Save the Males
entertainment.timesonline.co.uk
entertainment.timesonline.co.uk
Casual sex is actually radically anti-feminist, but few people are willing to point this out.
I'm surprised the author didn't discuss divorce and alimony. The fact that a woman can divorce her husband for another man, then use his alimony payments to live it up with her live-in boyfriend, is much more of a concern to me than the existence of a "lovable doofus" father figure in Everybody Loves Raymond.
1. The player/whore dynamic. There are male whores and female players, but usually the woman is going to be presumed to be the conquered, the pwned, the slut. This double standard is not going to go away soon.
Empirically, the vast majority of people who participate in casual sex have low self-esteem. In men, this type of activity is (perhaps wrongly) viewed as caddish but a not-entirely-repulsive way of maintaining one's confidence between relationships. Society is less forgiving of women who do it (again, perhaps wrongly).
2. Casual sex makes it difficult to form intimate relationships later in life. Future partners will view it negatively, and the psychological consequences of casual sex are severe and generally undesirable. The "wires" for emotional intimacy and sexuality are closely intertwined for most people, but once separated, they don't go back together.
3. It turns physical intimacy into a commodity, traded on a highly efficient* market where the media of exchange are social status, physical attractiveness, "game", and "for the story". (* However, "inefficiencies" such as love and devotion turn out to have enormous subjective benefits, for people of both genders.) So, I'd phrase the question as thus: why is prostitution considered anti-feminist? The only difference between casual sex and prostitution is that, in the former, the medium of exchange is social status, and in the latter, it's money.
4. Casual sex represents (admittedly contained) social regression. In primitive, pre-monogamous societies, a few men (alpha males) have many wives, a larger set (beta) have one or two wives, and most (gamma) have none. Surplus loser males must be sent off to war to acquire more resources (and therefore, more women) or they will stage a revolution against the alphas. (In pre-monogamous societies, 1 in 3 men will die at the hands of another male, and murder often raises a man's social status.)
What does monogamy do? For one thing, it reduces the reproductive stakes involved in social status, making it simply not worth it to kill another man in order to improve one's position. Second, social status must be redefined; instead of seeking many wives, successful men are encouraged to find one very desirable partner. This creates an incentive for him to treat her well, because a wife in this arrangement has a lot more power over her husband than if she were one of 8 wives.
The casual sex market is a pre-monogamous subculture, and although it hasn't led to full-on social regression, I would not be surprised to learn that it's a major contributor to violence and rape. There's a reason fights break out at nightclubs... and alcohol ++ is merely a catalyst, not an agent.
A few fringe feminists support casual sex out of a reaction against the 1950s "traditional family", which they view as an abomination. The traditional family wasn't the best regime for a lot of people, but there are practically as many family structures as there are actual families, and most modern families are much closer to equal partnerships than "traditional" families. In any case, replacing the family with no-holds-barred commoditization of activities that were once called "physical intimacy", and calling this a "feminist" advance, is just balls-o'er-the-bridge lunacy.
For the record, I'm utterly liberal. I'm appalled that people in this country want to ban same-sex couples from getting married, and I'm generally a social libertarian. However, I'm also a pragmatist, and the fruits borne of casual sex are detrimental to society. I would never support a law banning casual sex, as it would be impossible to define, but I'd prefer that this class of activities fade into the background as behaviors to be avoided, rather than being glamorized by shows like Sex and the City.
( ++ Later edit, 3:32 pm. I would actually classify the alcohol abuse observed in the bar/club scene as case-in-point of sexually driven violence. Excessive drug use is, arguably, violence against oneself, and the case could be made that "social" alcohol abuse is often borne out of sexual frustration.)
Casual sex in and of itself is obviously neither "feminist" nor "anti-feminist." Even here, it depends if you're talking about an idealized, consistent feminism or the perverted reality of modern feminist thought.
"Future partners will view it negatively, and the psychological consequences of casual sex are severe and generally undesirable." Why and why on both those.
"So, I'd phrase the question as thus: why is prostitution considered anti-feminist?" Who said it is?
"Casual sex represents (admittedly contained) social regression." I don't agree where you take this argument. Caveman dragging Jane to his cave is not the same type of situation as casual sex. One was done for reproductive purposes, one is done for pleasure.
"However, I'm also a pragmatist, and the fruits borne of casual sex are detrimental to society. I would never support a law banning casual sex, as it would be impossible to define, but I'd prefer that this class of activities fade into the background as behaviors to be avoided, rather than being glamorized by shows like Sex and the City." This contradicts your previous statement that you are utterly liberal. Being liberal is not about one's own choices - it is about respecting the choices others make. So, it is entirely reasonable to not partake in casual sex as a liberal, not to judge others.
As much as I dislike silent majority arguments, I'm going to make one. Most people have had fewer than 10 sexual partners by age 30, and sex outside of a committed relationship is, for most people, far from the norm. It's the sort of thing that might happen once or twice in one's life, and is usually regretted.
People who haven't participated in the casual sex market, either by choice or on account of inability, see no reason to respect it, and generally hold a very negative view of it, and would strongly prefer that their partners not have been involved in it.
As for the psychological consequences, people who participate in casual sex, on average, have lower self-esteem and more difficulty forming committed relationships. There have been myriad studies of college students correlating sexual activity (as measured by number of partners) negatively with self-esteem and academic performance, in both genders.
Who said it is?
In practice, prostitution is pretty degrading to women. I don't think it's worth it to speculate on how "ideal prostitution" might play out, because there's no evidence to indicate that it's even possible.
I don't agree where you take this argument. Caveman dragging Jane to his cave is not the same type of situation as casual sex. One was done for reproductive purposes, one is done for pleasure.
The caveman did it for pleasure, too. Animals seem to have no cognition of the link between sex and reproduction, and it seems evident that they do it primarily for pleasure (homosexuality and masturbation are common in the animal kingdom). Moreover, in some non-industrial, tribal societies, knowledge of this connection is nonexistent or relatively recent.
Being liberal is not about one's own choices - it is about respecting the choices others make.
Then I'm not a liberal by your definition, because I find it obvious that people (and, in fact, whole societies) sometimes make terrible choices. In much of the Middle East, people are choosing medieval theocracy, not being educated about the alternatives.
The main reason is that I am very picky who I choose for a long term relationship, but less picky for a casual one.
Now, why have casual relationships at all? Can I blame testosterone on this? When you are in your early 20s, there is a huge surge of testosterone in males, and a huge desire to just romp for once and a while. So, I did it, with less desirable females, and it felt good.
If I just waited for the "ideal" partner, then it would just take forever, or I would have done the mistake to just date/marry somebody just b/c sex comes with it.
And I have seen it in the south, time and time again, where people wait to have sex until they get married. And marriage becomes a destination point, to have sex. Unfortunately those marriages don't last long, and the south has the highest divorce rates in the nation.
While places like MA, where people marry later, and have more partners in their life, have much lower divorce rate.
I also don't think people who marry early are doing so only to have sex, because a lot of the people who marry early tend also to be sexually active early. Circa 2008, I think very few people wait until marriage to have sex; even if they only have one partner, most people want to know that they're sexually compatible before making a lifelong commitment, for obviously good reasons.
1) A man who is master of his own body and emotions, who out of respect for himself and fellow human beings, would choose masturbation and self-discipline until he acquires preferable female(s).
2) A boy puppet to the whimsy of his sexual appetite, who out of pursuit of pleasure will use and toss fellow human beings simply because they are "less desirable".
As an aside you can compute your best choice for a partner (or many other similar choices.. apartments, puppies, etc).
Chapter 13 in this book:
Chance: A Guide to Gambling, Love, the Stock Market, and Just About Everything Else
by Amir D. Aczel
I would define a relationship as "intimacy shared only with a chosen partner", that is, "fidelity", or respect/love/affection/preference towards one single person over and above any other. Its very definition is exclusivity: "no one else except this one person allowed, even if you were prettier, thinner, richer, healthier...."
I see the typical relationship falling into the same trap that so many other social values have.
generation 1 does it because it works.
generation 2 assumes it to be true
generation 3 actively persecutes those who do not conform.
the reason is the same, it's a mental shortcut. why go through the painful process of coming up with your own rules for a relationship when there are already time-honored, socially-acceptable normal rules out there for you to follow? because we are not other people.
1. From what I've seen, the player/whore dynamic has minimized in both the heterosexual and LGBT communities. Those who are excessive in community eyes can be shunned (someone who cannot form a relationship, or seems to have no interest in doing so), but regular casual sex is considered normative for all genders.
2. Both my partner and I have alternated between periods of promiscuity and monogamy. Even after over 100 partners, my wires have not been permanently separated. I know partners in open relationships who maintain emotional primacy in their relationships and different levels of openness - playing together, open when one is out of town, to full open relationships. In the gay community, at least, I don't see this concern develop.
3. Love and devotion are certainly part of the equation! Casual sex is considered, at least in some subcultures, as something to do while in between relationships, or as part of a mutually consenting open relationship.
4. This presumes a polygamous male and a monogamous female. In an egalitarian society, we're still talking about a primary partner (or partners, as works quite well with bisexuals, for example.) It does make relationships more confusing as people have to negotiate their own rules, but this doesn't have to be a social regression, unless you're talking about regressing to a common ancestor as the bonobos. :)
I believe that they tend to work more in gay communities because both people are coming from the same place whereas in the heterosexual community each person has very different social norms when it comes to sex. I'm a male in an open relationship with a female and it can be trying at times because I know that as an attractive female my partner can have casual sex anytime she wants. OTOH, she can be socially judged for being promiscuous whereas I can be congratulated and envied.
"Monogamy is rare in mammals
Approximately only 3-5% percent of mammals are considered monogamous (Nair and Young), compared to about 90% of birds (Alcock, 366)."
http://academic.reed.edu/biology/courses/bio342f06/2007_webs...
1: 'player/whore dynamic' I think that is a bit of a generalization. And I think the follow up statement is pretty weak: 'Empirically, the vast majority of people who participate in casual sex have low self-esteem'. Even on the minor chance this was true, you haven't shown that the lower self esteem isn't from something other than their sexual relationships (eg parental figure).
Where is your proof for 2)? What if both partners have engaged in casual sex?
Point 3: I find it hard to agree that 'The medium of exchange is social status' wrt casual sex. Aren't you assuming one or more of the parties is 'kissing and telling'? The medium of exchange is pleasure.
Point 4: When were societies pre-monagamous? Is it reasonable to think that 1 in 3 men would die at the hands of a male due to sleeping around (and it would be neat to see a reference for this surprising stat)?
I'd be totally surprised to learn that 'pre-monogamous subculture' leads to violence and rape. And speculating on the reason that fights break out at night clubs is pretty faulty supporting evidence.
Most casual sex is not cold and impersonal. In my experience, it is usually between friends with some kind of emotional connection (just not necessarily a romantic one). Sometimes with people we could be monogamous with, but at a different time/situation (e.g., she was 10 years younger). Sometimes you just want to express your feelings physically ("a hug without clothes" is a term I've heard), or perhaps it's just a moment/situation you want to enjoy.
One example: imagine playing ultimate frisbee and having total synergy with a girl on your team, leading to utter pwnage. After the game, you two are still in sync and hopped up on adrenalin, and fun ensues.
That's hardly the status seeking meet market you describe, but it is casual sex. Do you also object to casual sex of this nature?
Incidentally, concerning self esteem and casual sex, have you considered that it might be low self esteem leading to casual sex rather than the other way around?
why is prostitution considered anti-feminist?
"But seven-year-old boys are not interested in making lanterns from coffee tins. They want to shoot bows and arrows, preferably at one another, chop wood with stone-hewn axes and sink canoes, preferably while in them."
All true.
If the author is really concerned about society going down the tubes it might be worthwhile to not include making things in her stereotype of behavior that isn't "manly." The guys who spent their youth throwing stuff at each other are the ones having the most problems when they grow up. Last I checked, makers do pretty well in adulthood.
Your second sentence describes confirmation bias.
All I'm saying is that just because you've made a conclusion a priori doesn't mean it's a bad idea to write about it. That's how argument and discussion works. It's only a bad thing when you've proven yourself wrong and you refuse to admit it.
In this essay, she makes claims that are supported only with anecdotes, when data could be used. This is important since I can easily think of counter-anecdotes that nullify her arguments. The biggest example is her claim that males are predominantly presented as emasculated in popular culture. I'm sure one can consume a subset of all popular culture where that is true, and I'm also sure one can do the opposite. But if someone were to actually come up with a metric and test this idea, then that would be worthwhile.
It would be a mistake to write an essay using anecdotal evidence to argue about a precisely defined question in math or the hard sciences. But outside math and the hard sciences, falsifiability gets fuzzy. A statistical (surely you don't really mean formal?) analysis of this topic would be in the domain of "social science," and though such studies usually measure something precisely, it's never clear what. Often a thoughtful essay will come closer to the truth, despite containing no tables of numbers.
In particular, this essay is predicated on the assumption that our culture is more emasculated than in the past - if this is not the case, then the entire thing falls apart. I think there are reasonable ways to test this assumption, but the author, as a reporter, is probably not equipped to do so.
I see feminism's flaw as being that women have wombs and can reproduce, but men can't. Fix that by letting single men adopt.
The other flaw is that feminism is an offshoot of Marxism.
The article raises some good points, especially on the reproductive inequity, but most of what is in it is just boring overgeneralization. It's too long for the few points it makes.
[Edit: Made this comment as I was RTFA. The second half is better.]
The shame attached to unwed motherhood did serve a useful purpose once upon a time.
/sigh/
There are also some very astute comments on this article, which is hacker news all the way.