it that I’ve read over the years, seems like good evidence that, aside from a few weird little subcultures (at least in the West; I can’t comment meaningfully about non-Western cultures) these attitudes and institutions are largely unconscious, self-limiting, and self-organizing from the bottom up. I’m not sure what this implies as far as ways to change it, but I’m fairly sure it implies something.
There’s a book I’ve read about, but haven’t read, that argues that one of the reasons men are favored so heavily in Western society isn’t a conspiracy of organized discrimination, so much as the fact that women are socialized to be competitive in ways that cut each other down whereas men are socialized to be competitive in ways that allow them to work together even if they don’t like one another.
I’m not sure how far I buy into that hypothesis, but I think it’s an interesting one.
Yeah, I don’t know if I see it as the root cause for a lot of things, but that is an intriguing theory. If you remember the title, will you let me know?
I don’t want anyone to think that I’m bashing on other women, or that I think things absolutely need to change before we (as human beings) are ready for it. I just felt the need to rant a bit with you, I suppose!
I believe it was called “Hardball for Women.” Something like that.
For a long time, I subconsciously bought into this. I didn’t even realize I was doing it until I was long out of high school and living in my parents’ spare bedroom. It took me four years to allow myself to be myself, instead of dealing with the female hierarchy.
After a lot of soul-searching and a long time hating myself, I’ve realized that I’m stronger and happier than the women living the “norm”.
I told a friend a few days ago, “feminism has come so far, and yet there’s so much more to be done.” Sure, we can wear pants and get jobs in all sorts of fields (glass ceiling notwithstanding), but we still limit ourselves sexually and emotionally.
…Didn’t mean for this to get so long. Sorry! First comment here was tl;dr. ^^;
It starts, a lot of times, from birth. Depending on the family, of course.
Wouldn’t we all.
BBW… busy black woman
I just think that someone seeked me then maybe I’d have a better chance at making some *sparks* happen… My time is too precious for me to waste.
Really? Really? Women do that? I SO did not know any of that. Completely unaware of this competition thingummy. And no one’s called me a slut or a whore yet.
This is going to make me really paranoid for the next couple of days, Franklin. >.> Thanks.
Sowing the seeds of paranoia and fear…that’s what I’m here for!
“Sowing the seeds of paranoia and fear…that’s what I’m here for!”
They say you can’t cheat an honest man, and i say you can’t make someone paranoid unless they have something to fear already. (innocent whistling…)
This could so easily become a game of “everybody get the paranoid one.” I’m just sayin’.
Which, by the way, is a fun game.
Freaking out paranoid people is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Mmmmm, fish is yummy…
Really? Really? Women do that? I SO did not know any of that. Completely unaware of this competition thingummy. And no one’s called me a slut or a whore yet.
This is going to make me really paranoid for the next couple of days, Franklin. >.> Thanks.
the shifting of our ideologies on sexuality would require a total upheaval of our current thought system/pattern. Until the patriarchal elite lose their handle on society will it be able to break such sexist beliefs.
I think some men are just as competitive about hierarchy as some women, probably more so.
It’s just that lines are drawn around areas of expertise which means that GENERALLY speaking men are unlikely to pick up on the implications of a clothes and makeup based put down, and women are less likely to pick up on the implications of a boys toys related put down or dick waving.
And there is a good proportion of both men and women who don’t buy into that stuff thank god. I’ve never considered ignoring bitches in bars has had a high cost associated with it. I do my own thing.
I think some men are just as competitive about hierarchy as some women, probably more so.
It’s just that lines are drawn around areas of expertise which means that GENERALLY speaking men are unlikely to pick up on the implications of a clothes and makeup based put down, and women are less likely to pick up on the implications of a boys toys related put down or dick waving.
And there is a good proportion of both men and women who don’t buy into that stuff thank god. I’ve never considered ignoring bitches in bars has had a high cost associated with it. I do my own thing.
Yeah, hierarchical status-seeking is not about finding and wining mates… at least not directly.
Boys get into fights and do stupid and dangerous showing-off not because it draws the attention of girls (it doesn’t draw favorable attention), but because solidifies their ranking amongst their peers – other boys.
Girls learn make-up and how to dress well and “social graces” not to get the attention of boys (because boys really don’t care), but to place themselves in their own social hierarchy.
And as you said, each side of the social group has their unspoken rules for choosing mates (or a one-night-stand or a afternoon quickie), and that’s where social standing comes in – the “A” boy chooses first, then “B”, then “C”; and if the “A” boy hits on the “C” girl instead of the “A” girl, the girls redirect him to the “right” one.
Of course, neither group does it out of any innate superego. They do it because if the “C” tries to get ahead of the “A”, the “A” (who is socially dominant) uses influence to beat back and cow “C” into the “proper” place.
I think it’s disgusting and immoral.
The good news is, not everyone wastes brain power with stupid social maneuvering. There are groups that prize cooperation over competition, less hierarchy and more consensus.
NB: Yes, broad generalizations, “all generalizations are always false”, blah, blah, blah. It’s late, and my brain is devoted to producing mucus instead of cogitation.
Yep. Same basic line of thought as what I was typing while you posted. 🙂
…but I am told that many species do just that: elephants have heirarchies, lions have hierarchies, gorillas have hierarchies. Why would you call it “disgusting and immoral” when homo sapiens does pretty much the same thing? It’s, literally, only natural.
(Of course, I could be quite wrong on this; it’s been decades since I took any biology courses…but if I’m wrong, I’d love to be corrected on the basic science involved.)
Male lions will also kill their rivals, and then proceed to slaughter their cubs afterward.
The behaviors of the other members of the animal kingdom are not the best place to look for lessons on how to behave as a human being. I’m just sayin’.
I was not suggesting we, as mammals, are hardwired to follow the details of other mammalian species’ social structures, but rather we might follow at least the general outlines: we don’t kill off rivals and children, but we are at least hierarchical.
That’s not at all what I was saying you’re saying, but it turns out I did in fact misread your comment. This is what my girlfriend refers to as a “lolfail whoopsie.”
Oh. What were you saying I was saying? Perhaps I miswrote the original comment.
(Perhaps I shouldn’t ask since it can lead to further confusion, but I am curious, sort of.)
Oh, it will definitely lead to further confusion! It was simply a case of me not seeing words that were actually there, which probably happened because it was time for me to leave work (close to midnight my time).
I don’t know about that…I’ve heard it suggested that the (all-too-frequent, alas) tendency of men to abuse, if not outright kill, their stepchildren, as well as the ever-popular “I’m gonna kill that bitch AND her new man before I let someone else have her (sometimes throwing in children, even his, for good measure)” can supposedly be traced back to just this kind of mammalian hardwiring. As (theoretically, at least) sentient human beings, though, we’re supposed to be able to get beyond that kind of thing, and obviously many if not most people do; but that limbic brain programming does tend to kick in way more than it should. 🙁
Chimpanzees and gorillas have hierarchical group structures, but bonobos don’t, and we’re more closely related to bonobos than any other living species. Bonobo society is held together by cooperation and sex, instead of the violence of chimps and gorillas. I know which one I prefer.
I’d call it immoral for many of the same reasons I’d call other behaviors which are common among animals immoral: because people are inherently deserving of compassion and respect.
“Girls learn make-up and how to dress well and “social graces” not to get the attention of boys (because boys really don’t care), but to place themselves in their own social hierarchy”
I’m thinking it’s also competition though – perhaps in a more subtle way. It’s like PDA. It’s a publically visable claim on him. What does it broadcast to others if she is the best dressed, best coiffed, best made up woman in the room? It’s a strong statement that she has the time and resources to get that way, which either means she has a lot of personal power/resources, or that he does.
She’s bragging in a very subtle way.
You misunderstood me: I meant to imply that girls are competitive, too, just in a different way.
Yeah, hierarchical status-seeking is not about finding and wining mates… at least not directly.
Boys get into fights and do stupid and dangerous showing-off not because it draws the attention of girls (it doesn’t draw favorable attention), but because solidifies their ranking amongst their peers – other boys.
Girls learn make-up and how to dress well and “social graces” not to get the attention of boys (because boys really don’t care), but to place themselves in their own social hierarchy.
And as you said, each side of the social group has their unspoken rules for choosing mates (or a one-night-stand or a afternoon quickie), and that’s where social standing comes in – the “A” boy chooses first, then “B”, then “C”; and if the “A” boy hits on the “C” girl instead of the “A” girl, the girls redirect him to the “right” one.
Of course, neither group does it out of any innate superego. They do it because if the “C” tries to get ahead of the “A”, the “A” (who is socially dominant) uses influence to beat back and cow “C” into the “proper” place.
I think it’s disgusting and immoral.
The good news is, not everyone wastes brain power with stupid social maneuvering. There are groups that prize cooperation over competition, less hierarchy and more consensus.
NB: Yes, broad generalizations, “all generalizations are always false”, blah, blah, blah. It’s late, and my brain is devoted to producing mucus instead of cogitation.
Well YEAH Franklin. Think about evolutionary biology, and how MEN compete and vie for status among one another with things like war, sports, killing the most animals, etc. I actually am getting ready to make a journal entry on how guys who spend more money on women are more successful in attaining greater numbers of sexual partners.
Guys are just more SHOWY about how they “set” such status, and blatant in discussing it… “Forget it dude, she’s OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE,” for instance, and that even uses a sports ranking metaphor.
Plus women are evil bitches, for the most part. 🙂
Whatevr you say, hollow boy.
Men are strange creatures, and mostly hollow.
You seem to feel that I was implying in some fashion that being evil bitches was a bad thing. 🙂
ETA: Please see the reply by directly below this one.
Well YEAH Franklin. Think about evolutionary biology, and how MEN compete and vie for status among one another with things like war, sports, killing the most animals, etc. I actually am getting ready to make a journal entry on how guys who spend more money on women are more successful in attaining greater numbers of sexual partners.
Guys are just more SHOWY about how they “set” such status, and blatant in discussing it… “Forget it dude, she’s OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE,” for instance, and that even uses a sports ranking metaphor.
Plus women are evil bitches, for the most part. 🙂
Yep. Same basic line of thought as what I was typing while you posted. 🙂
Whatevr you say, hollow boy.
Men are strange creatures, and mostly hollow.
heirarchy is not just sexual
You know it isn’t just coming from peers. I had been married to my now ex husband for years and I was constantly put down in little ways about my upbringing. He’d make jokes about me being barefoot and pregnant and called me an “Appalacian American.” Because I grew up in rural Md.
Despite having an IQ of 155, three college degrees and more practical common sense [especially when it came to power tools and protecting oneself from the future apocolypse] His viewpoint persisted.
In fact when I got dressed up in heels and put on make up he went so far as to say that he hated it because I looked artificial. It was to make it so I knew my place.
This heirarchy is not just about female sexuality it is about female power and the fear that sexuality controls men [cause we do…] So another way of keeping “us” in check is to use our cultural stereotypes against us.
My ex mother in law once told my mother in a phone conversation that “well [he] married beneath him…” and she obviously forgot who she was talking to.
I like being a whore. And I accept being an evil bitch cause it is fun. It gives me power. And now I don’t have someone taking that away because I am a sexual being. I also like that I can be a woman in all senses of the word and not have someone take that away to make me asexual and powerless to do anything for myself.
Re: heirarchy is not just sexual
And I accept being an evil bitch cause it is fun.
Thank you. You wanna ‘splain to that it’s not automatically a bad thing to say that?? 😀
I’m gonna take “hierarchy” and point it toward “hegemony”
Yes, all of what you said and this:
As a nonwhite person, I’ve seen it occur both among women and among nonwhite communities. The “hierarchy” gets established and enforced among women or the POC group and is based on the values of the dominant population. Mothers will call their daughters out as sluts if they dress or behave a certain way; Asian-Americans will call each other “FOB” or “whitewashed/sellout/banana” if we don’t stay within acceptable, totally subjective parameters of appearance and behavior.
It’s all garbage, and yes, it’s everywhere. I’m 38 and still trying to clear it out. For that matter, and not that I’m disagreeing with your choice, but more saying theoretically… why should there even be “whore” or “evil bitch” as identities to embrace? All of that is just part of being human, anyway.
Re: I’m gonna take “hierarchy” and point it toward “hegemony”
I’m going to assume “Banana” is the same idea as “Oreo”, but what does “FOB” mean?
Re: I’m gonna take “hierarchy” and point it toward “hegemony”
Accurate assumption (and why is it always food that denotes when a POC sells out, huh? I LIKE FOOD).
FOB is “fresh off the boat” which, yes, is inaccurate because most people come over on planes. Is used like so: “OMG that girl is really cute but did you see? She packed chicken feet for lunch and was going to town on them. That’s too fobby.”
Re: I’m gonna take “hierarchy” and point it toward “hegemony”
The chicken feet for lunch comment greatly amused me because it took a couple conversations with an Asian friend of mine (I’m white) before we both figured out why the fact that I was eating dried squid at school wierded her out. It wasn’t that I was eating them per se, but that I was eating them *in public*.
She grew up eating Korean food at home and having very American lunches packed by her mother so she didn’t stand out at school, so much so that even when she asked for leftovers from dinner, she was not allowed to take them.
Assumption dynamics are wierd. I don’t like them because they make me paranoid. But at least I understand better why the other Asian kids (20-year-olds) at school are repeatedly surprised when I bring “their food” to lunch. It’s not that they don’t remember that I eat it; it’s that they’re surprised to see it in public.
Heh, “Their food” is a really amusing phrase
You know, I’ve never heard of the Americanized lunches! Very interesting – the people I grew up with (including myself) were straight-up Fob (and isn’t dried squid GREAT? I love it).
This sort of makes me think of how it’s perceived differently, for someone who looks like you to eat stuff like dried squid and chickenfeet, and for me to. What you said reminds me of how I have these vintage qipao from female family members – you know, those sexy-looking Chinese dresses – and I like wearing them. HOWEVER, if I do, people think I’m in costume or I’m a waitress or something, which would never happen if I were non-Asian. I can’t describe how much that bums me out.
Re: Heh, “Their food” is a really amusing phrase
Yes, dried squid is awesome. Though finding it without MSG can be a little challenging, which is annoying. I’m so sorry to hear about the qipao, my grandmother had one that I no longer fit that I adored.
Unfortunately, at this point, I live where it is humid, and if I didn’t think I’d get looked at funny, I’d wear salwar suits all summer. They are so comfortable, but the Indian kids all speak disparagingly of having to wear them at family gatherings, and I’m afraid that the reactions would be less favorable than the dean of my school when I shaved my head*.
*though really, he didn’t say anything at the time, but now, 9 months later, he still comments that my hair is growing out and looks good every time I see him. Regardless of how well coifed my hair is at that point. I wonder if he’ll ever stop doing that.
heirarchy is not just sexual
You know it isn’t just coming from peers. I had been married to my now ex husband for years and I was constantly put down in little ways about my upbringing. He’d make jokes about me being barefoot and pregnant and called me an “Appalacian American.” Because I grew up in rural Md.
Despite having an IQ of 155, three college degrees and more practical common sense [especially when it came to power tools and protecting oneself from the future apocolypse] His viewpoint persisted.
In fact when I got dressed up in heels and put on make up he went so far as to say that he hated it because I looked artificial. It was to make it so I knew my place.
This heirarchy is not just about female sexuality it is about female power and the fear that sexuality controls men [cause we do…] So another way of keeping “us” in check is to use our cultural stereotypes against us.
My ex mother in law once told my mother in a phone conversation that “well [he] married beneath him…” and she obviously forgot who she was talking to.
I like being a whore. And I accept being an evil bitch cause it is fun. It gives me power. And now I don’t have someone taking that away because I am a sexual being. I also like that I can be a woman in all senses of the word and not have someone take that away to make me asexual and powerless to do anything for myself.
…but I am told that many species do just that: elephants have heirarchies, lions have hierarchies, gorillas have hierarchies. Why would you call it “disgusting and immoral” when homo sapiens does pretty much the same thing? It’s, literally, only natural.
(Of course, I could be quite wrong on this; it’s been decades since I took any biology courses…but if I’m wrong, I’d love to be corrected on the basic science involved.)
You seem to feel that I was implying in some fashion that being evil bitches was a bad thing. 🙂
ETA: Please see the reply by directly below this one.
Re: heirarchy is not just sexual
And I accept being an evil bitch cause it is fun.
Thank you. You wanna ‘splain to that it’s not automatically a bad thing to say that?? 😀
the other side of some of those evil Israelite standards of uncleanliness
Fascinating, really, that soooooo many people out there know a ton about sending the “unclean” women off to live at the edge of the village and all the laws about when men can touch them and when they can’t, and yet hardly anyone writes or talks about the ritual bath (or m’shevn’ya, for those of you whose Hebrew might be a tad rusty): it’s an old rite, true, and not practiced a lot by many people anymore, also true (a friend of mine and i have an ongoing bet that’s it’s largely been lodged int he kabbalistic circles, but that’s beside the point), but it does happen and can be quite fulfilling, both for the man and the woman, as well as the two of them together.
Just sayin’.
Too: as many here have said, there are a lot of people out there who don’t buy into the whole patriarchial/jierarchial/big dick contest schema. My wife and i have what most people consider an alternative marriage– and that’s when they’re being careful and polite and so PC it hurts– but it works for us. By most comparisons, she would be considered dominant, i’d be considered passive, and let’s not even talk about the roles of who does what in our marriage. And while that may screw up the radar of all but the people who know us, well, as the man said: fuck’em if they can’t take it.
Re: the other side of some of those evil Israelite standards of uncleanliness
True – but you don’t send your wife to the village edge when she has her period, either. So while the m’shevn’ya is ritualistic in nature, it’s not fulfilling it’s ritualized role, really.
That’s what I object to – the fact that women having natural body functions are considered “unclean” anywhere does speak to a deep problem. If for centuries, men got their penises smacked when they had an erection, after a while, intended or not, they’d start to feel bad about having them – and experience shame for the desire to have them.
It’s just all ’round wrong. ::hugs::
Re: the other side of some of those evil Israelite standards of uncleanliness
Well, sure, there’s the intimacy of the ritual bath–but when you get right down to it, it’s kind of like putting a cherry on top of a sundae made of dogshit and broken glass. Sure, the cherry is tasty, but the rest of it? Not so much.
“We’re going to teach you that your own body’s normal processes make you so foul and revolting that we will exile you from society for twelve days out of every twenty-eight, and consider you unfit even to touch during that time, but hey! Ritual bath!”
Re: the other side of some of those evil Israelite standards of uncleanliness
Point taken. i was just rying to point out that there was an element of balance to it. And while you’re analogy does have merit– the cherry on the dogshit sundae– the ritual itself doesn’t focus on that: it’s about intimacy, and love, and trust, and humility, and spoiling the woman (for want of a better word).
the other side of some of those evil Israelite standards of uncleanliness
Fascinating, really, that soooooo many people out there know a ton about sending the “unclean” women off to live at the edge of the village and all the laws about when men can touch them and when they can’t, and yet hardly anyone writes or talks about the ritual bath (or m’shevn’ya, for those of you whose Hebrew might be a tad rusty): it’s an old rite, true, and not practiced a lot by many people anymore, also true (a friend of mine and i have an ongoing bet that’s it’s largely been lodged int he kabbalistic circles, but that’s beside the point), but it does happen and can be quite fulfilling, both for the man and the woman, as well as the two of them together.
Just sayin’.
Too: as many here have said, there are a lot of people out there who don’t buy into the whole patriarchial/jierarchial/big dick contest schema. My wife and i have what most people consider an alternative marriage– and that’s when they’re being careful and polite and so PC it hurts– but it works for us. By most comparisons, she would be considered dominant, i’d be considered passive, and let’s not even talk about the roles of who does what in our marriage. And while that may screw up the radar of all but the people who know us, well, as the man said: fuck’em if they can’t take it.
Male lions will also kill their rivals, and then proceed to slaughter their cubs afterward.
The behaviors of the other members of the animal kingdom are not the best place to look for lessons on how to behave as a human being. I’m just sayin’.
Color me astonished; I’m forty-two years old and none of this had ever occurred to me.
None of it ever had to occur to you. You’re male, so you can kind of get away with not paying attention to about how women interact.
Color me astonished; I’m forty-two years old and none of this had ever occurred to me.
None of it ever had to occur to you. You’re male, so you can kind of get away with not paying attention to about how women interact.
The realization of these kinds of games and hierarchy rules for women was the first sign I had that I did not identify as female.
I mean, I was aware that both genders have elaborate rituals and rules to manage hierarchy and social standing, but I only ever grasped the details of the men’s games. None of them of either gender made sense to me, as in I didn’t understand why we needed to play these games, but I caught on more quickly to the rules for guys than for girls.
I *still* don’t get girls. But it’s really fucking frustrating to have other women contribute to all the gender problems I have in society and at work.
I’m very open about my sexuality and my relationships at work. Several of my male coworkers have confided in me that I make them feel comfortable being themselves, and they often come to me for relationship advice. One guy even asked me to be his first lay post-divorce because he feared being “rusty” having been with the same woman for so long, and he felt relaxed around me, and that he could trust me because of my open acceptance of sexuality. However, he and another coworker also told me, in a completely unrelated conversation, that the only other girl on the crew had made the usual “slut” remarks to them when I was out of earshot. She was not happy with their acceptance of me as either “one of the guys” or as a girl that they admired.
*shakes head* I just don’t get it.
The realization of these kinds of games and hierarchy rules for women was the first sign I had that I did not identify as female.
I mean, I was aware that both genders have elaborate rituals and rules to manage hierarchy and social standing, but I only ever grasped the details of the men’s games. None of them of either gender made sense to me, as in I didn’t understand why we needed to play these games, but I caught on more quickly to the rules for guys than for girls.
I *still* don’t get girls. But it’s really fucking frustrating to have other women contribute to all the gender problems I have in society and at work.
I’m very open about my sexuality and my relationships at work. Several of my male coworkers have confided in me that I make them feel comfortable being themselves, and they often come to me for relationship advice. One guy even asked me to be his first lay post-divorce because he feared being “rusty” having been with the same woman for so long, and he felt relaxed around me, and that he could trust me because of my open acceptance of sexuality. However, he and another coworker also told me, in a completely unrelated conversation, that the only other girl on the crew had made the usual “slut” remarks to them when I was out of earshot. She was not happy with their acceptance of me as either “one of the guys” or as a girl that they admired.
*shakes head* I just don’t get it.
Oh yep.
I had an ex introduce me to the writings of Nancy Friday, and Friday’s take on female competitiveness and sexuality was really very different than any other stuff I’d read on the topic.
I’ve read a few feminist things that basically thrashed on Friday for her attitudes about sexuality, power, etc. but oh well. I tend to think of anything written against sex as being anti-sex, regardless of the “motive.”
Ever since reading that, I’ve been keeping a different eye on things and I can often see the little undercurrents. Crazy stuff!
Same Nancy Friday of My Secret Garden fame?
Yep. “My Secret Garden” was a lot of stuff written by other people, but Friday does her own writing, which is quite illuminating:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Friday
I am amused at the idea of Ms. Magazine declaring her “not a feminist.” Probably because it’s no longer cricket for a woman to refer to another woman who chooses to do things they wish THEY could do as a “fucking dyke.”
Oh yep.
I had an ex introduce me to the writings of Nancy Friday, and Friday’s take on female competitiveness and sexuality was really very different than any other stuff I’d read on the topic.
I’ve read a few feminist things that basically thrashed on Friday for her attitudes about sexuality, power, etc. but oh well. I tend to think of anything written against sex as being anti-sex, regardless of the “motive.”
Ever since reading that, I’ve been keeping a different eye on things and I can often see the little undercurrents. Crazy stuff!
I am clueless as well. I think it’s due to a combination of being an Aspy, and therefore clueless about most social intricacies, and that for the most part I have never been interested in the same type of guys as my female friends are.
Up until my early twenties all my female friends were of the traditional variety (at least in regard to their mating preferences), that being the girly makeup wearing type who dug guys who were the “popular” guys in the high school sense of popular; they pretty much went after the most socially desirable guys that they could get. I, on the other hand, wear makeup half a dozen times per year, haven’t worn a dress in a year and a half, and would much rather have my guys play D&D than football. Thus, I never really competed with them.
Once I reached late college age I decided that monogamy was optional (I’m still mostly monogamous by nature, I just don’t like those types of rules), and just about all my female friends, except the few I kept from high school and earlier, are poly; most of them being either girls that were/are dating guys I was/am, or girls that are a couple steps removed from romantic relationships I’ve had. So again, there’s really no competition there.
Color me astonished; I’m forty-two years old and none of this had ever occurred to me.
Well, color me astonished as well, as I’m a 28 year old woman and this has never occured to me either. OK, not quite: I hear about such things from time to time (like in your post now, or in a film); but I always thought that such descriptions were wild exaggerations, because I’ve never witnessed this myself. Now I think it’s all probably true — I just never cared, that’s why I didn’t notice. I’ve always been so far outside any hierarchy that I was not even aware of the hierarchy’s existence. Not in school, not in high school, not in college. I just don’t care about any of this… I suspect it’s a revelation many people need: all this shit can only hurt you if you’re into it. Do other women call me names behind my back? I don’t know… never thought of it… Does it matter?
– Ola
Color me astonished; I’m forty-two years old and none of this had ever occurred to me.
Well, color me astonished as well, as I’m a 28 year old woman and this has never occured to me either. OK, not quite: I hear about such things from time to time (like in your post now, or in a film); but I always thought that such descriptions were wild exaggerations, because I’ve never witnessed this myself. Now I think it’s all probably true — I just never cared, that’s why I didn’t notice. I’ve always been so far outside any hierarchy that I was not even aware of the hierarchy’s existence. Not in school, not in high school, not in college. I just don’t care about any of this… I suspect it’s a revelation many people need: all this shit can only hurt you if you’re into it. Do other women call me names behind my back? I don’t know… never thought of it… Does it matter?
– Ola
As a woman…
who refused to “buy in” to the heirarchy from the very beginning (mostly because as a teenager I ‘gender identified’ with males), I have been called a slut my entire life. My response has always been, “Thank you, by calling me a slut you are referring to a woman who enjoys sex and is empowered to pick her own partners without regard to social convention.”
As a woman…
who refused to “buy in” to the heirarchy from the very beginning (mostly because as a teenager I ‘gender identified’ with males), I have been called a slut my entire life. My response has always been, “Thank you, by calling me a slut you are referring to a woman who enjoys sex and is empowered to pick her own partners without regard to social convention.”
I’m gonna take “hierarchy” and point it toward “hegemony”
Yes, all of what you said and this:
As a nonwhite person, I’ve seen it occur both among women and among nonwhite communities. The “hierarchy” gets established and enforced among women or the POC group and is based on the values of the dominant population. Mothers will call their daughters out as sluts if they dress or behave a certain way; Asian-Americans will call each other “FOB” or “whitewashed/sellout/banana” if we don’t stay within acceptable, totally subjective parameters of appearance and behavior.
It’s all garbage, and yes, it’s everywhere. I’m 38 and still trying to clear it out. For that matter, and not that I’m disagreeing with your choice, but more saying theoretically… why should there even be “whore” or “evil bitch” as identities to embrace? All of that is just part of being human, anyway.
I was not suggesting we, as mammals, are hardwired to follow the details of other mammalian species’ social structures, but rather we might follow at least the general outlines: we don’t kill off rivals and children, but we are at least hierarchical.
Re: the other side of some of those evil Israelite standards of uncleanliness
True – but you don’t send your wife to the village edge when she has her period, either. So while the m’shevn’ya is ritualistic in nature, it’s not fulfilling it’s ritualized role, really.
That’s what I object to – the fact that women having natural body functions are considered “unclean” anywhere does speak to a deep problem. If for centuries, men got their penises smacked when they had an erection, after a while, intended or not, they’d start to feel bad about having them – and experience shame for the desire to have them.
It’s just all ’round wrong. ::hugs::
hope you feel better soon- edited (sorry about the bad typing_)
I have to say that you’re such an incredible man *hug*…. Many people just toss it off by saying “I’m not sexist”…. denying women their right to full expression of sexuality(from both ends realluy) is tearing at the very core of their being…
I’m almost 41 & I feel like I’ve barely even *begun* to embrace my sexuality…..
I feel that I took it all in- to be openly sexual? I felt that was just wrong…
ridiculously divorce & meeting a poly man opened my eyes & my heart to the opportunities that life has to offer….to love & lust fully expressed…. Of course I can’t share anything of this with my parents whom I’m pretty close to which sucks…. they’ve bought into this. In fact, there was this memorable time when my dad confessed to me that he was at the ;library & he found this woman he ddnt know attractive…. In order to not face this confusing sentiment he turned right around & left the library immediately….
while I have sweet memories of my parents smooching on the stairs they are no longer doing that. My mom is taking my dad for granted & they are sleeping in seperate bedrooms. I feel for my dad because I know that he’s intimacy starved & lonely. I know they are a product of their time – marry one & stick with that one & no other for the rest of your life…. while I know there is love well hidden I think it’s such a shame that my mother has bought into the “over 50 so who needs sex?” bullshit…. that’s the other side of the coin. Older women aren’t allowed to even *appear* sexual because somehow that makes them an *aging* whore & that’s the most horrifying concept in this society which looks at the old & older as non-beings and women as useless if they aren’t fertile but if they dare to enjoy their fertility then look out…
ummm….
oh wow….
You rubbed off on me *lol*
*heh*
embarassed…..
I stand by what I said though 😀
🙂
I’m 51. I’ve never been shy about sex, but I was and am extremely picky. I also seem to mate for life. But casual touching and flirting, oh, when the limits are clear that’s so much fun!
I need to establish limits. I broke someone’s heart once, long ago, so I am cautious about when and to whom I indicate interest or return interest. I still hate that I caused so much pain.
Recently, a good friend convinced me that he found me desirable. He’s 20 years younger. Wow, that was an eye-opener! Since then, I’ve explored more aspects of sex than in the preceding decades, and has it been fun!
So, we who are 50 or older, I consider that middle aged. I hope I’m wrong and it’s actually still quite young as the scientists find me ways to live longer! Never stop exploring, paying attention, trying new things, and saying what you think. Labels are only what you load them with emotionally. Your choice. I loved tinuvial’s definition of slut. Perfect!
Re: 🙂
wpw that’s fantastic 🙂 do you like *him* though?
Is it ok that I add you to my flist? Perhaps I should add you to my sex journal’sd flst as wel *lol*
Re: 🙂
I love *him*, he’s a dear friend in a collection of dear friends. He spent years trying to get me to understand that he was serious about flirting with me. Now that’s dedication!
My journal’s completely public so far, of course you can add me if you like. The more the merrier, I say! My friends list is getting pretty full, I don’t add everyone who friends me, but it may just be due to too much daily reading already. 😉
Re: 🙂
yay 🙂
My journal is mostly friends-only so that’s the only way you can read mosat of it anyway
& the sex journal is by invite only & I would love a woman’s perspective 🙂
Re: hope you feel better soon- edited (sorry about the bad typing_)
Aww… 🙂
Re: hope you feel better soon- edited (sorry about the bad typing_)
*lol* what? no verbosity? How unusual 😉
hope you feel better soon- edited (sorry about the bad typing_)
I have to say that you’re such an incredible man *hug*…. Many people just toss it off by saying “I’m not sexist”…. denying women their right to full expression of sexuality(from both ends realluy) is tearing at the very core of their being…
I’m almost 41 & I feel like I’ve barely even *begun* to embrace my sexuality…..
I feel that I took it all in- to be openly sexual? I felt that was just wrong…
ridiculously divorce & meeting a poly man opened my eyes & my heart to the opportunities that life has to offer….to love & lust fully expressed…. Of course I can’t share anything of this with my parents whom I’m pretty close to which sucks…. they’ve bought into this. In fact, there was this memorable time when my dad confessed to me that he was at the ;library & he found this woman he ddnt know attractive…. In order to not face this confusing sentiment he turned right around & left the library immediately….
while I have sweet memories of my parents smooching on the stairs they are no longer doing that. My mom is taking my dad for granted & they are sleeping in seperate bedrooms. I feel for my dad because I know that he’s intimacy starved & lonely. I know they are a product of their time – marry one & stick with that one & no other for the rest of your life…. while I know there is love well hidden I think it’s such a shame that my mother has bought into the “over 50 so who needs sex?” bullshit…. that’s the other side of the coin. Older women aren’t allowed to even *appear* sexual because somehow that makes them an *aging* whore & that’s the most horrifying concept in this society which looks at the old & older as non-beings and women as useless if they aren’t fertile but if they dare to enjoy their fertility then look out…
ummm….
oh wow….
You rubbed off on me *lol*
*heh*
embarassed…..
I stand by what I said though 😀
you’re not the only one who couldn’t sleep last night- I’m going to write a post about a concept that I’m uncertain will ever fly but is related to the ranty coment I made…. I would love to hear what you think of it….
you’re not the only one who couldn’t sleep last night- I’m going to write a post about a concept that I’m uncertain will ever fly but is related to the ranty coment I made…. I would love to hear what you think of it….
Ditto on nearly every point.
I’ll go a step further and say, I am seriously put off by the women who value status amongst themselves and who compete for the males they want. There’s no gentleness in them and no acceptance. These, the worst of them, are the women who supported Ms. Palin. Ew.
What is not understood is often feared. For men in particular, who can not experience ‘female’ it is logical that fear should fill in the place of understanding. There are societies and cultures that also went the other way when it came to women’s sexuality and fertility, had elaborate rituals to ensure that the unknown was respected and celebrated.
And yes, zaiah is quite right. A group of girls is very very competitive. We’re competing for finite resources: the ‘right’ attention, the best status possible, the best man possible etc. Perhaps it’s partly biological imperative: set oneself up for the best genes, the best security in order to make child rearing easier.
Whatever the reason behind it, girls use their intuition and superior communication skills to their full advantage by turning on other girls and getting them exactly where it hurts that particular individual.
What is not understood is often feared. For men in particular, who can not experience ‘female’ it is logical that fear should fill in the place of understanding. There are societies and cultures that also went the other way when it came to women’s sexuality and fertility, had elaborate rituals to ensure that the unknown was respected and celebrated.
And yes, zaiah is quite right. A group of girls is very very competitive. We’re competing for finite resources: the ‘right’ attention, the best status possible, the best man possible etc. Perhaps it’s partly biological imperative: set oneself up for the best genes, the best security in order to make child rearing easier.
Whatever the reason behind it, girls use their intuition and superior communication skills to their full advantage by turning on other girls and getting them exactly where it hurts that particular individual.
“Girls learn make-up and how to dress well and “social graces” not to get the attention of boys (because boys really don’t care), but to place themselves in their own social hierarchy”
I’m thinking it’s also competition though – perhaps in a more subtle way. It’s like PDA. It’s a publically visable claim on him. What does it broadcast to others if she is the best dressed, best coiffed, best made up woman in the room? It’s a strong statement that she has the time and resources to get that way, which either means she has a lot of personal power/resources, or that he does.
She’s bragging in a very subtle way.
That’s not at all what I was saying you’re saying, but it turns out I did in fact misread your comment. This is what my girlfriend refers to as a “lolfail whoopsie.”
🙂
I’m 51. I’ve never been shy about sex, but I was and am extremely picky. I also seem to mate for life. But casual touching and flirting, oh, when the limits are clear that’s so much fun!
I need to establish limits. I broke someone’s heart once, long ago, so I am cautious about when and to whom I indicate interest or return interest. I still hate that I caused so much pain.
Recently, a good friend convinced me that he found me desirable. He’s 20 years younger. Wow, that was an eye-opener! Since then, I’ve explored more aspects of sex than in the preceding decades, and has it been fun!
So, we who are 50 or older, I consider that middle aged. I hope I’m wrong and it’s actually still quite young as the scientists find me ways to live longer! Never stop exploring, paying attention, trying new things, and saying what you think. Labels are only what you load them with emotionally. Your choice. I loved tinuvial’s definition of slut. Perfect!
Oh. What were you saying I was saying? Perhaps I miswrote the original comment.
(Perhaps I shouldn’t ask since it can lead to further confusion, but I am curious, sort of.)
I don’t believe I’ve ever been called anything, and I’ve said lots of such thing on my journal.
I get yelled at more often about my dislike for organized religion than I do any sexual proclivity.
I do remember, however, being labled a slut in elementary school. Not because I had sex, I was a virgin at the time, but because I had breasts.
I think women being called out on sexual matters has more to do with how much someone thinks it might hurt them, or shame them. No question a lot of people don’t like my sex talk — equally not in question is the fact that if they did open their mouth, I certainly wouldn’t be shamed, hurt, or even impressed.
If they know you’ll call them out, they’re less likely to say it. And unfortunately, a good number of women don’t feel allowed to call anyone else out. Another little insidious societal thing — good girls do not stand up for themselves.
I don’t believe I’ve ever been called anything, and I’ve said lots of such thing on my journal.
I get yelled at more often about my dislike for organized religion than I do any sexual proclivity.
I do remember, however, being labled a slut in elementary school. Not because I had sex, I was a virgin at the time, but because I had breasts.
I think women being called out on sexual matters has more to do with how much someone thinks it might hurt them, or shame them. No question a lot of people don’t like my sex talk — equally not in question is the fact that if they did open their mouth, I certainly wouldn’t be shamed, hurt, or even impressed.
If they know you’ll call them out, they’re less likely to say it. And unfortunately, a good number of women don’t feel allowed to call anyone else out. Another little insidious societal thing — good girls do not stand up for themselves.
Chimpanzees and gorillas have hierarchical group structures, but bonobos don’t, and we’re more closely related to bonobos than any other living species. Bonobo society is held together by cooperation and sex, instead of the violence of chimps and gorillas. I know which one I prefer.
You misunderstood me: I meant to imply that girls are competitive, too, just in a different way.
I don’t know about that…I’ve heard it suggested that the (all-too-frequent, alas) tendency of men to abuse, if not outright kill, their stepchildren, as well as the ever-popular “I’m gonna kill that bitch AND her new man before I let someone else have her (sometimes throwing in children, even his, for good measure)” can supposedly be traced back to just this kind of mammalian hardwiring. As (theoretically, at least) sentient human beings, though, we’re supposed to be able to get beyond that kind of thing, and obviously many if not most people do; but that limbic brain programming does tend to kick in way more than it should. 🙁
Re: 🙂
wpw that’s fantastic 🙂 do you like *him* though?
Is it ok that I add you to my flist? Perhaps I should add you to my sex journal’sd flst as wel *lol*
Re: Hypothesis
It’s the exact same thinking (IMNSHO) that’s behind a lot of the hatred towards fat women out there. If Female X wants Male Y, and has gone to all kinds of trouble to be attractive in a societally appropriate way, especially if this involved a lot of self-denial or physical discomfort, only to have Male Y decide that Female XX is the one he really wants…hoo boy, watch the shit hit the fan. Female XX “winning” upsets the hierarchical apple cart, shows that all of Female X’s hard work and suffering has been for nothing, AND rubs Female X’s nose in just how powerless she really is when it comes to mate selection*–she may be the Alpha Female of the group, but this is totally outside her control–and that simply Cannot Be Allowed.
It’s been my experience that other women can either be incredibly supportive, or mindblowingly backstabbing, sometimes both at different times, but usually not anywhere in the middle. If that makes me a bad feminist, well, so be it; but all the talk in the world about sisterhood being powerful isn’t going to make any difference if we don’t admit how the situation stands right now.
*Actually, when you get down to it, we’re all fairly powerless in terms of picking partners; we can be interested in someone, but if they don’t return our interest, there’s really not a lot we can do about it, esp. if the interest or lack thereof goes right back to good old chemistry. (Anyone who’s ever felt “I should want So-and-So, but I just don’t–why?!?” knows exactly what I mean.)
Re: Hypothesis
It’s the exact same thinking (IMNSHO) that’s behind a lot of the hatred towards fat women out there. If Female X wants Male Y, and has gone to all kinds of trouble to be attractive in a societally appropriate way, especially if this involved a lot of self-denial or physical discomfort, only to have Male Y decide that Female XX is the one he really wants…hoo boy, watch the shit hit the fan. Female XX “winning” upsets the hierarchical apple cart, shows that all of Female X’s hard work and suffering has been for nothing, AND rubs Female X’s nose in just how powerless she really is when it comes to mate selection*–she may be the Alpha Female of the group, but this is totally outside her control–and that simply Cannot Be Allowed.
It’s been my experience that other women can either be incredibly supportive, or mindblowingly backstabbing, sometimes both at different times, but usually not anywhere in the middle. If that makes me a bad feminist, well, so be it; but all the talk in the world about sisterhood being powerful isn’t going to make any difference if we don’t admit how the situation stands right now.
*Actually, when you get down to it, we’re all fairly powerless in terms of picking partners; we can be interested in someone, but if they don’t return our interest, there’s really not a lot we can do about it, esp. if the interest or lack thereof goes right back to good old chemistry. (Anyone who’s ever felt “I should want So-and-So, but I just don’t–why?!?” knows exactly what I mean.)
Re: 🙂
I love *him*, he’s a dear friend in a collection of dear friends. He spent years trying to get me to understand that he was serious about flirting with me. Now that’s dedication!
My journal’s completely public so far, of course you can add me if you like. The more the merrier, I say! My friends list is getting pretty full, I don’t add everyone who friends me, but it may just be due to too much daily reading already. 😉
Re: 🙂
yay 🙂
My journal is mostly friends-only so that’s the only way you can read mosat of it anyway
& the sex journal is by invite only & I would love a woman’s perspective 🙂
hope you feel better – and bravo on the realization. 🙂
Thanks! Getting there, slowly.
hope you feel better – and bravo on the realization. 🙂
My girlfriend and I had a very eye-opening conversation with her husband about this fairly recently — he had been totally unaware of the fact that most of the female-competitiveness/normative-rule-enforcing behavior even *existed* — and he’s a 41-year-old man with tons of female friends and a pretty good understanding of How People Work — but this went on totally under his radar.
Hope you’re feeling better soon!
— A <3
My girlfriend and I had a very eye-opening conversation with her husband about this fairly recently — he had been totally unaware of the fact that most of the female-competitiveness/normative-rule-enforcing behavior even *existed* — and he’s a 41-year-old man with tons of female friends and a pretty good understanding of How People Work — but this went on totally under his radar.
Hope you’re feeling better soon!
— A <3
Me myself, having always been of overly capitalist mind set, always thought such brandings of ‘slut’, at least in modern society, had more to do with reasource scarcity than anything else. Like this:
Women (who don’t comment on this journal XD) are generally the ones who control who gets sexy times and who doesn’t (I would use ‘gatekeepers’ here, but I can’t remember who said it, and, as such, can’t reference it appropriately.) But since these women are in control of sex, they put a lot of time and effort into deciding what males they want to mate with, whether the criteria be who made the touch down or who’s funnier or whatever.
These women build up giant lists and criteria, hierarchies of overarching reach and importance, and expect all others to maintain the status quo; in such a way, they can control the ‘sex market’. Those who opperate outside this ‘market’ are branded for not following the established rules of society: scab or slut or underseller.
In this way, people who decide to give away sex without going through the ‘proper channels’ ‘devaluate’ sex (in a scarcity manor; sex is still pretty fucking awesome no matter how you look at it). The women who have put such great effort into building up the price of sex are undercut and all the work they put into thier ‘product’ has gone to waste.
Obviously, there’s some problems with this model, put since I’m on dial-up and it’s my own goddamn arguement, I’m not going to point them out. XD nah! nah! nah! nah!
Me myself, having always been of overly capitalist mind set, always thought such brandings of ‘slut’, at least in modern society, had more to do with reasource scarcity than anything else. Like this:
Women (who don’t comment on this journal XD) are generally the ones who control who gets sexy times and who doesn’t (I would use ‘gatekeepers’ here, but I can’t remember who said it, and, as such, can’t reference it appropriately.) But since these women are in control of sex, they put a lot of time and effort into deciding what males they want to mate with, whether the criteria be who made the touch down or who’s funnier or whatever.
These women build up giant lists and criteria, hierarchies of overarching reach and importance, and expect all others to maintain the status quo; in such a way, they can control the ‘sex market’. Those who opperate outside this ‘market’ are branded for not following the established rules of society: scab or slut or underseller.
In this way, people who decide to give away sex without going through the ‘proper channels’ ‘devaluate’ sex (in a scarcity manor; sex is still pretty fucking awesome no matter how you look at it). The women who have put such great effort into building up the price of sex are undercut and all the work they put into thier ‘product’ has gone to waste.
Obviously, there’s some problems with this model, put since I’m on dial-up and it’s my own goddamn arguement, I’m not going to point them out. XD nah! nah! nah! nah!
In mainstream culture, women are told a zillion times a day that this hierarchy is important. That it’s the only way we’ll ever manage to gain any status, any power, any security, any love, any anything.
The dominant culture brainwashes us into wasting our energy fighting each other and that makes it all harder to do the work to break down the brainwashing, find like-minded people, and rise up and depose the existing hierarchy.
That’s one of the primary tools of power in human society — keep the less-empowered fighting among themselves, so they don’t fight their oppressors.
The planet doesn’t have a single “dominant culture” but this sort of behavior in one form or another can be seen in multiple cultures worldwide & thru history.
Many so-called “societal imperatives” (certainly not ALL, but many) evolved partly thru biological imperatives as much as for the purpose of creating societal control methods, and this’s more likely to be the former than the later.
In mainstream culture, women are told a zillion times a day that this hierarchy is important. That it’s the only way we’ll ever manage to gain any status, any power, any security, any love, any anything.
The dominant culture brainwashes us into wasting our energy fighting each other and that makes it all harder to do the work to break down the brainwashing, find like-minded people, and rise up and depose the existing hierarchy.
That’s one of the primary tools of power in human society — keep the less-empowered fighting among themselves, so they don’t fight their oppressors.
I hate social games, whether the dating game or office politics.
(I do enjoy other social games, such as Life or Monopoly, however. But I digress.)
I don’t know if, as an outsider, I’ve made those observations in my own life. I think it varies greatly on the people involved. I gravitated toward people who may be considered “geeky” or “unique.” These people generally reject those sorts of games because they’re just not focused on “fitting in” but rather on ideas or tasks. In other words, they just have better things to do. And in the final analysis, those people are just more interesting and less stressful to be around. When you’re a teenager or in your early 20s (sometimes beyond) that may not be so easy to recognize, so it comes with pain and loneliness.
I mean, imagine, valuing people for who they are on the inside instead of what they have, or what they look like, or how popular they are. What a concept.
DISCLAIMER: I could be wrong.
p.s. This may explain why I haven’t had many girl friends in the past.
I hate social games, whether the dating game or office politics.
(I do enjoy other social games, such as Life or Monopoly, however. But I digress.)
I don’t know if, as an outsider, I’ve made those observations in my own life. I think it varies greatly on the people involved. I gravitated toward people who may be considered “geeky” or “unique.” These people generally reject those sorts of games because they’re just not focused on “fitting in” but rather on ideas or tasks. In other words, they just have better things to do. And in the final analysis, those people are just more interesting and less stressful to be around. When you’re a teenager or in your early 20s (sometimes beyond) that may not be so easy to recognize, so it comes with pain and loneliness.
I mean, imagine, valuing people for who they are on the inside instead of what they have, or what they look like, or how popular they are. What a concept.
DISCLAIMER: I could be wrong.
Re: Hypothesis
This is what I think too (only now I don’t have to write it out!)
If you spend your whole life working hard to play by the “rules,” you want to be rewarded for that. And you want people who don’t follow the rules (and make the associated sacrifices) not to be rewarded.
If you see someone breaking the rules and being rewarded for it, it’s going to build resentment and anger.
That having been said, I’ve never followed the rules of being a “good girl” and no one has ever called me a “slut” to my knowledge. Well, except in the happy fun way. 🙂
Re: Hypothesis
This is what I think too (only now I don’t have to write it out!)
If you spend your whole life working hard to play by the “rules,” you want to be rewarded for that. And you want people who don’t follow the rules (and make the associated sacrifices) not to be rewarded.
If you see someone breaking the rules and being rewarded for it, it’s going to build resentment and anger.
That having been said, I’ve never followed the rules of being a “good girl” and no one has ever called me a “slut” to my knowledge. Well, except in the happy fun way. 🙂
p.s. This may explain why I haven’t had many girl friends in the past.
Re: I’m gonna take “hierarchy” and point it toward “hegemony”
I’m going to assume “Banana” is the same idea as “Oreo”, but what does “FOB” mean?
Re: I’m gonna take “hierarchy” and point it toward “hegemony”
Accurate assumption (and why is it always food that denotes when a POC sells out, huh? I LIKE FOOD).
FOB is “fresh off the boat” which, yes, is inaccurate because most people come over on planes. Is used like so: “OMG that girl is really cute but did you see? She packed chicken feet for lunch and was going to town on them. That’s too fobby.”
Oh, it will definitely lead to further confusion! It was simply a case of me not seeing words that were actually there, which probably happened because it was time for me to leave work (close to midnight my time).
Re: I’m gonna take “hierarchy” and point it toward “hegemony”
The chicken feet for lunch comment greatly amused me because it took a couple conversations with an Asian friend of mine (I’m white) before we both figured out why the fact that I was eating dried squid at school wierded her out. It wasn’t that I was eating them per se, but that I was eating them *in public*.
She grew up eating Korean food at home and having very American lunches packed by her mother so she didn’t stand out at school, so much so that even when she asked for leftovers from dinner, she was not allowed to take them.
Assumption dynamics are wierd. I don’t like them because they make me paranoid. But at least I understand better why the other Asian kids (20-year-olds) at school are repeatedly surprised when I bring “their food” to lunch. It’s not that they don’t remember that I eat it; it’s that they’re surprised to see it in public.
The planet doesn’t have a single “dominant culture” but this sort of behavior in one form or another can be seen in multiple cultures worldwide & thru history.
Many so-called “societal imperatives” (certainly not ALL, but many) evolved partly thru biological imperatives as much as for the purpose of creating societal control methods, and this’s more likely to be the former than the later.
George Carlin got me thinking about female genitalia years ago. Why is it that slang for penii are mostly cute and comical, but vaginas bear names that poetically feel like kicks to the groin?
It pisses me off, too. For years I’ve been on a search for vagina nicknames that don’t drip with insulting disgust AND can be recognized as a reference to the vag. The closest I’ve found is “gina,” those it confuses too many people to prove universal.
The shame that pissed you off in your dream named both male and female of reproductive goodies.
…cunny and ‘gina live around here as names!
I happen to think “yummy bits,” “slippery bits” and “moisture pocket” are cute.
Although I admit that there’s not a lot of talking after the “C’mere, you — Rowr!”
that’s vagtastic
Well, the term vajayjay is pretty cutesy.. and although I hear perhaps it was first said on scrubs, Oprah made it pretty universal. And there’s always vag which is pretty neutral and to the point. ..I dig efficiency.
“Why is it that slang for penii are mostly cute and comical, but vaginas bear names that poetically feel like kicks to the groin?”
Age-related.
Boys are basically taught from birth that a penis is a grand sort of toy that makes people giggle, and that’s fun to play with and so forth. At a young age, EVERYTHING is given a cutesy name, and things with cutesy names STAY cutesy named throughout adulthood.
Girls are basically taught “We don’t talk about… What’s Down There.” This becomes associated with wickedness, dirty and stinky and bad and so forth, thus this is how it propogates up through adulthood.
That’s just the party whre cutesy versus evil-sounding names are involved.
Now, if little girls were taught about their “hidey-holes,” this would be a little different…
A LITTLE different, anyway.
That’s my guess.
And as all good Christian children know, boys have a God Rod and girls have a Shame Cave.
Hm, I suppose this has bearing when I tell a sweetie “shame on me”…?
Bwahahahaha!
George Carlin got me thinking about female genitalia years ago. Why is it that slang for penii are mostly cute and comical, but vaginas bear names that poetically feel like kicks to the groin?
It pisses me off, too. For years I’ve been on a search for vagina nicknames that don’t drip with insulting disgust AND can be recognized as a reference to the vag. The closest I’ve found is “gina,” those it confuses too many people to prove universal.
The shame that pissed you off in your dream named both male and female of reproductive goodies.
Heh, “Their food” is a really amusing phrase
You know, I’ve never heard of the Americanized lunches! Very interesting – the people I grew up with (including myself) were straight-up Fob (and isn’t dried squid GREAT? I love it).
This sort of makes me think of how it’s perceived differently, for someone who looks like you to eat stuff like dried squid and chickenfeet, and for me to. What you said reminds me of how I have these vintage qipao from female family members – you know, those sexy-looking Chinese dresses – and I like wearing them. HOWEVER, if I do, people think I’m in costume or I’m a waitress or something, which would never happen if I were non-Asian. I can’t describe how much that bums me out.
…cunny and ‘gina live around here as names!
“Seems like everyone’s just scared silly of women’s sexuality. Seriously, WTF?”
There is selection pressure that favours men who control access to their women sexually, because he’s more likely to sire the next generation than the guy who says “yeah, fine, fuck my woman as much as you like”.
If women went out and fucked whoever they want to, how would anyone know whose child is whose? And then how would a man know whether to support the baby or kill it?
BTW I don’t condone this, being polyamorous myself, I’m just speculating.
And interestingly, many biologists have seen an adaptive behavioral trait in women: cheating.
For many males, a good reproductive strategy is to control the access fo the females, because the male can have more offspring if he prevents competing males from mating. However, one of the best strategies for females is to have as many offspring as possible by as many males as possible; contrary to earlier thought, it turns out that mating only with the one “best” male isn’t actually a terribly sound strategy, because it puts all the female’s eggs in one basket (so to speak).
Wide variation int he genetic makeup of her offspring helps to ensure that at least some of them will have favorable genes in the event of an environmental change or disease or some other challenge. Since she knows all her offspring are hers, that means there’s no downside (to her) to having multiple mates. But in species that require both parents to contribute to child rearing, she doesn’t want her mate to know that her offspring aren’t necessarily his. So she cheats.
The same imperatives that lead to mate-guarding behaviors in males will often lead to cheating behaviors in females. Ain’t nature grand?
Well…
I can’t quite buy in to justifications that are called “natural,” yet based on guessing on the motives of microscopic objects.
With nanobots being the obvious exception.
I mean, I can understand people wanting to show off by having lots of stuff — more than other peolpe. In the case where “people” is defined as “men” and “stuff” is defined as “women,” this ALSO explains the data.
As far as “cheating,” woudn’t it be more simply explained as a revenge tactic?
I mean, if one presumes that the natural tendency is of a human being to have sex with whomever strikes their fancy, then when you have a situation where women (in their role as “objects”) are RESTICTED from doing so, they get back at their owners by secretly doing so.*
So, no wondering what the eggs and sperms are thinking — it might be as simple as “showing off” and “revenge.”
* this is “cheating,” where you bof someone, but don’t plan to shift ownership papers to them. In that case, I’d be even MORE inclined to think of it as revenge.
The particular model of “cheating as reproductive strategy” actually comes from primate studies and studies of other mammals. The benefits to having multiple offspring from multiple different fathers for most mammals is pretty well documented; the notion that it’s a common tactic is relatively new, however. Until recently, it was generally believed that the dominant males in most primate troops controlled access to reproductive females, but paternity studies on infant offspring have demonstrated that the females are getting quite a bit of nookie on the side.
It’s not the activity I cast a doubting eye on, it’s the motive. Or rather, asserting that there IS a motive and that understanding that motive presupposes an understanding of microbiology.
It’s rare enough you can ask a human being “Why are you doing this?” and they answer “Because it maximizes the odds of my sperm reproducing my DNA” or “Because my egg should be fertilized in accordance with the sperm belonging to the sneakiest guy” and so forth. Hell, most humans already have a dodgy grasp of the microcosm of reproduction anyway.
I doubt the other primates have a BETTER grasp on the microdetails sufficient to rationalize out a motive.
Ah, but that’s the beauty of it. As conscious creatures, we don’t need to understand the motivations for our behaviors!
I rather tend to suspect that a lot more of our behavior is based in our biology and our genes than we’re comfortable admitting, and that often our rationalizations for those behaviors come along afterward for the ride. If an organism has a gene that makes her more prone to stray off with other males–perhaps because she has an impulse toward neophilia, or whatever–and as a resultmore of her offspring survive, and inherit that trait, then over time you’ll see tat behavioral trait become more common in the species.
Regardless of whether or not she belongs to a species that is capable of articulating a “reason” for the behavior.
Of course, this presupposes that behaviors are heritable and influenced by genetics. If you don’t accept that supposition, then the model doesn’t work.
“Ah, but that’s the beauty of it. As conscious creatures, we don’t need to understand the motivations for our behaviors!”
Well, it helps us train others better to do as we want, if we better understand our own motivations.
“I rather tend to suspect that a lot more of our behavior is based in our biology and our genes than we’re comfortable admitting, and that often our rationalizations for those behaviors come along afterward for the ride.”
I’d be hard-pressed to offer a strong disagreement, what with hormones and all, however I still view slightly askance the idea that humans (and other animals) act in certain ways BECAUSE our sperm do this or our eggs do that.
If one goes to the place where one says “emotions are caused by chemical reactions,” then I’d be up for “Well yeah, I’m game to accept that MOST (if not all) of our actions are predicated by some sort of chameical cascade in our brains,” but at that level, it starts to get pretty broad, so I’d be less keen to start singling them out.
“Regardless of whether or not she belongs to a species that is capable of articulating a “reason” for the behavior.”
I don’t think “articulating” is the issue — it’s comprehension and integration.
If you prefer, think of the individual as a program. The final output is Wee Bishops and Moisture Pockets mixin’ it up.
At the app level, I’m suggesting social programming such as possession, fear, jealousy, and revenge as motivators for the “illicit” mixing.
At the OS level, you’ve got sperm and eggs vying for dominance in the WWII Europe of the human body: the Womb.
At the hardware layer, you’ve got chemical cascades and electricity.
People (and critters) do things. I think they usually do things based on what they reason out, which is (in my example), app-level stuff. People (and critters) don’t even UNDERSTAND OS-level stuff without a bit of schooling, and even more rare is the person who understands the details of the various cascades.
When someone asks “Why the fuck did you do that?” these folks answer “‘Cause I wanted to get you back, asshole!” instead of “because I experienced such and so chemical cascade.”
This is why I’m specifying “motive.” Our various and sundry chemical cascades might be the ultimate cause for pretty much everything we do, but our MOTIVE is to get back at someone, or to show off, or to stop experiencing fear.
I think we might be talking about “cause” versus “motive,” here.
I’d be hard-pressed to offer a strong disagreement, what with hormones and all, however I still view slightly askance the idea that humans (and other animals) act in certain ways BECAUSE our sperm do this or our eggs do that.
Well, that’s not really the point, though, isn’t it?
We all carry a crazy grab-bag mix of genes. Some of those genes make certain behaviors more likely than others–they prime the hormonal pump in one direction or another. Our biology doesn’t necessarily MOTIVATE our behavior, but it’s always there, whispering in the background. “Go ahead…you wanna do it. Besides, he has it coming anyway.” That sort of thing.
The genes that make the cheating a little bit easier to do get spread around a little bit wider. The little chemical cascades that tend us toward one behavior or another are in fact rooted in our biology, and some of those tendencies nudge us toward doing stuff that makes our genes more likely to spread.
“Well, that’s not really the point, though, isn’t it?”
My point is that I’m not too keen on the idea that “we cheat because we want to do such-and-so with our eggs and such-and-so with our sperm” when “we cheat because of anger, fear, jealousy, and revenge” makes more sense on any observable level.
However, I would be very interested in a case where one person cheated on another and declares “No, there was no anger or jealousy or revenge or fear — I did this simply because my sperm cried out to taste new eggs.”
My point is that I’m not too keen on the idea that “we cheat because we want to do such-and-so with our eggs and such-and-so with our sperm” when “we cheat because of anger, fear, jealousy, and revenge” makes more sense on any observable level.
Sure. But we’re talking about two different levels of understanding here.
If you ask Sally why she cheated, then you might get an answer like “I was horny and pissed off at my good-for-nothing jerk of a boyfriend.”
If you look wider, and at a lower level, the answer might be “Sally inherited a combination of genes that make her easily predisposed to anger when she doesn’t get what she wants. This anger comes with a lessening of behavioral impulses that might otherwise tend to be more restrained. She inherited a predisposition to become angry easily and to give in to her impulses when she’s angry because these impulses have had positive survival characteristics in her ancestors. Alice over there also has a relationship in which she’s annoyed at her lazy good-for-nothing boyfriend, but Alice isn’t as predisposed to become angry about it as Sally is, because Alice carries a different set of genetic traits.”
“Sure. But we’re talking about two different levels of understanding here.”
Exactly.
I think we agree on the high-level stuff.
The low-level stuff is the stuff I’m not quite as confident on, particularly when Darwinian causality’s invoked.
Now, don’t get me wrong — I’m all for evolution and natural selection and so forth as “well, duh,” but when such low-level items are suggested as causal to high-level activities, THAT’S the exact same mechanism that produced the whole Social Darwinism abomination. THAT’S the causal stream I have strong doubts about.
High level behaviors can usually be explained easily using high-level causality. Low level causality seems — at best — somewhat useful for establishing a possible (maybe even probable) predisposition, but in doing so, introduces the Dodgy variable.
I ALSO think the whole low-level-causality thing is a bit dodgy if I look at the converse: If we ARE reproducing, then it stands to reason that the actions and predispositions that led to this favor reproduction in general, possibly superior reproduction (and likewise, if someone is NOT reproducing, then whatever characteristics they MIGHT have don’t favor reproduction and aren’t appropriate long-term for the survival of the species). That’s awfully suspicious…
I’ll even hijack a concept of yours: Just because something results in a functioning baby doesn’t mean it was a functioning survival tactic.
Now, don’t get me wrong — I’m all for evolution and natural selection and so forth as “well, duh,” but when such low-level items are suggested as causal to high-level activities, THAT’S the exact same mechanism that produced the whole Social Darwinism abomination. THAT’S the causal stream I have strong doubts about.
I think the place where social Darwinism runs off the rails…
Okay, hang on, let me back up.
I think one of the many places where social Darwinism runs off the rails is the notion that biology is inevitability. I think that it can be very, very useful, when you’re dealing with the high-level, conscious-motivation stuff, to keep the low-level stuff in mind. Like I might tell our hypothetical friend Sally “I understand that you are upset and angry, and I also understand that it feels right and just for you to cheat on your boyfriend. However, the fact that it feels right to you doesn’t necessarily mean that it is right. You have a little voice whispering in your ear that’s saying ‘Go ahead, he deserves it, it’s only justice, he’s just getting payback for being a no-good rotten whatever,’ but maybe you should think about where that whispering little voice comes from. It’s not necessarily nudging you in the direction of greatest good, and here’s why…”
I know that for me, having a sense that I may be biologically predisposed to feel certain ways, but that I ultimately still have control (and responsibility!) for what I do, biological predispositions be damned, has really helped give me a solid tool for looking at my emotions and getting a handle on what they’re trying to tell me.
Our emotional selves are very much hard-wired in, and understanding where the wiring comes from can, I think, be a powerful way to understand ourselves.
Right.
I’m okay with the idea of predisposition. That makes sense.
People who decide to cheat do so for high-level reasons, but EVERYBODY is biologically predisposed toward pro-reproductive behaviors (for the reason that ANTTI-reproductive behaviors don’t usually last more than a generation).
Seeing as how EVERYBODY has the same basic biology, but not EVERYONE acts in such seed-spreadin’ ways, there must be another factor, and THAT factor is the smoking gun.
This is what I mean when I talk of the high-level stuff. The app-level stuff. Above, you described it as basically a form of Free Will in the face of raging biology. That’s close enough for me to equate them — Will is at the same high level that I’m talking about.
I do agree that understanding our predispositions and what chemically is going on inside a human being and how psychologically we cope with these chemical cascades and what compensatory strategies our society has developed over time can be VERY useful. I agree strongly with that.
“Seems like everyone’s just scared silly of women’s sexuality. Seriously, WTF?”
There is selection pressure that favours men who control access to their women sexually, because he’s more likely to sire the next generation than the guy who says “yeah, fine, fuck my woman as much as you like”.
If women went out and fucked whoever they want to, how would anyone know whose child is whose? And then how would a man know whether to support the baby or kill it?
BTW I don’t condone this, being polyamorous myself, I’m just speculating.
Re: Heh, “Their food” is a really amusing phrase
Yes, dried squid is awesome. Though finding it without MSG can be a little challenging, which is annoying. I’m so sorry to hear about the qipao, my grandmother had one that I no longer fit that I adored.
Unfortunately, at this point, I live where it is humid, and if I didn’t think I’d get looked at funny, I’d wear salwar suits all summer. They are so comfortable, but the Indian kids all speak disparagingly of having to wear them at family gatherings, and I’m afraid that the reactions would be less favorable than the dean of my school when I shaved my head*.
*though really, he didn’t say anything at the time, but now, 9 months later, he still comments that my hair is growing out and looks good every time I see him. Regardless of how well coifed my hair is at that point. I wonder if he’ll ever stop doing that.
that’s vagtastic
Well, the term vajayjay is pretty cutesy.. and although I hear perhaps it was first said on scrubs, Oprah made it pretty universal. And there’s always vag which is pretty neutral and to the point. ..I dig efficiency.
There’s a book I’ve read about, but haven’t read, that argues that one of the reasons men are favored so heavily in Western society isn’t a conspiracy of organized discrimination, so much as the fact that women are socialized to be competitive in ways that cut each other down whereas men are socialized to be competitive in ways that allow them to work together even if they don’t like one another.
I’m not sure how far I buy into that hypothesis, but I think it’s an interesting one.
Sowing the seeds of paranoia and fear…that’s what I’m here for!
I’d call it immoral for many of the same reasons I’d call other behaviors which are common among animals immoral: because people are inherently deserving of compassion and respect.
Yeah, I don’t know if I see it as the root cause for a lot of things, but that is an intriguing theory. If you remember the title, will you let me know?
I don’t want anyone to think that I’m bashing on other women, or that I think things absolutely need to change before we (as human beings) are ready for it. I just felt the need to rant a bit with you, I suppose!
I agree totally. I just kind of needed to vent, you know. 🙂
Re: the other side of some of those evil Israelite standards of uncleanliness
Well, sure, there’s the intimacy of the ritual bath–but when you get right down to it, it’s kind of like putting a cherry on top of a sundae made of dogshit and broken glass. Sure, the cherry is tasty, but the rest of it? Not so much.
“We’re going to teach you that your own body’s normal processes make you so foul and revolting that we will exile you from society for twelve days out of every twenty-eight, and consider you unfit even to touch during that time, but hey! Ritual bath!”
Same Nancy Friday of My Secret Garden fame?
Re: hope you feel better soon- edited (sorry about the bad typing_)
Aww… 🙂
Re: Hypothesis
Hmm. Interesting idea. It certainly would help explain the behavior, yep.
Re: Hypothesis
Hmm. Interesting idea. It certainly would help explain the behavior, yep.
Thanks! Getting there, slowly.
And interestingly, many biologists have seen an adaptive behavioral trait in women: cheating.
For many males, a good reproductive strategy is to control the access fo the females, because the male can have more offspring if he prevents competing males from mating. However, one of the best strategies for females is to have as many offspring as possible by as many males as possible; contrary to earlier thought, it turns out that mating only with the one “best” male isn’t actually a terribly sound strategy, because it puts all the female’s eggs in one basket (so to speak).
Wide variation int he genetic makeup of her offspring helps to ensure that at least some of them will have favorable genes in the event of an environmental change or disease or some other challenge. Since she knows all her offspring are hers, that means there’s no downside (to her) to having multiple mates. But in species that require both parents to contribute to child rearing, she doesn’t want her mate to know that her offspring aren’t necessarily his. So she cheats.
The same imperatives that lead to mate-guarding behaviors in males will often lead to cheating behaviors in females. Ain’t nature grand?
I believe it was called “Hardball for Women.” Something like that.
I happen to think “yummy bits,” “slippery bits” and “moisture pocket” are cute.
Although I admit that there’s not a lot of talking after the “C’mere, you — Rowr!”
“Why is it that slang for penii are mostly cute and comical, but vaginas bear names that poetically feel like kicks to the groin?”
Age-related.
Boys are basically taught from birth that a penis is a grand sort of toy that makes people giggle, and that’s fun to play with and so forth. At a young age, EVERYTHING is given a cutesy name, and things with cutesy names STAY cutesy named throughout adulthood.
Girls are basically taught “We don’t talk about… What’s Down There.” This becomes associated with wickedness, dirty and stinky and bad and so forth, thus this is how it propogates up through adulthood.
That’s just the party whre cutesy versus evil-sounding names are involved.
Now, if little girls were taught about their “hidey-holes,” this would be a little different…
A LITTLE different, anyway.
That’s my guess.
Yep. “My Secret Garden” was a lot of stuff written by other people, but Friday does her own writing, which is quite illuminating:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Friday
I am amused at the idea of Ms. Magazine declaring her “not a feminist.” Probably because it’s no longer cricket for a woman to refer to another woman who chooses to do things they wish THEY could do as a “fucking dyke.”
Re: hope you feel better soon- edited (sorry about the bad typing_)
*lol* what? no verbosity? How unusual 😉
Re: the other side of some of those evil Israelite standards of uncleanliness
Point taken. i was just rying to point out that there was an element of balance to it. And while you’re analogy does have merit– the cherry on the dogshit sundae– the ritual itself doesn’t focus on that: it’s about intimacy, and love, and trust, and humility, and spoiling the woman (for want of a better word).
And as all good Christian children know, boys have a God Rod and girls have a Shame Cave.
Hm, I suppose this has bearing when I tell a sweetie “shame on me”…?
Bwahahahaha!
Well…
I can’t quite buy in to justifications that are called “natural,” yet based on guessing on the motives of microscopic objects.
With nanobots being the obvious exception.
I mean, I can understand people wanting to show off by having lots of stuff — more than other peolpe. In the case where “people” is defined as “men” and “stuff” is defined as “women,” this ALSO explains the data.
As far as “cheating,” woudn’t it be more simply explained as a revenge tactic?
I mean, if one presumes that the natural tendency is of a human being to have sex with whomever strikes their fancy, then when you have a situation where women (in their role as “objects”) are RESTICTED from doing so, they get back at their owners by secretly doing so.*
So, no wondering what the eggs and sperms are thinking — it might be as simple as “showing off” and “revenge.”
* this is “cheating,” where you bof someone, but don’t plan to shift ownership papers to them. In that case, I’d be even MORE inclined to think of it as revenge.
The particular model of “cheating as reproductive strategy” actually comes from primate studies and studies of other mammals. The benefits to having multiple offspring from multiple different fathers for most mammals is pretty well documented; the notion that it’s a common tactic is relatively new, however. Until recently, it was generally believed that the dominant males in most primate troops controlled access to reproductive females, but paternity studies on infant offspring have demonstrated that the females are getting quite a bit of nookie on the side.
It’s not the activity I cast a doubting eye on, it’s the motive. Or rather, asserting that there IS a motive and that understanding that motive presupposes an understanding of microbiology.
It’s rare enough you can ask a human being “Why are you doing this?” and they answer “Because it maximizes the odds of my sperm reproducing my DNA” or “Because my egg should be fertilized in accordance with the sperm belonging to the sneakiest guy” and so forth. Hell, most humans already have a dodgy grasp of the microcosm of reproduction anyway.
I doubt the other primates have a BETTER grasp on the microdetails sufficient to rationalize out a motive.
Ah, but that’s the beauty of it. As conscious creatures, we don’t need to understand the motivations for our behaviors!
I rather tend to suspect that a lot more of our behavior is based in our biology and our genes than we’re comfortable admitting, and that often our rationalizations for those behaviors come along afterward for the ride. If an organism has a gene that makes her more prone to stray off with other males–perhaps because she has an impulse toward neophilia, or whatever–and as a resultmore of her offspring survive, and inherit that trait, then over time you’ll see tat behavioral trait become more common in the species.
Regardless of whether or not she belongs to a species that is capable of articulating a “reason” for the behavior.
Of course, this presupposes that behaviors are heritable and influenced by genetics. If you don’t accept that supposition, then the model doesn’t work.
“Ah, but that’s the beauty of it. As conscious creatures, we don’t need to understand the motivations for our behaviors!”
Well, it helps us train others better to do as we want, if we better understand our own motivations.
“I rather tend to suspect that a lot more of our behavior is based in our biology and our genes than we’re comfortable admitting, and that often our rationalizations for those behaviors come along afterward for the ride.”
I’d be hard-pressed to offer a strong disagreement, what with hormones and all, however I still view slightly askance the idea that humans (and other animals) act in certain ways BECAUSE our sperm do this or our eggs do that.
If one goes to the place where one says “emotions are caused by chemical reactions,” then I’d be up for “Well yeah, I’m game to accept that MOST (if not all) of our actions are predicated by some sort of chameical cascade in our brains,” but at that level, it starts to get pretty broad, so I’d be less keen to start singling them out.
“Regardless of whether or not she belongs to a species that is capable of articulating a “reason” for the behavior.”
I don’t think “articulating” is the issue — it’s comprehension and integration.
If you prefer, think of the individual as a program. The final output is Wee Bishops and Moisture Pockets mixin’ it up.
At the app level, I’m suggesting social programming such as possession, fear, jealousy, and revenge as motivators for the “illicit” mixing.
At the OS level, you’ve got sperm and eggs vying for dominance in the WWII Europe of the human body: the Womb.
At the hardware layer, you’ve got chemical cascades and electricity.
People (and critters) do things. I think they usually do things based on what they reason out, which is (in my example), app-level stuff. People (and critters) don’t even UNDERSTAND OS-level stuff without a bit of schooling, and even more rare is the person who understands the details of the various cascades.
When someone asks “Why the fuck did you do that?” these folks answer “‘Cause I wanted to get you back, asshole!” instead of “because I experienced such and so chemical cascade.”
This is why I’m specifying “motive.” Our various and sundry chemical cascades might be the ultimate cause for pretty much everything we do, but our MOTIVE is to get back at someone, or to show off, or to stop experiencing fear.
I think we might be talking about “cause” versus “motive,” here.
“Sowing the seeds of paranoia and fear…that’s what I’m here for!”
They say you can’t cheat an honest man, and i say you can’t make someone paranoid unless they have something to fear already. (innocent whistling…)
I’d be hard-pressed to offer a strong disagreement, what with hormones and all, however I still view slightly askance the idea that humans (and other animals) act in certain ways BECAUSE our sperm do this or our eggs do that.
Well, that’s not really the point, though, isn’t it?
We all carry a crazy grab-bag mix of genes. Some of those genes make certain behaviors more likely than others–they prime the hormonal pump in one direction or another. Our biology doesn’t necessarily MOTIVATE our behavior, but it’s always there, whispering in the background. “Go ahead…you wanna do it. Besides, he has it coming anyway.” That sort of thing.
The genes that make the cheating a little bit easier to do get spread around a little bit wider. The little chemical cascades that tend us toward one behavior or another are in fact rooted in our biology, and some of those tendencies nudge us toward doing stuff that makes our genes more likely to spread.
This could so easily become a game of “everybody get the paranoid one.” I’m just sayin’.
Which, by the way, is a fun game.
“Well, that’s not really the point, though, isn’t it?”
My point is that I’m not too keen on the idea that “we cheat because we want to do such-and-so with our eggs and such-and-so with our sperm” when “we cheat because of anger, fear, jealousy, and revenge” makes more sense on any observable level.
However, I would be very interested in a case where one person cheated on another and declares “No, there was no anger or jealousy or revenge or fear — I did this simply because my sperm cried out to taste new eggs.”
Freaking out paranoid people is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Mmmmm, fish is yummy…
My point is that I’m not too keen on the idea that “we cheat because we want to do such-and-so with our eggs and such-and-so with our sperm” when “we cheat because of anger, fear, jealousy, and revenge” makes more sense on any observable level.
Sure. But we’re talking about two different levels of understanding here.
If you ask Sally why she cheated, then you might get an answer like “I was horny and pissed off at my good-for-nothing jerk of a boyfriend.”
If you look wider, and at a lower level, the answer might be “Sally inherited a combination of genes that make her easily predisposed to anger when she doesn’t get what she wants. This anger comes with a lessening of behavioral impulses that might otherwise tend to be more restrained. She inherited a predisposition to become angry easily and to give in to her impulses when she’s angry because these impulses have had positive survival characteristics in her ancestors. Alice over there also has a relationship in which she’s annoyed at her lazy good-for-nothing boyfriend, but Alice isn’t as predisposed to become angry about it as Sally is, because Alice carries a different set of genetic traits.”
“Sure. But we’re talking about two different levels of understanding here.”
Exactly.
I think we agree on the high-level stuff.
The low-level stuff is the stuff I’m not quite as confident on, particularly when Darwinian causality’s invoked.
Now, don’t get me wrong — I’m all for evolution and natural selection and so forth as “well, duh,” but when such low-level items are suggested as causal to high-level activities, THAT’S the exact same mechanism that produced the whole Social Darwinism abomination. THAT’S the causal stream I have strong doubts about.
High level behaviors can usually be explained easily using high-level causality. Low level causality seems — at best — somewhat useful for establishing a possible (maybe even probable) predisposition, but in doing so, introduces the Dodgy variable.
I ALSO think the whole low-level-causality thing is a bit dodgy if I look at the converse: If we ARE reproducing, then it stands to reason that the actions and predispositions that led to this favor reproduction in general, possibly superior reproduction (and likewise, if someone is NOT reproducing, then whatever characteristics they MIGHT have don’t favor reproduction and aren’t appropriate long-term for the survival of the species). That’s awfully suspicious…
I’ll even hijack a concept of yours: Just because something results in a functioning baby doesn’t mean it was a functioning survival tactic.
Now, don’t get me wrong — I’m all for evolution and natural selection and so forth as “well, duh,” but when such low-level items are suggested as causal to high-level activities, THAT’S the exact same mechanism that produced the whole Social Darwinism abomination. THAT’S the causal stream I have strong doubts about.
I think the place where social Darwinism runs off the rails…
Okay, hang on, let me back up.
I think one of the many places where social Darwinism runs off the rails is the notion that biology is inevitability. I think that it can be very, very useful, when you’re dealing with the high-level, conscious-motivation stuff, to keep the low-level stuff in mind. Like I might tell our hypothetical friend Sally “I understand that you are upset and angry, and I also understand that it feels right and just for you to cheat on your boyfriend. However, the fact that it feels right to you doesn’t necessarily mean that it is right. You have a little voice whispering in your ear that’s saying ‘Go ahead, he deserves it, it’s only justice, he’s just getting payback for being a no-good rotten whatever,’ but maybe you should think about where that whispering little voice comes from. It’s not necessarily nudging you in the direction of greatest good, and here’s why…”
I know that for me, having a sense that I may be biologically predisposed to feel certain ways, but that I ultimately still have control (and responsibility!) for what I do, biological predispositions be damned, has really helped give me a solid tool for looking at my emotions and getting a handle on what they’re trying to tell me.
Our emotional selves are very much hard-wired in, and understanding where the wiring comes from can, I think, be a powerful way to understand ourselves.
Right.
I’m okay with the idea of predisposition. That makes sense.
People who decide to cheat do so for high-level reasons, but EVERYBODY is biologically predisposed toward pro-reproductive behaviors (for the reason that ANTTI-reproductive behaviors don’t usually last more than a generation).
Seeing as how EVERYBODY has the same basic biology, but not EVERYONE acts in such seed-spreadin’ ways, there must be another factor, and THAT factor is the smoking gun.
This is what I mean when I talk of the high-level stuff. The app-level stuff. Above, you described it as basically a form of Free Will in the face of raging biology. That’s close enough for me to equate them — Will is at the same high level that I’m talking about.
I do agree that understanding our predispositions and what chemically is going on inside a human being and how psychologically we cope with these chemical cascades and what compensatory strategies our society has developed over time can be VERY useful. I agree strongly with that.
I think it’s relevant to point out that the idea that “everyone’s afraid of men’s sexuality” also has considerable cultural resonance. In fact, in many cases, much more afraid.
It’s also much more culturally accepted to denigrate men’s sexuality – in fact, it seems pretty standard.
And male genital mutilation is absolutely routine in this country. I had some of the most sensitive tissue cut off of my penis moments after being born; did you? It’s pretty rare to find a male born in this country this didn’t happen to.
I think it’s relevant to point out that the idea that “everyone’s afraid of men’s sexuality” also has considerable cultural resonance. In fact, in many cases, much more afraid.
It’s also much more culturally accepted to denigrate men’s sexuality – in fact, it seems pretty standard.
And male genital mutilation is absolutely routine in this country. I had some of the most sensitive tissue cut off of my penis moments after being born; did you? It’s pretty rare to find a male born in this country this didn’t happen to.
You know, there are a lot of institutions and social patterns in the world which serve to limit people in general and women in particular. That’s fairly obvious. But I think there’s an implicit assumption in “patriarchal elite” that those institutions are organized, consciously self-serving, and basically imposed from the top down.
The OP, and some other stuff like it that I’ve read over the years, seems like good evidence that, aside from a few weird little subcultures (at least in the West; I can’t comment meaningfully about non-Western cultures) these attitudes and institutions are largely unconscious, self-limiting, and self-organizing from the bottom up. I’m not sure what this implies as far as ways to change it, but I’m fairly sure it implies something.