2/9/02 [back entry]
Tuesday, 3 September 2002 02:13 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
taimatsuIt's interesting; a little while ago I happened to be involved in a conversation where someone was referred to as 'the stud of the Camarilla'. Whether or not the designation was apt, and who it was, are not matters I'm actually concerned with right now. It just occurred to me to wonder, in a slightly dazed and disconnected way, why that person was male; I mean, there are women who 'get around' just as much as Mr. Stud does, and quite probably more. Yet they aren't lauded for it - 'stud' generally carries connotations of approval. I don't think people go so far as to call the girls 'sluts', or if they do, it's because they've tried to reclaim the word in the same way as some gay people use 'queer' or 'fag' which used to be terms of abuse.
Behind it, probably unconsciously, is the idea that men want sex and women don't. That you have to talk women into bed, but men are always up for it. That bedding lots of women is a great achievement for a man, and raises his status, but bedding lots of men is no big deal for a woman, and degrades her. In some ways, this is accurate. Despite advances in contraception, women still have much more to lose from a casual sexual encounter than men do, even leaving aside the possibility of societal disapproval - pregnancy, the fact that it's easier for a woman to get infected with HIV from a man than it is for a man to catch it from a woman.
I just found myself oddly repulsed by the whole system of assumptions. On the other hand, I know I have absorbed part of it myself. I don't look with approval on *anyone* having lots of random sex; it doesn't strike me as a good thing. But I think it repulses me more when it's a woman doing it than it does when it's a man. This could be partly because I'm more sensible of the risks she could be taking, and because I'm a woman myself. Still, it doesn't make me feel good that I'm applying this double standard myself, even unconsciously.
Behind it, probably unconsciously, is the idea that men want sex and women don't. That you have to talk women into bed, but men are always up for it. That bedding lots of women is a great achievement for a man, and raises his status, but bedding lots of men is no big deal for a woman, and degrades her. In some ways, this is accurate. Despite advances in contraception, women still have much more to lose from a casual sexual encounter than men do, even leaving aside the possibility of societal disapproval - pregnancy, the fact that it's easier for a woman to get infected with HIV from a man than it is for a man to catch it from a woman.
I just found myself oddly repulsed by the whole system of assumptions. On the other hand, I know I have absorbed part of it myself. I don't look with approval on *anyone* having lots of random sex; it doesn't strike me as a good thing. But I think it repulses me more when it's a woman doing it than it does when it's a man. This could be partly because I'm more sensible of the risks she could be taking, and because I'm a woman myself. Still, it doesn't make me feel good that I'm applying this double standard myself, even unconsciously.
no subject
Date: Tuesday, 3 September 2002 09:06 am (UTC)Well, when discussing this issue there are usually three main 'purposes' of sex which come up; pleasure, love, and babies. Orthodox Catholic doctrine orders those 'babies, love, pleasure'. Personally, I go for 'love, pleasure, babies'. I don't think the use of contraception negates the goodness of loving sex in the eyes of God. If that makes sense. Ï
no subject
Date: Tuesday, 3 September 2002 10:23 am (UTC)> love, pleasure'. Personally, I go for 'love,
> pleasure, babies'.
On the basis of what? A different reading of the scriptural evidence? A dispute about the logic used by the Church in reaching its conclusions? Special revelation? Convenience? Social change since year dot? Combination of the above?
jdcxxx
no subject
Date: Tuesday, 3 September 2002 01:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: Tuesday, 3 September 2002 05:05 pm (UTC)> 'religiously correct' sex.
Well, if they're naturally infertile, maybe God's to blame. Surely, anyway, there would be a moral distinction between involuntary infertility, and the taking of deliberate measures to avoid conception?
It's not as if the infertile couple are doing anything to frustrate the supposed purpose of the sex - nature has just got in the way. I don't think anybody in the Church has said you have to abstain from sex when pregnant (a time when you really are remarkably unlikely to conceive...)
jdcxxx