History of Feminism
Related: About this forum"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 wasnt 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 Mattocks community clearly saw his self-deprivation as improper, it is quite possible that they had his wifes 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 its because of hormone levels or human nature, men just need to have sex, masturbate, and look at porn in a way that simply isnt necessary for women, according to popular assumptions (and if a women does find it so necessary, theres probably something wrong with her). Women must be convinced, persuaded, even forced into giving it up, because the prospect of sex just isnt 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 arent taken advantage of.
The idea that men are naturally more interested in sex than women is ubiquitous that its 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 womens 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 mens. 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 womens 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
ismnotwasm
(42,014 posts)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)and didn't find anything...If you remember, I would love it if you posted the link
ismnotwasm
(42,014 posts)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)I need one more cup of coffee to get the brain cells moving a little faster and then I'm on it
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Z_I_Peevey
(2,783 posts)From the book's website:
Highly recommended reading.
Maine-ah
(9,902 posts)Thank you!
Helen Reddy
(998 posts)Maine-ah
(9,902 posts)boston bean
(36,223 posts)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)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)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)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.
Maine-ah
(9,902 posts)to just shaming us for our sexuality.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)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.
LiberalLoner
(9,762 posts)redqueen
(115,103 posts)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 DEmilio 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.
Maine-ah
(9,902 posts)divide and conquer - too true!
Sargasso Sea
(16 posts)Shiela Jeffrey's The Spinster and Her Enemies makes for very enlightening reading.
Maine-ah
(9,902 posts)One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)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)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
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)thanks for posting this Maine-ah
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)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.