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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-30 01:12 am (UTC)Maybe they've evolved out for men, like wisdom teeth. =P
They're unnecessary for reproduction, after all.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-30 02:21 am (UTC)(And the gene for wisdom teeth is nowhere near the sex chromosomes. :) )
no subject
Date: 2008-03-30 03:13 am (UTC)Wisdom teeth are simply an example of something that is evolving out due to redundancy. Why should there be a physiological connection for the analogy to work conceptually?!
I was trying to point out that orgasms are completely useless in terms of simple passing on of DNA (compared to what Maggie brought up; the necessity of the womb to reproduction and thus its sacred status), and I TRIED to obliquely/ironically refer to the orgasm-as-incentive theory (which yes, I am familiar with), by sarcastically suggesting that orgasms aren't necessary for reproduction - when they in fact are, if you consider desire/incentive to reproduce as part of the reproductive process itself, and not just a lead-up. You obviously got the reference but didn't understand where I was coming from.
Next time I'll just say all that and not try to be ironic; it obviously doesn't work for me, even with "=P" all over the place.
I'll leave the pithy witticisms up to Maggie from now on! *salutes*
no subject
Date: 2008-03-30 03:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-30 06:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-30 03:54 am (UTC)(Plus, wisdom teeth are completely unnecessary for reproduction. In the absence of weird dental kink, anyway. :D)
Methinks I was still in informationy-reference-librarian mode, rather than fun-internet-witticism - so it was more "informations, I has them" than anything else, without the proper "so-what-do-you-know-about-the-subject-already" thing beforehand.
My bad; and next time, I'll leave the obliviousness to the cap'n. *offers a box of '=P's*
no subject
Date: 2008-03-30 07:13 am (UTC)Apparently wisdom teeth are evolving out for everyone, male and female. Some people never get them. I lost the URL of the article I read it in though so can't link. I haven't got my wisdom teeth yet so I'm hoping that I turn out to be a freaky mutant. =D
I think I took your "informations, I has them" at an "you obviously don't know anything, so have some informations" angle, and got snippy. Sorry, and box of '=P's accepted!
no subject
Date: 2008-03-30 07:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-30 07:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-30 08:08 am (UTC)