Why is society scared of female sexuality?

[cplnuswing 4,713]

I was listening to an interview of an author who wrote a book on the sordid history of the early 20th century eugenics movement in the United States. For those unfamiliar with the term, eugenics was the belief that one needed to "protect" or alter the gene pool for the betterment of the human race and the way to do that is either through forced sterilization (U.S. approach), or what came a few years later, wholesale murder (Nazi approach). Eugenics wasn't just applied to the "feeble-minded" to use the phrase popular at the time, but also to those who were deemed "promiscuous", a classification predominantly applied to women.

 

I'm no historian, but it seems to me that the eugenics movement as applied to females was nothing new; societies throughout history have always been scared of (and on some level, at war with) female sexuality. I guess the simple question is Why? There are many things in life that I don't understand because I can't relate personally, but this one would be at the top of that list. What is so scary about a sexual female and how does that translate into being a threat to society?

[sunbuckus 3,569]

I've only thought about this in passing because I don't really want to dwell on it, in fear of upsetting myself, but I think it is men in power who are afraid of it. I think deep down, they know how powerful women are when sexuality is part of the equation. Just take in consideration when a wife withholds sex from a husband as punishment. I'm not condoning this act but I am sure there are women that do this. Even last night, Mr. Sun was watching House of Lies and the main male character was willing to turn down sex from other women during his weekend away just to have sex bareback with his girlfriend upon his return because that was what she was offering if he could keep his dick in his pants. I'd say that's pretty powerful.

 

So, for men in power, that's scary. They don't want to allow someone else to have such power over him so the logical, practical way to control women and make sure they don't use their sexuality against them is to make it "bad" for them to be open sexually. They have to "save it" for that "one special" man.

[SW_PA_Couple 4,026]

It's all about men not wanting to relinquish control.

[AR1547 131]

Really?

 

 

It's not that complicated, if you have some concept of the broad scope of history. You don't even have to go that far back.

 

In a more primal, less technologically advanced society, women NEED men to care for both themselves, and their children. It's more economic than emotional.

 

Men have no problem supporting THEIR OWN children, for the most part. Men who don't have been scorned by society in the past just as much as a promiscuous woman. It's all different now.

 

It's a common human flaw to not account for different historical perspectives. The birth control pill was only invented back in the 1960s. That changed everything! It was a cataclysmic shift in the relationship between the genders. Before that, consequence free sex WAS NOT POSSIBLE!

 

We're still grappling with the changes that were caused by that. Then people forget that DNA tests have only been around since the 1990s. Again, men have no problem supporting THEIR OWN children.

 

Before these wondrous inventions that happened within the lifetimes of many, if not most, of the people reading this, the only way for men to ensure that the children they were supporting were their own was to impose societal rules on the behavior of women, which have also historically been supported by the very same women.

 

Societal shifts of that magnitude take a LOOOOOOOONG time to work through. We're still dealing with it.

[AZCoupleII 46]

First off, to all those lovely ladies out there, HAPPY INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY!

 

I wonder if a lot of the fear has to do with the fact that our country was founded by Puritans?

[cplnuswing 4,713]

I wonder if a lot of the fear has to do with the fact that our country was founded by Puritans?

 

I think that has a lot to do with how screwed up this country is about sex in general, but I think it pre-dates even that.

 

I get AR1547's theory but I don't think that totally explains it. On the individual level, yes, that may explain why a man cared about HIS partner's sexuality, but I wasn't talking about individuals, but a much larger picture of entire cultures and societies. Maybe it was men imposing those rules as a group effort at all helping look out for one another, but if that was the case, then a man who was having sex with women other than his wife should have been shunned to the same degree or even more so since he was the direct competition. Just because your married fellow gentleman friend slept with your scullery maid didn't mean he was going to stop there, next time it could be your wife.

 

I think Sunbuckus is right, it's the power of female sexuality. As was pointed out above, it wasn't always just men imposing these rules, women are/were involved too. Using the example I just gave of a wealthy and powerful high class couple, that low class and poor scullery maid can totally turn the dynamics of that power structure on it's head simply with her sexuality.

[JandKinBoise 859]

I have a different take on this, please don't hate me for it. It's just what I have witnessed thru my life time.

 

I feel that the reason for the social effort to quell female sexuality is due, at least in part, to disease. Early, before antibiotics and modern medicine, many people died of STDs. Guys are going to screw what they can. That can't be changed. Women's sexuality can be changed by threat of punishment or shame.

 

My wife's ex-bestie got divorced and went totally bug slut crazy for about 6 months. At the end, she was so wracked with disease, we wondered if she would ever be healthy again. A promiscuous woman can spread disease really fast to a large number of people.

 

Many rules imposed thru history were designed to aid in the advancement of society. Without rules, we are basically savages and would not survive as a species for very long, at least not at the top of the food chain. I think we tend to forget in this time of 'all about me' that there was a time not long ago, that the advancement of society was the goal. Now we have reached the pinnacle of our civilization so those rules seem old fashioned.

[love2dp 53]

Very well said JKB.

[sunbuckus 3,569]

Guys are going to screw what they can. That can't be changed. Women's sexuality can be changed by threat of punishment or shame.

 

I have to disagree, JandK. I do think men can be shamed and we've seen that in terms of boys who are gay. The pressure to conform to a hetrosexual society leads many to suicide or denying to themselves for years that they are homosexual. We can even witness in the swinger community where male bisexuality isn't as welcomed as male bisexuality. Men can be shamed to changed their behavior just as women can.

 

A promiscuous woman can spread disease really fast to a large number of people.

 

A male having unprotected sex with many women can also spread disease just as fast.

[SA_NewtoLS 163]

JandKinBoise said:

I have a different take on this, please don't hate me for it. It's just what I have witnessed thru my life time.

 

I feel that the reason for the social effort to quell female sexuality is due, at least in part, to disease. Early, before antibiotics and modern medicine, many people died of STDs. Guys are going to screw what they can. That can't be changed. Women's sexuality can be changed by threat of punishment or shame.

 

My wife's ex-bestie got divorced and went totally bug slut crazy for about 6 months. At the end, she was so wracked with disease, we wondered if she would ever be healthy again. A promiscuous woman can spread disease really fast to a large number of people.

 

Many rules imposed thru history were designed to aid in the advancement of society. Without rules, we are basically savages and would not survive as a species for very long, at least not at the top of the food chain. I think we tend to forget in this time of 'all about me' that there was a time not long ago, that the advancement of society was the goal. Now we have reached the pinnacle of our civilization so those rules seem old fashioned.

 

I dunno, when I was in high school a girl's popularity, both among the other girls and of course the guys, was directly related to how much of a slut she was. Bigger slut = more popular. For guys on the other hand, this was not the case. Guys were expected to only sleep with the girl they were currently dating and sleeping around made you unpopular.

 

My best friend went through a divorce a few years ago and saw the same thing. His wife approached him about sleeping with another guy and he said absolutely no way. It was her boss too. She said she wouldn't but did anyway and they broke up. She went on and moved in with her boss and ended up sleeping around on him as well. All the friends they had together, except for my wife and I really, stayed her friends and never talked to him again. So once again, the sluttier the better I guess.

[let's do it again 416]

I saw the same interview, I  think it's all about  control. I am a man who thinks women should be more liberated sexually,  but you have to admit that a lot of men want to keep women down to control them. Many men don't want a woman to work because they are afraid that they will find someone better. Let women have there equal rights, equal pay and their sexual freedoms, it's not all that is cracked up to be. I think that is also why men don't want an independent woman, which I like, they can call me when they need help.