Reply #117: Not for having sex in private, but for taking it public and "scaring the horses"

[unc70]

Abstract of this post:

The women in the original article and in the rest of this thread were attacked not so much for having sex, not because they enjoyed sex, not for sex with multiple partners, and not even because their actions threatened some man or men in general in any way. They were attacked because they had made their private sex lives so public that it had become impossible for everyone else to continue ignoring them, no matter how hard everyone tried to avoid having to see what they did not want to see.

It is a bit like the admonition, "Don't let me see you doing that again." Much different from a direct "Don't do that again." There must be advantages to society as a whole and to its individual members for the assumption that the father of any child born to a married woman is legally that of her husband, no matter who the biological father might be.

We see much the same with birds supposedly mates for life and where both the male and female must work together for the young to hatch and survive to adulthood. Females of these species are observed leaving the nest while their Thmate is away, then presenting themselves as available to and the mating with some other male. The "unfaithful" female then returns to the nest as if nothing happened, and she and her "mate for life" incubate, feed, and protect their chicks, one or more of whom carry the genes of the rogue male from the "fling" and not those of the "faithful" male who works to raise the offspring.

Early in high school when guys were asking variations of "would she, or wouldn't she?", I reluctantly concluded that "Almost all women are willing to have sex, just not with me." Somewhat later I was happy to add, "But more than enough would with me, and I with them."

This discussion began by asking why do we attack women who are sexually active, and why not men who are. I suggest that most attacks are not against women for their sexual activity, but attack those women that are the least adept dealing with complex situations, the least capable of being discrete in their sexual and other relationships, and among the least desirable for a LTR by the most desirable males. Their ready availability for a quick fling increases their chances of mating with a highly-desirable male, but without the advantages that he would bring to a LTR.

Many have asked why so many men continue to act like such jerks wrt women, treating them as sexual objects not worthy of respect? Moar likely because it works, at least with many women. Why will so many women almost throw themselves at the "bad boys", even many of those one might think the least likely to respond, seemingly unable to resist, to be abused,

The rest of this post are some observations regarding what we say vs what we do regarding all aspect of our sexuality. Not well organized.

===========

Reading the linked article, it seems most of the criticism of these women was not about their private sex lives, but because they had dragged what had been private now into full public view. I, like many, believe that "what consenting adults do in private" is none of my business unless I am one of those adults. Of course, that means no children involved, and great care to limit what they might see or hear.

When someone starts posting online pictures and detailed descriptions of their sex lives, deliberately bring them into full public view, then they should expect to receive criticism, likely concerning their actual sexual conduct and certainly regarding their lack of judgment and common sense. (The woman criticized for not wanting children might be an exception, but I need to read her article which triggered those responses. Her being attacked for being sexually active because she does not want children seems really strange to me. I suspect there is something additional in her article beyond not want children.)

By the time we graduate high school in 1966, over 3/4 of my class sexually active, or at least were no longer virgins. Several of the girls were already married, but none of them were pregnant when they married, and neither they nor anyone else got pregnant before graduation. We were just lucky, but there were several pregnancies in the classes before and after ours; the second-best student in 1965 was pregnant with her second child when she graduate.

With so many sexually active at my school and the neighboring ones I knew, why did some girls get a bad reputation while others maintained almost virginal reputations, even with many of their classmates, while having a lot more sex and with more partners. Almost anyone going steady were having sexual intercourse or would be soon. Other students assumed they were and the parents feared they might be. BTW it was mostly heavy petting sometimes leading to vaginal intercourse; oral sex was less common then than intercourse, maybe half as many BJs, and under 20% of the guys gave oral. Little if any anal.

Apparently it is much different these days. I am amazed to hear that "a BJ isn't real sex, no big deal" or that girls who are waiting until marriage to have vaginal intercourse are having anal instead.

Girls were limited in how sexy they could dress at school by the dress codes, so that was not the main reason. but clothes and makeup were contributing factors. So what is left. Just a couple of things:

Girls who dated much older guys no longer in high school and not enrolled as college students were assumed to be having sex, they had older friends, and were likely to frequent the clubs and bars were alcohol was served. If the guy was not local or was in the armed services and stationed nearby, it would negatively affect her reputation.

Couples who were routinely kissing and groping each other between classes, considered an inappropriate PDA, took a sizable negative on their reputations.

Having a brother, even better one at the same HS or a recent grad, usually had a positive effect on his sisters reputation unless his own reputation was bad.
Although possible that he would actively step in to defend his sister's honor, most of the effect is from the self-censorship by those who might otherwise be eager to spread the latest rumors, seeing almost no risk for doing so.

A student who attracts negative attention, makes low grades, skips class, and does not do homework is much more likely to have their other behavior judged more negatively. The same goes for someone with equivalent behavior in a work environment.