Your example reminds me of a chapter from Yes Means Yes—the idea that women have actual lust is still so blanked out in the culture, that it’s quite possible to forget about it even when you’re trying to construct a sex-positive example.
This view strikes me as absurd. Why have traditional cultures always had all those stringent checks on women’s behavior, if the general assumption was that there is no such thing as female lust? Not to even mention how frequent and all-pervasive the motive of female lust has always been in art.
I’m not talking about the history of the world, I’m talking about recent American culture.
Sally’s desire or lack of it really wasn’t present in the story. Try imagining a gender-reversed version of the story and see whether it looks odd to you.
I recommend reading Yes Means Yes—you will probably find the politics annoying and I don’t sign on to them myself, but the personal viewpoints could give you an additional angle on the world.
I find it interesting that there was a shift (Victorian?) from the stereotype of Woman the Temptress to Man the Pursuer. It makes me wonder if no one knows what they’re talking about in regards to sex in general—possibly the case, considering that no one has a large random sample of behavior and there’s a lot of shame on the subject.
It’s possible that we have a sufficiently strong norm of telling the truth on questionnaires to have found out a little bit—at least for people who are willing to answer questionnaires.
I’m not talking about the history of the world, I’m talking about recent American culture.
Sally’s desire or lack of it really wasn’t present in the story. Try imagining a gender-reversed version of the story and see whether it looks odd to you.
The gender-reversed version would have to look very different to be realistic because, among other reasons, there are very strong and very asymmetrical signaling and reputational issues involved. (I’m just noting this as the de facto state of affairs, separate from the discussion of why it might be so.) If these issues weigh more heavily than the considerations of lust for one of the parties, but less so for the other, it doesn’t mean that the former’s lust is being unrealistically neglected.
Now, I don’t know much about what American culture a few decades back really looked like, and I do have some reason to believe that the way it’s popularly imagined nowadays is heavily distorted. However, if this culture really was oblivious about female lust, this would lead to some odd predictions—for example, that people (or men at least) would lack the usual traditional inclination for chaperoning and strong reputational discipline of women, believing that they’d behave with saintly chastity if left uncontrolled. Was this really the case?
I recommend reading Yes Means Yes—you will probably find the politics annoying and I don’t sign on to them myself, but the personal viewpoints could give you an additional angle on the world.
Which one of the books under this title do you have in mind? Google Books lists at least two that look like they might be pertinent for this discussion. (I have no problem with annoying politics, no matter how extreme, if there is some insight to be found alongside it.)
This view strikes me as absurd. Why have traditional cultures always had all those stringent checks on women’s behavior, if the general assumption was that there is no such thing as female lust? Not to even mention how frequent and all-pervasive the motive of female lust has always been in art.
I’m not talking about the history of the world, I’m talking about recent American culture.
Sally’s desire or lack of it really wasn’t present in the story. Try imagining a gender-reversed version of the story and see whether it looks odd to you.
I recommend reading Yes Means Yes—you will probably find the politics annoying and I don’t sign on to them myself, but the personal viewpoints could give you an additional angle on the world.
I find it interesting that there was a shift (Victorian?) from the stereotype of Woman the Temptress to Man the Pursuer. It makes me wonder if no one knows what they’re talking about in regards to sex in general—possibly the case, considering that no one has a large random sample of behavior and there’s a lot of shame on the subject.
It’s possible that we have a sufficiently strong norm of telling the truth on questionnaires to have found out a little bit—at least for people who are willing to answer questionnaires.
The gender-reversed version would have to look very different to be realistic because, among other reasons, there are very strong and very asymmetrical signaling and reputational issues involved. (I’m just noting this as the de facto state of affairs, separate from the discussion of why it might be so.) If these issues weigh more heavily than the considerations of lust for one of the parties, but less so for the other, it doesn’t mean that the former’s lust is being unrealistically neglected.
Now, I don’t know much about what American culture a few decades back really looked like, and I do have some reason to believe that the way it’s popularly imagined nowadays is heavily distorted. However, if this culture really was oblivious about female lust, this would lead to some odd predictions—for example, that people (or men at least) would lack the usual traditional inclination for chaperoning and strong reputational discipline of women, believing that they’d behave with saintly chastity if left uncontrolled. Was this really the case?
Which one of the books under this title do you have in mind? Google Books lists at least two that look like they might be pertinent for this discussion. (I have no problem with annoying politics, no matter how extreme, if there is some insight to be found alongside it.)
Yes Means Yes is the book I meant—I haven’t found another book with the same title.
As for the rest of your post, I want to think a little longer before I reply.
This one has the same title, and apparently deals with similar topics:
http://books.google.com/books?id=tZH5aRrxtgEC&dq