No seriously, DISCUSS.
Mar. 29th, 2008 02:41 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bliumchikOkay, let's try this again with less crazy.
So I read a post about sexuality and stuff here which was written by someone who is not a nutjob, and I thought it was as good an opportunity as any to articulate what I've been thinking about since that last "discussion". Someone there mentioned a woman's sexuality as sacred (in the context of despising prostitution) and I got to wondering. Why women and not men? Nobody thinks male sexuality is sacred.
Now, the thing about the concept of the sacred is that nothing is objectively sacred. Holiness means nothing to anyone but humanity, it's in our heads, we give it meaning.
So, why have we developed the concept of the female sexuality as sacred? The "cult of the womb" so to speak?
The only explanation that's rung true with me is the one that goes back to prehistoric times: passing on DNA.It's ten thousand BC. If a woman is pregnant, she knows damn well it's hers regardless of who the father is also sleeping with. But the only way for a man to be certain his genes were surviving was to demand fidelity from at least one woman. That sort of underpins the virgin/whore dichotomy - you fuck the one who likes sex and you marry the one who doesn't really so you can be sure her kids are yours.
So it's actually in the male genetic interest to promote the cult of the womb, to consider female sexuality sacred and reserved - it doesn't benefit the woman except by keeping the male around to do the heavy lifting (hunting, protection) because he's defending his genetic future.
Now you obviously can't apply genetic determinism to individuals, but as a society... it's interesting to consider.
And I don't think sleeping around is a big feminist political statement either - it is what it is. But that whole anti-sex gimmick over at the radfem party is really not all that feminist at all.
So I read a post about sexuality and stuff here which was written by someone who is not a nutjob, and I thought it was as good an opportunity as any to articulate what I've been thinking about since that last "discussion". Someone there mentioned a woman's sexuality as sacred (in the context of despising prostitution) and I got to wondering. Why women and not men? Nobody thinks male sexuality is sacred.
Now, the thing about the concept of the sacred is that nothing is objectively sacred. Holiness means nothing to anyone but humanity, it's in our heads, we give it meaning.
So, why have we developed the concept of the female sexuality as sacred? The "cult of the womb" so to speak?
The only explanation that's rung true with me is the one that goes back to prehistoric times: passing on DNA.It's ten thousand BC. If a woman is pregnant, she knows damn well it's hers regardless of who the father is also sleeping with. But the only way for a man to be certain his genes were surviving was to demand fidelity from at least one woman. That sort of underpins the virgin/whore dichotomy - you fuck the one who likes sex and you marry the one who doesn't really so you can be sure her kids are yours.
So it's actually in the male genetic interest to promote the cult of the womb, to consider female sexuality sacred and reserved - it doesn't benefit the woman except by keeping the male around to do the heavy lifting (hunting, protection) because he's defending his genetic future.
Now you obviously can't apply genetic determinism to individuals, but as a society... it's interesting to consider.
And I don't think sleeping around is a big feminist political statement either - it is what it is. But that whole anti-sex gimmick over at the radfem party is really not all that feminist at all.
