Archives for posts with tag: sexuality

Picture this scene. Tony is a 22 year old man from the city who is in his third year at university, working toward an economics major after having traveled for a bit after his high school graduation. He’s been having a hard time with women after his high school sweetheart dumped him for his best friend, but is now at a place where he is comfortable moving on. Susie is a 20 year old woman who transferred to the same university because of its successful economics program, and is on a full scholarship. She has had some boyfriends in the past, but never anything more than fling or a passing crush. They met after having been assigned to work on a project together, and ended up going on a date where they discussed the economics of Star Trek over coffee and greatly enjoyed each other’s company. The second date went equally well. They are now on their third date, and after watching a movie at her place, they begin making out. Tony begins to undress. In this situation, Susie is morally obligated to:

a) Put out

b) Cut his dick off while screaming misandrist nonsense about the Patriarchy

c) Susie is not morally obligated to do anything

If you picked C, congratulations! You understand consent and have disproved morality! Hume’s Is/Ought problem refers to the impossibility of drawing a moral imperative (an ‘ought’) from any given situation in the world (an ‘is’) without an outside value influencing that decision.

Here’s a question: What if the sign said, “I am asking for it!”? The answer: There is still no moral obligation to fulfill the sign’s request.

This has further implications outside of sexual consent, however. If one looks at the world and sees poverty, injustice, and despair, there is no ‘ought’ that can be derived from that scenario. One can certainly say that if one values equality, then an ‘ought’ is derived. Alternatively, if one values self-preservation, a significantly different ‘ought’ is derived. This turns morality into an “If value X then…” situation which creates problems of relativism and subjectivity that must be acknowledged.

If you want to blame feminism for breaking morality, don’t, because this problem was introduced in 1740 CE, well before women even had the right to vote. How does one behave ethically if an ‘ought’ cannot be derived from an ‘is’? I’ve already written a blog about it, where, hey guess what, I conclude that having a conversation is what drives moral behaviour.

Promiscuity is awesome, partially because it has so many words associated with it that you’re bound to find one that suits your every need, regardless of the context. Like lasciviousness, for when you want to sound intellectual while describing the notches on your belt. Yet as awesome as promiscuity and all its licentious associates are, puritanical worldviews still maintain that casual sex is a terrible thing.

I’m sure most people reading this are aware of the gendered stigma attached to sluts. The promiscuity of women is condemned while the same behaviour is regarded as studly in men. If you haven’t, I wrote a handy blog about it. It’s a good one. If you liked lasciviousness and licentious, I use words like “verisimilitude” in it.

I’ve noticed, however, a new trend in slut-shaming: fuckboys. I’ll let you look up verisimilitude on your own, but I’ll give the urban dictionary definition for a fuckboy. “A guy who tries to get with everyone. A player. A guy who will lie to a girl to make them hook up with them or send pics. They think they are the shit when they aren’t. A guy who will only date a girl for their body. A total ass. A guy that will make a girl cry and laugh, and a guy who lies when they said I love you.” There are also definitions where a fuckboy is just a “weak ass pussy” with all the blatant misogyny that that implies, but the context I’ve been hearing the term used centers around a man who uses women for sex. How novel that a term used to disparage toxic masculinity is also associated with its reinforcement.

Now, it will be argued that it is the manipulation that merits the shaming in this slutty behaviour rather than the slutty behaviour itself, but let’s think about this for a second. A promiscuous woman is often called “easy,” and with the negative connotation associated with female promiscuity already discussed, many girls take pride in being difficult to “get.”  This being the case, a promiscuous man would require more effort in his promiscuity than a woman. Given the demonization of open male sexuality as perverted, creepy, or predatory, hiding one’s true intent becomes a prerequisite for its success. Does this make deception and manipulation appropriate? Of course not, but the current societal norms are imposing these standards on men who wish to be promiscuous, and alternatives are virtually nil outside of narcotic-induced orgies. Anecdotally, the promiscuous women I have known in my time (take that how you will), have told me that they could easily get laid any time they wanted, they just choose not to because the men who are upfront about their intent, the “easy” men, are unworthy of their standards. Fuckboy may be a denouncement of manipulation, but in doing so it still attacks a man’s choice to be promiscuous because of the roundabout way he must take in order to get there.

To harken back to yet another blog, wherein I use terms like “douchebag” because they can’t all be winners, I describe the active nature of male sexuality confronting the passive nature of female sexuality. These are the roles conditioned into each respective gender, and it means that men have sex, and women are sexed. This method of sexuality is in crisis because passive sexual beings will not assert their sexuality, and if active sexual beings are punished, they won’t either. This crisis would inevitably lead to a decrease in sexual activity.

And hey! Turns out I’m not making this up, and young adults today are having fewer sexual partners than their parents. This isn’t because attitudes toward casual sex have changed; they haven’t. Well, they have, I guess, just in a direction you wouldn’t think would correlate with decreased sexual activity. The same study says that significantly more people today are okay with premarital sex than even in 2004. My initial claim of the awesomeness of promiscuity isn’t likely to find great resistance, but even with dating apps like Tinder, the glut of pornography, and abundant sexualized media imagery, people aren’t porking like they used to. I doubt there has been any change in our biological drives in the past generation, so something else must be dampening the libidos of millennials.

This crisis of sexuality needs to be resolved. Just as women should be able to express their sexuality as they see fit, so too should men without being demonized or forced into a position where they must manipulate others to satisfy their natural human urges.

A key that can open any lock is a master key, but a lock that can be opened by any key is worthless.

What this is saying is that men can sleep around with honour and pride, but any woman that tries is a worthless whore. Really, any argument that reduces human beings to one-dimensional phallic and vaginal objects shouldn’t be held in any kind of esteem, but for some reason this argument is brought out any time someone tries to say that slut-shaming is a bad thing. I mean, it’s so ridiculous, if you even just change the objects around a little bit, you alter the entire idea. Like, “An iPhone that can be charged by any cord is a practical iPhone, and a cord that can charge any phone is also super practical.” When Apple released that new iPhone that wasn’t compatible with any of the old chargers, people were pissed, but all Apple was promoting was normative monogamy.

This is bullshit that no one should take seriously, but that’s exactly my point. Male genitals do not have teeth and ridges in them, nor do female genitals have a unique set of tumblers. If you can’t manage to get your dick into a girl, it’s not because you’re drunk and at the wrong house… actually, it might be. Nevermind. My point is: dicks aren’t keys, and pussies aren’t locks. Your argument is dumber than actually trying to fuck a lock.

This maxim only came into being because people were trying to justify sexist ideologies. It’s not like cavemen discovered a locking mechanism and thought to themselves, “Oh hey, this exists! Guess women must all be sluts!” Society maintains this anachronistic view that men can do whatever they want and women just have to take it, often with all the innuendo that that implies, and some nerd discovered that unlocking a door was exactly like having sex and took just as long, and created the comparison.

The problem with aphorisms is they inherently possess verisimilitude (I learned this word specifically for this blog. It means that something seems like it’s true) I’m not just making this up.  If something sounds poetic, people will believe it. Why do you think nobody questions that Birds of a Feather Flock Together and Opposites Attract are both equally considered truisms, despite being entirely contradictory? The veracity of something is never, ever related to how it “sounds,” so quit being morons.

Using the proper function of a brain, it is unsurprisingly simple to dismantle this metaphor for slut-shaming. However, people still love shaming the shit out of all those sluts, and they’ll still high-five a dude for doing the same thing. Within the last week, I have heard a woman referred to sarcastically as “classy” for partaking in some delightful heavy petting on a public bench, as well as a few other choice words for a girl getting double-teamed in the middle of a school dance floor. Nothing negative was said about the men, despite the fact that in both these scenarios they are engaging in literally the same sex act. These women were not masturbating, folks! It’s like saying only half the people during a heist are actually committing a crime, and the mark of innocence is dictated by genitals alone.

Women. Like. Sex. Everyone likes sex. Have you ever had it? It’s amazing! Why would you condemn anyone ever in wanting to have it? I want you to stop what you’re doing, and masturbate until climax right now.

Welcome back. Wasn’t that great? Wouldn’t it be better sharing that with a partner? You bet! Why would you put restrictions on something like that? Obviously safety and health are crucial aspects, but people don’t slut-shame because they’re worried about a gonorrhea outbreak. If they were, it wouldn’t be gendered abstinence that they were advocating. This is hypocrisy at its very worst because it is depriving orgasms from half the population. This is something I will not abide.

 I’ve already discussed why this happens with my tool and temple analogy in regards to sexual autonomy, which actually works quite well with the key and lock metaphor. Perpetuating harmful social conditioning is a bad idea.

So. To clarify. Women enjoy sex. Men enjoy sex. Having sex is great. Stay safe, kids. Wrap it up.