Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Let's Talk S*x

Sex is one topic not generally discussed on this blog which is probably the reason that I don't get 100+ comments on my posts:) So I decided to talk about it for a change. 

Of course, being a well-known prude I'm not going into details of my own personal life and neither expect my readers to do it, what I'd like to discuss is something else, namely, the general misconceptions about sex which one can encounter on the internet.

We all know the common feminist trope about women being constant victims of predatory men, and I believe that it did a lot to poison male-female relationships, yet the trope itself predates 1960s and goes all the way back to Victorian times which gave us the concept of a saintly female, an angel in the home, tainted by brutish male passions. The funny thing is that before, a woman was considered to be a carnal creature, created to ruin men and dangerous in her unrestrained sexuality.

Constant feminist attacks on masculinity created a backlash yet, ironically, a lot of men writing on the sexual topics from what they state is a traditional point of view, repeat the old Victorian adage about men basically being horny monsters all the time, only unlike feminists, they decry the supposed frigidity of women.

 I'm informed there is a whole-scale crisis in American families where the majority of women refuse to have sex with their husbands, for instance. Or that every man's dream is to fornicate with as many women as possible. That every time men see a woman in a short skirt they automatically want to bed her and that in general, bedding multiple women is the only thing men talk about among themselves.

How true is it? Well, I don't know. Maybe, it's true about Americans. Maybe they do have a sex crisis. Granted, I'm not a man, but when I asked my husband he told me flat out it was a lot of nonsense. He works with all men and though they do make sexually tinted jokes at times, he says they have other topics to talk about besides it. He told me lots of other things, too, but I don't care to disclose them on my blog:)

Anyway, it amounts to the fact that according to him, though men react to beautiful women and sexy clothes, a man's desire, like a woman's, has another dimension to it than just "she is so hot", at least, as men get older. That is, contrary to what some blogs state, a woman isn't just a sum of breasts+legs+other things, she has also a personality and it matters, too. Especially in a marital relationship, which normally is based on more than sexual attraction alone.

In general, I think the stereotype of any man as an eternal playboy is harmful. Yes, it's true that men have been traditionally held to a lower standard of chastity than women (which isn't all wrong in my opinion) and it's true that since men and women are different their sexuality is different, too. However, in the East, where powerful men traditionally had harems, it wasn't uncommon for them to develop real feelings for their concubines and it was more of a serial monogamy thing than having many women at the same time. Heck, men have been known to get attached to prostitutes they frequented.

We all somehow get an idea that women are a romantic sex, but is it really true? I'd say women are often quite pragmatic. And speaking of pragmatism, here is something else I'd like to mention. This whole idea that we experience a shortage of sex in our society is preposterous. The proponents of the idea like to point out to the past, and somehow draw the conclusion that men in those times had it easier. For instance, they say, women married in their prime time (which for some of these guys is apparently 14). The truth is that they did often marry young but when you look at the family history, you'll notice that the first child came 4 years later.

The reason for this is that many marriages weren't romantic at all. The family wanted to get a girl of their hands, the man needed a housekeeper. They would wait several years before they consummated their marriage. Also some families had 10 children while others had 1. Sometimes it was due to diseases and high child mortality, but it was also often because a decent man was supposed "to leave his wife alone" after a certain age and a certain amount of children. So the idea that they went at it like rabbits in the past is simply ridiculous.

Whatever problems we face nowadays, the lack of sex is not one of it. That is not to say that it's a good thing for a wife to deny her husband or vice versa. However, let's be realistic about this whole topic. I remember some time ago feminists were livid because somewhere in Afghanistan they took the law stating that the wife owes sex to her husband. When the minister was asked how often, he said something like "once in 10 days". I guess some meninists won't like Afghanistan, either:)


  1. Housewife from FinlandNovember 2, 2016 at 7:42 AM

    I read Marie Stopes' "Married Love" and learned that even in swinging 20's some married couples waited quite a long time before having sex because -well, they didn't know what to do, and sometimes wife was too afraid etc. Women also were not supposed to have sex while pregnant or breastfeeding.

    On the other hand, studies show that married couples have less sex than people did at 80's. I blaim the smartphones. :)

    In many ways, 1980's was the summit of western civilization. Poverty was nearly gone and people had quite enough "modern comforts" but women were still more feminine and life was more simple. I Finland we had only 2 tv-channels and that was enough. :) People also sleeped an hour more than people do nowadays. I wonder wether that is the real reason for "obesity epidemic".

    Sorry about the off topic. :)

  2. Housewife, i have a Victorian book which states that sex within marriage should be in moderation, otherwise it will lead to exhaustion and degeneracy:) Not sure whether they all followed it but separate bedrooms were certainly not unheard of:)

    I am prejudiced about 1980s since I have fond childhood memories of those times, though I'm afraid many of societal ills were already out in the open in that period. Agree about feminine fashions, and in general, there was more decency around.

    As for obesity, people should stop overindulging on French fries and feeding their kids chips and soda every day, and send them outside to play and go outside themselves more.

    BTW, I have a smartphone but prefer browsing on my laptop still because on my phone I have really slow internet.

  3. "However, in the East, where powerful men traditionally had harems, it wasn't uncommon for them to develop real feelings for their concubines and it was more of a serial monogamy thing than having many women at the same time. Heck, men have been known to get attached to prostitutes they frequented."

    This isn't surprising, because God intended sexuality to bring husband and wife closer together, melding them into the 'one flesh' that they are, in marriage. Naturally, the pleasures of physical intimacy will do this either for good (in the case of godly, marital relationships) or for ill (in the case of ungodly relationships). It is up to us whether we will use our God-given gift of human sexuality, therefore, for godly purposes or satanic.

  4. You know there is a Turkish TV series called The Magnificent Century which tells a true story of Sultan Suleiman falling in love with one of his slaves (I think she was from Ukraine), freeing her, marrying her and making her his Queen and for all purposes his equal. It's on YouTube with English subs. It's just in the nature of things for men and women to develop these feelings for each other when they share one bed...That's why I disagree with the idea that while men are truly polygamous, women practise "serial monogamy". Both sexes practise it or a version of it to a degree. And yes, serial monogamy, though sinful, is still better in my opinion than one night stands which fully dehumanise both partners.

  5. Interesting.

    Speaking of that part of the world, there surely is a reason for tales like 1001 Arabian Nights; they reflect human nature...

    Agreed re: serial monogamy > ONS.

  6. I've done some reading on her and watched some parts of a TV series (never had patience to watch it all, it's something like 120 episodes)and she comes across as an insanely ambitious, scheming and intelligent woman. She got him so far that he turned his back on his own mother and sister, had his best friend killed and executed his heir (the son from another woman) so that her son would reign. Yet the history repeated itself as the son in question also fell in love with a pretty European captive, freed her, married her and she showed her mother-in-law the door...

  7. I tried to find a relative vid, but YouTube keeps deleting them, so that a lot of English subtitled episodes are gone. Here is a video subbed in some Eastern European language, with English summary in description. Though I think it's not completely correct since it calls her a Russian while she is obviously Ukrainian? Anyway, she sums up all her achievements and says in the end that she will destroy all her enemies and rule the whole world. What a woman...