Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Maine-ah

(9,902 posts)
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 08:05 AM Mar 2013

"When Women Wanted Sex Much More Than Men"

I found this article rather interesting....sex and gender roles through out history, and how us women were once thought to have higher sex drives than men and how religion played a role in it all. Thought it would make for some interesting discussion here. I think this is my first post in HOF

http://www.alternet.org/when-women-wanted-sex-much-more-men?page=0%2C0

When Women Wanted Sex Much More Than Men
And how the stereotype flipped.
March 19, 2013 |
In the 1600s, a man named James Mattock was expelled from the First Church of Boston. His crime? It wasn’t using lewd language or smiling on the sabbath or anything else that we might think the Puritans had disapproved of. Rather, James Mattock had refused to have sex with his wife for two years. Though Mattock’s community clearly saw his self-deprivation as improper, it is quite possible that they had his wife’s suffering in mind when they decided to shun him. The Puritans believed that sexual desire was a normal and natural part of human life for both men and women (as long as it was heterosexual and confined to marriage), but that women wanted and needed sex more than men. A man could choose to give up sex with relatively little trouble, but for a woman to be so deprived would be much more difficult for her.

Yet today, the idea that men are more interested in sex than women is so pervasive that it seems almost unremarkable. Whether it’s because of hormone levels or “human nature,” men just need to have sex, masturbate, and look at porn in a way that simply isn’t necessary for women, according to popular assumptions (and if a women does find it so necessary, there’s probably something wrong with her). Women must be convinced, persuaded, even forced into “giving it up,” because the prospect of sex just isn’t that appealing on its own, say popular stereotypes. Sex for women is usually a somewhat distasteful but necessary act that must be performed to win approval, financial support, or to maintain a stable relationship. And since women are not slaves to their desires like men, they are responsible for ensuring that they aren’t “taken advantage of.”

The idea that men are naturally more interested in sex than women is ubiquitous that it’s difficult to imagine that people ever believed differently. And yet for most of Western history, from ancient Greece to beginning of the nineteenth century, women were assumed to be the sex-crazed porn fiends of their day. In one ancient Greek myth, Zeus and Hera argue about whether men or women enjoy sex more. They ask the prophet Tiresias, whom Hera had once transformed into a woman, to settle the debate. He answers, “if sexual pleasure were divided into ten parts, only one part would go to the man, and and nine parts to the woman.” Later, women were considered to be temptresses who inherited their treachery from Eve. Their sexual passion was seen as a sign of their inferior morality, reason and intellect, and justified tight control by husbands and fathers. Men, who were not so consumed with lust and who had superior abilities of self-control, were the gender more naturally suited to holding positions of power and influence.

Early twentieth-century physician and psychologist Havelock Ellis may have been the first to document the ideological change that had recently taken place. In his 1903 work Studies in the Psychology of Sex, he cites a laundry list of ancient and modern historical sources ranging from Europe to Greece, the Middle East to China, all of nearly the same mind about women’s greater sexual desire. In the 1600s, for instance, Francisco Plazzonus deduced that childbirth would hardly be worthwhile for women if the pleasure they derived from sex was not far greater than that of men’s. Montaigne, Ellis notes, considered women to be “incomparably more apt and more ardent in love than men are, and that in this matter they always know far more than men can teach them, for ‘it is a discipline that is born in their veins.’” The idea of women’s passionlessness had not yet fully taken hold in Ellis’ own time, either. Ellis’ contemporary, the Austrian gynecologist Enoch Heinrich Kisch, went so far as to state that “The sexual impulse is so powerful in women that at certain periods of life its primitive force dominates her whole nature.”

*more at link

24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"When Women Wanted Sex Much More Than Men" (Original Post) Maine-ah Mar 2013 OP
That is interesting ismnotwasm Mar 2013 #1
I tried google with the info you posted Maine-ah Mar 2013 #4
This isn't it, but kind of what I mean. ismnotwasm Mar 2013 #8
oh, I look forward to reading this... Maine-ah Mar 2013 #10
"Otherwise what could have been a proper marriage could become an orgy of sexual lust." nomorenomore08 Mar 2013 #24
Great book on this subject: Z_I_Peevey Mar 2013 #2
putting it on the reading list! Maine-ah Mar 2013 #5
Thanks for the article Maine-ah n/t Helen Reddy Mar 2013 #3
you're welcome, Helen Maine-ah Mar 2013 #6
thanks for posting. boston bean Mar 2013 #7
I don't know if it necessarily Maine-ah Mar 2013 #9
hmmm very interesting.. boston bean Mar 2013 #12
"They just can't seem to grasp the other side of the coin." total hypocrisy and really seabeyond Mar 2013 #13
the whole thing boils down Maine-ah Mar 2013 #16
absolutely. that is the only thing that men have for power and control now. they have made their seabeyond Mar 2013 #19
Yup, whatever it takes to try to be dominant. LiberalLoner Mar 2013 #22
Love this. Thanks so much for posting it! redqueen Mar 2013 #11
you're welcome! Maine-ah Mar 2013 #17
For more on Havelock Ellis from a feminist/historical perspective Sargasso Sea Mar 2013 #14
another one for the reading list! Maine-ah Mar 2013 #18
Puritan view of Mattock could go either way One_Life_To_Give Mar 2013 #15
I have been trying to find some more info about Mattock Maine-ah Mar 2013 #20
DU Rec Tuesday Afternoon Mar 2013 #21
I used to want sex quite a lot Shivering Jemmy Mar 2013 #23

ismnotwasm

(42,014 posts)
1. That is interesting
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 08:58 AM
Mar 2013

On another note, I also read once, and it would take me forever to find where, that women's response to 'legitimate' sex, i.e. hips moving, noise, was considered improper at one time. Now that's going to drive me crazy all day relying to remember the time period.

Maine-ah

(9,902 posts)
4. I tried google with the info you posted
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 04:43 PM
Mar 2013

and didn't find anything...If you remember, I would love it if you posted the link

ismnotwasm

(42,014 posts)
8. This isn't it, but kind of what I mean.
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 08:15 PM
Mar 2013

What I remember reading was some sort of document of a man chastising his wife for moving under him. I thought is was more 17th century, but I'm not finding either. I'm thinking it was connected with something about religion now.

This is kind of fun I haven't looked at medieval or Victorian sexuality in a while.


In 1894, Ruth Smythers published a book in the Victorian era called Sex Tips for Husbands and Wives from 1894. She wrote guidelines for about how newlywed women should “endure” sex (White, 2008). Some of her tips include:


“THE wise bride will permit a maximum of two brief sexual experiences weekly — and as time goes by she should make every effort to reduce this frequency. Feigned illness, sleepiness and headaches are among her best friends in this matter.”
“A SELFISH and sensual husband can easily take advantage of his wife. One cardinal rule of marriage should never be forgotten: Give little, give seldom and above all give grudgingly. Otherwise what could have been a proper marriage could become an orgy of sexual lust.”
“A WISE wife will make it her goal never to allow her husband to see her unclothed body, and never allow him to display his unclothed body to her.”
“MANY women have found it useful to have thick cotton nightgowns for themselves and pajamas for their husbands — they need not be removed during the sex act. Thus, a minimum of flesh is exposed.”
“WHEN he finds her, she should lie as still as possible. Bodily motion could be interpreted as sexual excitement by the optimistic husband. Sex, when it cannot be prevented, should be practiced only in total darkness.”
“IF he attempts to kiss her on the lips she should turn her head slightly so that the kiss falls harmlessly on her cheek instead. If he lifts her gown and attempts to kiss her any place else she should quickly pull the gown back in place, spring from the bed, and announce that nature calls her to the toilet.”
“ARGUMENTS, nagging, scolding and bickering prove very effective if used in the late evening about an hour before the husband would normally commence his seduction.”


http://historyofsexuality.umwblogs.org/pre-20th-century/victorian-era-2/

Maine-ah

(9,902 posts)
10. oh, I look forward to reading this...
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 07:34 AM
Mar 2013

I need one more cup of coffee to get the brain cells moving a little faster and then I'm on it

Z_I_Peevey

(2,783 posts)
2. Great book on this subject:
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 09:14 AM
Mar 2013
http://www.sexatdawn.com/

From the book's website:

Ryan and Jethá show that our ancestors lived in egalitarian groups that shared food, child care, and often, sexual partners. Weaving together convergent, often overlooked evidence from anthropology, archeology, primatology, anatomy, and psychosexuality, the authors show how far from human nature sexual monogamy really is. They expose the ancient roots of human sexuality while pointing toward a more optimistic future illuminated by our innate capacities for love, cooperation, and generosity.


Highly recommended reading.

boston bean

(36,223 posts)
7. thanks for posting.
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 07:58 PM
Mar 2013

I can't even begin to imagine how/why the perceptions have changed.

I only read what you posted. I'll read the rest tomorrow. Did it give the answer?

Maine-ah

(9,902 posts)
9. I don't know if it necessarily
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 07:33 AM
Mar 2013

gives the "answer" - but I'd say a darn good explanation. Most of it hinges on religion. I hope you go back and read the whole article - it really is quite interesting

boston bean

(36,223 posts)
12. hmmm very interesting..
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 08:30 AM
Mar 2013

the change from lustful to "passionless" came about so women could be on equal footing with men? Although, as the article points out, mostly white privileged females.

However, even with the reversal, not much changed in their lives. They were still confined to the traditional roles.

In a nutshell, the prude/slut connotations used by both men and women, help to keep women in a defined role. The opposite has been tried, yet the sexism still exists... hmmmm...

This is why I get kicked back on my heels when DUer's accuse others of being prudes/puritans. They just can't seem to grasp the other side of the coin.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
13. "They just can't seem to grasp the other side of the coin." total hypocrisy and really
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 10:03 AM
Mar 2013

slat out stupidity. even if the stupidity is a product to protect and agenda. it is still so beyond stupid.

use womens sexuality to humiliate her with slut shaming. use a womans sexuality to humiliate and shame her to be allowed to pornify women.

there is a common denominator in all this.

 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
19. absolutely. that is the only thing that men have for power and control now. they have made their
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 08:26 PM
Mar 2013

sexuality into awesome god like status of importance. and the woman there only for their use. it is the only means of domination and control today. they have no more means. not law. ability. not intellectual. it has all gone to the wayside.

pornify them into degradation and any woman that speaks out against it degrade them as anti sex.

i am gonna read your article. one of these days.

but personal life isnt letting me go there.

redqueen

(115,103 posts)
11. Love this. Thanks so much for posting it!
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 07:53 AM
Mar 2013
And in an era when men could legally rape their wives (an era which did not end in the US until 1993), womens’ supposed passionlessness provided at least some limited grounds for them to abstain from unwanted sex with their husbands. Yet these benefits were available for only a certain subset of women. As John D’Emilio and Estelle Freedman point out, “The idea of innate female virtue, or of sexual passionlessness, applied primarily to native-born, middle class women; working-class, immigrant, and black women continued to be seen as sexually passionate, and thus sexually available.” (Think back to Windscheid’s claim that women, but especially affluent women, were naturally born without sex drives.) Middle-class white women could emphasize their similarities with men of their race and class, and thus access some of their privilege, by embracing an ideology that posited fundamental sexual differences between themselves and those other women.

Yet if women could raise themselves up to the level of angels by being passionless, then they had so much further to fall if they did give in to their desires. As D’Emilio and Freedman explain, “In the past, as long as she repented, the woman who once sinned--like the male transgressor--could be reintegrated into the community. Now, however, because women allegedly occupied a higher moral plane than man, her fall was so great that it tainted her for life.” These “fallen women” were barred from their families and communities, and often had to work as prostitutes to support themselves.


Pathologizing women's sexuality, dividing women by allowing some to achieve 'equality' with men by not acting like "those other women"... such a rich history of patriarchal bullshit.

And the whole last page... the portrayal of men as overgrown children, housework and childcare falling therefore upon women's shoulders... love it. Excellent analysis.
 

Sargasso Sea

(16 posts)
14. For more on Havelock Ellis from a feminist/historical perspective
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 01:51 PM
Mar 2013

Shiela Jeffrey's The Spinster and Her Enemies makes for very enlightening reading.

One_Life_To_Give

(6,036 posts)
15. Puritan view of Mattock could go either way
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 06:05 PM
Mar 2013

Interesting but I would want to know how old his wife was and how long they were married first. If she just had her 2nd wedding anniversary and the congregation is concerned why she doesn't have one child in her arms and another on the way. My perspective is that it's likely Patriarchal in objectifying a womans value to that of producing offspring. Which to me appears more consistent with the conventional narrative of that period where a woman without a child was an object of pity, that her value was tied to having a large family.

Maine-ah

(9,902 posts)
20. I have been trying to find some more info about Mattock
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 08:29 PM
Mar 2013

and so far have found this and if I find something else, I'll just add to this post.

This discusses the Puritan views on sex and marriage, and has the issue of Mattock.

http://www.bpi.edu/ourpages/auto/2012/8/31/48129676/Puritans_and_Sex_article.pdf

Shivering Jemmy

(900 posts)
23. I used to want sex quite a lot
Sat Mar 23, 2013, 11:05 PM
Mar 2013

when I was more concerned about being normal.

But it's really hard to deal with. Too physically messy. Too many emotions.

Better things to do with my time.

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»History of Feminism»"When Women Wanted Sex Mu...