Godheval

I was browsing through the New York Craigslist when I stumbled upon a certain debate. A woman wrote a lengthy post asking why men resort to calling women “sluts” and “whores”, and went into the whole double standard that exists between men’s and women’s sexuality. This, of course, illicited a venomous response from one man, who while not completely moralistic, seemed unable to divorce himself from the deep-seated religiously founded perception of men and women. Finally, a third poster came in and decided to attribute the guy’s ranting and raving to misogyny and lack of a father figure. As if it could even be so simple. I wrote a reply to all three of them, and it became so long-winded that I decided to adapt it to become an article here.

The truth is that perceptions of women in the United States and many other countries are filtered through puritanical lenses. Note the lower case p in puritanical, meaning in terms of basic principles, not specific doctrines. It is not so much an issue of men calling women sluts or whores, but an issue of why the meanings of these words should be insulting. “Whore” simply means a woman who performs sexual acts in exchange for money or goods. “Slut” simply means a woman who is sexually promiscuous. They are only insults in a society where sex is sanctified (or demonized, depending on your perspective). Only in such a society can sex be regarded as so much different than any other physical need that people fulfill – for money or not.

Whore in particular is a very broad term. There are many different types, just as there are many different places where you can buy food. I’d prefer to eat at a fine restaurant than at McDonalds, and if I were to indulge in paid sex, I’d be selective in that regard as well. At the same time, there are corner-patrolling whores and escort service whores, and the two are as different as night and day. The latter types have rather rigorous protocols to protect both their women and their clientele, such that a guy may have more of a chance of contracting a disease from a casual fling at a bar than he would paying for the service. These women offer a service, a service that hardly a man can do without, only most expect to receive it for free. Speaking of prostitution, isn’t it ironic that while women are expected to be more reserved sexually, they are the primary “providers” of the “service”?

I think that the raving puritans amongst us should adjust their preconceptions of sex and sexuality, and open their minds a little. There is a stark hypocrisy to be found embedded in this ideology, outside of the obvious double-standard. People who support women’s right to have sex as often as they like, with as many men as they like, sometimes draw comparisons between humans and animals. It is perfectly normal and acceptable for male and females of non-human species to mate as often as their biology demands. Puritan ideologues, in their celebration of humanity as so unique and perfect, cannot digest this comparison. Humans are so much “better” than other animals that they use all of their “superior intellect” to over-complicate what is naturally one of the least complicated and fundamentally biological processes. If we further investigate the possible reasons for believing that women should be more selective, they too will most likely be found on the biological level.

Men, provided they are healthy and intact, have a virtually infinite supply of sperm. Therefore, strictly for the purposes of propagating their genes, they are limited only by the availability and willingness of fertile women. All moral responsibility aside, speaking only from a biological standpoint, a man could impregnate thousands of women to ensure the passing of his genes. Some of those children, for one reason or another, may not survive, but the man’s infinite procreation potential means that there will probably be many that will. Women, on the other hand have a finite amount of ova, and a relatively short time in which to procreate. Therefore, for the sake of successfully propagating her genes into future generations (i.e. beyond her immediate children), she must be selective in choosing her mates. Men who are physically or mentally unfit may produce unfit children, and that is not conducive to passing on genes. A woman does not have the “hit or miss” freedom that a man does.

Now, I realize that all of this is very technical, and hardly anyone is consciously selecting their partners with this in mind. However, there is a very clear manifestation of this very biological process in society’s insistence that women be more selective. A natural offshoot of this is that women should be less promiscuous. And herein lies the hypocrisy. If humans are in fact so much greater than animals, then sex must be more than a procreation procedure. It can be for pleasure, for love, for a sense of belonging, for more reasons than I have the time to list. If a woman is having sex for any other purpose than procreation, then what need does she have to be selective? Of course most women still will be selective, for reasons relating to her purpose in having sex (e.g. matching up with someone to whom she is sexually attracted). If she is seeking pleasure and she receives it from many different men, that is her prerogative. If a woman wants to become a whore, and she can do so in a way that is healthy for her both mentally and physically, there need not be any demoralizing stigma attached to her. The issue of safety – from disease or abuse – is always an issue, and so these women must exercise caution. This type of discretion, however, is separate from any morally-mandated checks on her sexuality in general.

There is, however, another dimension to this issue that needs to be considered. I suggested that sex should not be sanctified or demonized, and regarded in the same light as other physical needs that others fulfill. A natural extension of the view expressed here is that a person should not be troubled by their partners having sex with other people. However, this is where the ideological perception of sex and sexuality must be separated from the emotional. As I also mentioned, amongst humans there is often much more to sex than just the physical fulfillment. Independent of the moralistic “meaning” ascribed to it, and whether or not it marks us as “more advanced” than animals, the fact remains that human sexuality is richer and more complicated than in most animals. There are certainly distinctions to be made between sex out of love, sex for money or other advantages, and sex solely for pleasure.

Because of this, not all expressions of sexual liberty are exempt from condemnation. If in engaging in sexual activity, a person is causing physical or emotional harm to others, then that deed, independent of the sexual activity in itself, is subject to judgment. If a woman (or man) has sex with someone other than the person (or persons) to whom she has made an emotional commitment, and in doing so damages bonds of love or trust, then for that reason she should be judged. Even then, though, it is only for the person affected by her decision to make that judgment. If a person is accepting of their partner’s sexual activity outside of their relationship, it certainly is not for anyone else to judge the situation. At the same time, a person should consider the emotional impact of their sexual activity on those with whom they are intimately involved.

There are situations where people are emotionally bonded, have sex with one another as an expression of their love, but then are also able to have sex outside of that relationship for reasons other than love. It is also possible for people to have loving sexual relationships with multiple partners. Whether or not the arrangement works for all involved is an issue completely separate from the “ethical” judgment of sexual activity. Sex and love, in spite of their common association in the public consciousness, remain mutually exclusive concepts. So I maintain that people should not be condemned solely for their sexual activeness.

Even women are propagating a regressive ideology by sustaining the negative connotations of the terms “slut” and “whore”. If both are merely women who have sex frequently, then does that automatically mean there is something wrong with them? By now it should be clear that the answer is no. The terms only maintain their power so long as women themselves adhere to the double standard of sexuality. Of course I recognize that our sense of “proper” sexual conduct amongst men and women are deeply rooted in who we are as a society, and it is not so easy to separate ourselves from them. People who use the terms slut and whore as insults understand this, and use the terms because of their impact. But remove the stigma attached to liberal sexuality and you diminish that impact. I should clarify, however, that I am not suggesting that downplaying these words should free up people to use them maliciously against women for any reason. There is, afterall, the matter of the intent behind the words, and I do not advocate any sort of hateful behavior.

There is no denying that in our society, being a “slut” or a “whore” sometimes comes out of psychological dysfunction, insecurities, desperate need, and other predicaments. This phenomenon probably has less to do with any correlation between sex and dysfunction than it has to do with a social climate that inhibits women’s freedom to be as sexually active as they choose. It cuts down on the number of women who are healthy and comfortable in their sexually active lifestyles. I am not suggesting that we dismiss those situations where promiscuity stems from dysfunction. However, that dysfunction is the issue that needs to be addressed, rather than a value judgment being placed on her promiscuity. Meanwhile, if a woman of sound mind and body chooses to be very active sexually – be it for money or pleasure or both – it is not society’s place to say what is right or wrong for her life.

Sex and sexuality are complex issues, and it is because of this that sweeping value judgments cannot be attached to them. Every situation deserves individual consideration. It only takes an ounce of objectivity, and even less compassion to do so, instead of grouping people into one giant undesirable category. Just as every woman is different, so is every “whore”, and every “slut”.

RSS | 44View Comments (10)http%3A%2F%2Fgodheval.net%2Fwhores-and-sluts%2FWhores+and+Sluts2005-08-25+03%3A39%3A39Godhevalhttp%3A%2F%2Fgodheval.net%2Fwordpress%2F%3Fp%3D44 | Trackback |