h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A Return to Modesty, by Wendy Shalit:

Has anyone read it straight through? I thought her thesis was well-developed, and confess to recognising myself, as a male, in it. I was wondering if females support what she says about casual sex and feminine modesty?

< I was wondering if females support what she says about casual sex and feminine modesty?>

Which is?

Presumably, she wants to go back to Victorian times when everyone was covered up...oh hang on...in private they went at it like rabbits.

A quick precis of what she says would be useful.

Ta.

Also have not read it, so a summary would be appropriate.

A quick browse on Amazon (particularly US Amazon) seems to locate it within a genre of religious counter-sexual revoution.

Such a counter-revolution has not really happened in Europe: religion died, largely withdrawing its influence from people's lives (in the form of baptisms, Sunday school, church attendance, marriage etc.). Sexual prohibitions and notions of respectability have fallen too. I would guess then that Shalit's text would not receive a sympathetic reading on here .

There is a fair old chunk of treatment of this within the feminist movement. A significant faction there feel that the sexual revolution was a matter of exchanging one form of patriarchal control for another, while others still have reacted to these with the invention of sex-positive feminism.

Anyway, if you haven't read it, the classic feminist essay 'The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm' is probably required reading:
http://www.cwluherstory.com/CWLUArchive/vaginalmyth.html

Myself, I wouldn't see modern sexual behaviour as a male dominated thing - it seems to me that women get to make up the rules and men have to do the leg work. But then maybe I'm just bitter that I find the whole thing so utterly confusing. In the end, I think I have to recognise and appreciate that how things are done now is largely a product of popular freedom and personal choice. Peer pressure and cultural expectations are overrated in my opinion.

terrifies me, makes me party, don't believe in modern love.

And are you both female?

She essentially posits that yes, women have exchanged a patriarchy of one sort for another, and have lost male respect along the way. That 100 years ago women didn't need to fear to walk dark streets at night. She also claims that more women feel pressured to engage in sex than do it willingly. Or at the very least, earlier than they would like to.excited about sex as their boyfriends. That is what I was most curious about. Do women feel pressured to be sexually active when they would rather not be?

Women... People... didn't need to fear walking dark streets 100 years ago? Hmmm... yes they did.... more selective 'hindsight' regarding of the past to suit someones current bias views on a given topic

Also, women have *always* been pressured into sex for different social reasons (maybe at slightly older ages, but the point is still valid). The main difference is that now we are expected to enjoy it, which is a whole different ball game.

At slightly older ages? Lets consider this. Mary and Joseph (Biblical) were to be married Mary was 13.

Romeo and Juliet. Juliet was 14.

Only recently has the age risen so much. A few hundred years ago 11/12 was a perfectly normal age to get married.

From what source is Mary's age know, sigsfried?

Good question. Had you asked me a year ago I would have known but I really can't find the source. Anyway the age fits with a lot of the marriages of that time. Possibly The Bible is specific about ages and I'll try to track down C & V for you.

<<"And are you both female?">>

No, but last I checked you don't get to declare a thread gender-exclusive on here, sorry .

, regarding ages, that's incorrect. Fairly common amongst 'myths about out ancestors'. Its unknown why Shakespeare picked such a young age for Juliet - although guys making their fortunes then marrying younger girls was a feature of Italian city states, perhaps he exaggerated that.

Marrying so young was certain never common. Nobility would tend to get espoused (engaged) young as a sort of alliance, but actual marriage and consummation was discouraged until much older. In fact, in Britain it was standard practice not to get married until you could get a house or living, which are usually the same thing - you would work from home.

Ok it was uncommon but I'm pretty sure it wasn't non existant. Some remnants of this can be found in some laws. For example to this day tenesse law allows people as young as 12 to marry. THey must of course be accompanied by parents and get a court order allowing it but in principle it is legal. Other countries have had similar things.

There are quite a few countries where 12-year olds can marry. Mexico, for example. What makes you think its a remnant rather than just what the law is there?

Generally the church has been against people marrying young, so I'd go with that for general practice in olden days. But laws then weren't as all encompassing as they are now. I didn't say non-existent either, but its not non-existent today. What's the point in discussing exceptions?

And upon what do you base the fact that women weren't to enjoy it back then? The Wife of Bath, if we may trust Chaucer, who many consider to be brutally honest, certainly enjoyed her bedtime fun. Can we not assume that women have always enjoyed it?

What if they never enjoy it!?!?! Curse you now I've got performance anxiety.

>>Can we not assume that women have always enjoyed it?<<

Not on the basis of the Wife of Bath, no. She's one of four women on the pilgrimage to Canterbury: of the remaining three, one's a prioress and the other two are nuns.

So, one in four women enjoyed it?

Of course, Chaucer was unlikely to have conjured up a much-married woman who *didn't* enjoy it, purely because it would have been a much duller tale. His audience would have been nudging and winking away - doesn't mean they'd have been sitting there going 'ah yes, how very true to the life in the majority of cases'

What's interesting is how often the Wife of Bath is produced now as evidence that, under the surface, sexual mores are and always have been what they're popularly perceived to be in modern-day society. We select the evidence that supports the case and ignore the rest.

The Victorians, on the other hand, bowdlerised Chaucer (and much else besides) to shore up the idea that, on the contrary, chastity and modesty were historical constants. Which is no nearer the truth than we are, I'd guess.

While, in fact... they were at it like rabbits? Well, again, no. Some of them certainly were. Some of them actually did keep in line with the public face. Most, I suspect, had a fairly confusing time of it, pulled in two different directions at once.

I suspect that's the only real historical constant. More variety than any amount of theorising and statistics are ever likely to get at.

So you don't think there's any way to determine whether or not women are more or less sexually driven then men?

A supporting point in this thesis was that men look to 'hook up' for one-night stands, while women look for relationships.

"There are quite a few countries where 12-year olds can marry. Mexico, for example. What makes you think its a remnant rather than just what the law is there?

Generally the church has been against people marrying young, so I'd go with that for general practice in olden days. But laws then weren't as all encompassing as they are now. I didn't say non-existent either, but its not non-existent today. What's the point in discussing exceptions?"

Well I am informed by people living in the area that residents consider it in a similar way to the laws requiring long bow practice in this country.

If women are looking for relationships, and men are looking to "'hook up' for one-night stands", who the heck are they hooking up with? Serious question, by the way.

Heh. It's mostly due to the drive to reproduce.

During the part of a female's cycle where she could theoretically get pregnant she tends to favour males that have more testosterone (i.e. the bigger chaps that are out looking for one night-ers).
There chaps are more likely to have sex off the cuff and therefore produce a child.

When she's not fertile, she goes for a chap that's got less testosterone and is more likely to stick around to help look after the child after it is born.

Evolution-wise, men want to spread their seed as wide as possible. Women need a chap to stick around so that the kid has the best possible chance of surviving.

But what about sex drive?
I guess that varies from person to person like any physical characteristic. We tend to have the impression that men have a more frequent urge for sex than women, but that doesn't necessarily mean they enjoy it more.

Women were perhaps more reticent than men in the days when contraception was less readily available, for fear of an unplanned pregnancy. Or in some cases maybe women were so ignorant that they shied away from physical initmacy?