I’ve been meaning to post for about a week, but unable to figure out quite how to make my first appearance at Classical Values. This is the equivalent of what I did when I was very young and spent several hours agonizing between two virtually identical outfits before a party.
And then, yesterday, on this post I did about Robert A. Heinlein and what he meant to me, some woman (I’m being complimentary here. She’s probably an academic!) came out to prove my point – which was that some people would like to prevent everyone from reading that which they disapprove of, and if their only weapon is social shunning, then they’ll use that.
In the meantime, as a sort of side benefit, she proved that she had problems with the idea of women enjoying sex. Oh, I’m sure she didn’t mean it that way. Or she didn’t think she meant it that way. Or something. But that’s how it came across, as “All you women who are out there enjoying sex, stop it. You’re letting the side down.”
I’ve had this argument so many times, at so many different conferences, when I was put on the obligatory Heinlein panel – see the four armed dwarf! The dragon of the Indies! The woman who will admit she likes Heinlein! Yep – that it was the REASON I posted.
Since writing that post, I’ve been defriended by one tenth my list on Face Book, my followers on twitter stalled, my group blog comments went dead and my conference has had almost no traffic. AND that was before I was the rudest I’ve ever been on line to a commenter. Being myself, I can’t resist the chance to double down. Proving, I suppose that while our current president and I might look at life in completely different ways there are some similarities between people of our age group.
This is not a new experience for me. Thirst, my first short story ever sold (which is online, for free, in this collection) was published in an Australian magazine called Blood Songs, which managed to send a copy out to get it nominated as an honorable mention in 1994’s Year’s Best Fantasy and Horror before its entire print run was confiscated and destroyed. The report on what caused it – my story, or the illustration on it – varies, but the illustration was on theme, so… And the last story I wrote that was published in a major magazine – What She Left Behind in Asimov’s – got letters asking the publication be banned from school libraries. So, you see, I have a tendency to dance where angels fear to tread.
Since sex is squarely at the center of both the culture war and of my variously socially unacceptable forays, let’s go into the – pardon my French – thick of it, with hip waders.
First let’s talk about what sex isn’t. (Sorry gents.) For those of you who came of age about ten to twenty years before me, let’s establish that sex is NOT an universal panacea. Yes, it cures headaches. (At least for me. Never understood the headache excuse.) Yes, it is a fundamental human drive. Yes sublimating it might cause some weird symptoms.
On the other hand, when someone brought the movie Splendor in The Grass to my attention recently, I was shocked at – if that really is the notion in the movie. I might have watched it but I don’t remember so I’m going off the IMDB description – the notion that a teen girl having a breakdown through lack of sex could be taken seriously. My experience as a teen girl who went through an all girl’s school (either for my sins or because my parents were prudent people. You call it.) was that if you were unstable having casual sex wouldn’t help. It would only send you over the edge at that age when hormones are making you a little loopy, anyway. So, getting involved is not a panacea for disturbed individuals. Again, sorry gents. “But this will cure your schizophrenia and make you give up Prozac” is a hot as hell pick up line. It’s just not really true.
Let’s also stipulate that sex – blame it on evolution! – means different things for each of the two genders. This is a general statement, of course, and in this as in every other gender characteristic, the effect is on a continuum and some women will be closer in outlook to some men than to other women, and the vice gets versed as always. So, don’t jump on me because your great aunt Matilda acted like a wild, promiscuous guy, ‘kay? Take it up with genetics and their rich variation.
Evolutionary pressures have designed those of you blessed with a penis with the general approach to sex of a wide dispersion seeder. Social pressures might control you, or at least make you pretend; your intellectual inclinations might make you hew to a different standard, but ninety nine percent of you are not just polygamous at heart, you’re like the kid in the candy store going “And I want a dozen of the purple ones, too.”
Meanwhile those of us honored with a vagina were pushed by evolution to feel sex as an act of belonging. Those female hominids who put out for just a male or just the males in a specific group – instead of taking it to the free market – got to raise more babies. This makes women the gatekeepers – which is normal in any species. The gender that bears the brunt of reproduction is the one that controls access.
This does not mean that women do not enjoy sex or aren’t interested in it for its own sake. What it means is that women are more likely to attach, emotionally, to the person they’re having sex with than men are. This doesn’t make women naturally monogamous, either – if observations of chimps in the wild are true – just means we give a flying… er… care for the males we lay.
Which means the more objectionable bits of “fifties wisdom”, in Heinlein – the ones I object to – things like “there’s only one way to console a widow” are blunt and crass and possibly offensive in the sense I’d rather not hear it. They’re also, alas, in my observation, true. Most women need the sense of belonging that comes from having sex. I’ve seen widows mourn for years, until they start a new relationship. I’ve seen women decline after breaking a relationship – kind of like regency maidens – until they get another sexual partner, even if not very serious. No, I don’t like that quote above, either. That’s too bad. I’m entitled to my own opinions, but not to my own facts.
Aside from these gender differences, sex is – generally speaking – a good thing when practiced between consenting adults. It provides us with the human touch that is essential to our continuing as humans; it gives the ape with the overgrown brain a chance to be an ape for a while; and it creates all sorts of social connections and bonds.
On a personal level – and there’s a reason I didn’t enter a convent, besides the fact that I don’t have that kind of faith – it is fun. I suspect I would have enjoyed it at any rate – possibly scandalously – if I were single but fortunately I found a man who made an honest woman out of me twenty five years ago. I repaid him by making an honest man out of him, before you ask. Which brings us to my next point.
So, sex… Gay? Straight? Married? Unattached? Monogamous? Promiscuous? What exactly do I approve of? And what is my prescription to the culture wars?
Er… “yes”? Remember that continuum above? The whole orientation thing has confused the issue. Honestly, I don’t know if sexual orientation/inclination/interest is genetic or acquired. My older son, who studies these things for fun, thinks it’s epigenetic – ie genetic but dependent on genes that get flipped on or off after birth, due to some environmental pressure that doubtless made sense to our hominid ancestors’ conditions and that to us is likely to be a big “uh?” (No, this does not mean “Your genes turn mine on” is a good pick up line, sorry.)
At any rate, like the other basic drives of mankind, that kind of deep-set drive seems to be too built-in to take apart and rebuild. Which means some people will be naturally monogamous and some naturally promiscuous, in addition to a whole range of preferences of which straight vs. gay is only the very (reservoir, yes, you knew I’d say that) tip.
That said, we’re creatures of – not always rational – brain as well as body. We do have a function in life other than – to quote Rex Stout – the appetites we share with dogs. And society has to function when you get a lot more of us together than existed in the world in the days of our hominid ancestors. There must be some rule, some law that makes us able to interact and yet respects individual preference in this, the most intimate of issues.
I’ve argued about gay marriage with Eric before – he won – so I won’t do that on my first post here. Let’s just say that the reason he won is that it never occurred to me to think of things like common law marriage, (even though I knew about them) because the very idea you can enter into a contract without realizing it makes me break out in a rash and stay awake in cold sweats at night.
And this brings me to my brilliant solution – contract law. Let’s assume that society does better when it has some inkling who is bedding whom. There are things like inheritance rights, children and other various complications of sex in a non-nature state. (And no I’m not implying that society NEEDS to know who is bedding whom. Just that when it’s a long term thing there are advantages to having it registered somewhere – even if you don’t wish to make it public. I’m sure there are ways of making it public only in emergencies and of flogging publically those who violate that.)
So… When two or more – not my preference. Sometimes I have trouble living with myself alone, and it’s a miracle my husband puts up with me. However, some people seem to like it – people decide to make their relationship permanent and public, they can so register it. Or if they want to make it legal but non public, they can register as such. IF they wish to. And everyone else – in an ideal, civilized society – keeps their noses, hands and thoughts out of what’s none of their business. [Rights being reserved to use those thoughts in limited circumstances and for purposes of blameless titillation and occasional onanism only, otherwise we’ll kill the thriving erotica industry!]
Perhaps I’m strange (shut up all of you) but the fact that someone, somewhere is enjoying sex in a manner I wouldn’t does NOT keep me awake at night. I could never understand the argument that went “but if we allow gay people to marry, then polygamy is next!” but I understand “Well, yes. What a boon for the McMansion industry” is not the expected answer. At least people tend to turn interesting colors and choke on their own tongues when I use it.
And sorry, even though I’m a woman and very glad to be one, no one is ever going to convince me I’m putting back women’s rights for generations by enjoying having sex or even by enjoying having sex with men. I find it a fortuitous and wonderful thing – and almost enough reason to be sure there is an intelligence behind all of this – that I enjoy something men enjoy providing me with. And while lack of sex would not put me in a madhouse, it would make me truly, truly cranky. In fact it might make me go after self-described (and I’m sure they’d say they’re innocent) feminists on blogs. (What? Been working late! And we DO have kids who are members of the Sibling Prevention Unit. Yes, it will be remedied as soon as possible. Relax.)
And because my editor told me I had to promote my book – Darkship Thieves – for which purpose I’ve been on a blog tour, (which this is sort of part of, in a way, but not really because unless Eric kicks me out, I’ll be back) let me mention one of the societies in the book takes that very sane (well, I think SO) approach to sex and marriage.
Note – if I managed to post the cover (if not, go look it up on Amazon) let me point out that some people – weirdly a lot of them men – consider this cover demeaning to women. WHEN did display of a beautiful woman become demeaning to women? No, don’t tell me. I’m still cranky and I might go off again. Let’s just say that some people don’t deserve to be members of a species endowed with something as wonderful as sex. They should be lichen or reproduce by fission or something. (There see? Perfectly rational.) That is all.
*I promise to learn how to work links and pictures on this system. Unfortunately today I’m teaching an online workshop, so I have limited time to fiddle with it.*
NOTE: This post was bumped (not by Sarah, but by me, Eric, until midnight tonight), in order to increase its visibility. (Originally published by Sarah at 09:38 AM.)
Comments
50 responses to “I know! Let’s Talk About Sex!”
Welcome! I took the liberty of making your urls clickable.
Here is how you make permalinks:
<a href=”url“>text to display</a>
replace url with:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/
leave the quote marks
replace text to display
with: Power and Control
Power and Control
If you keep a cheat sheet (text file) up of your most commonly used forms it is really easy.
May I add. I fond your picture linked in Eric’s announcement of your arrival most attractive.
“But this will cure your schizophrenia and make you give up Prozac” is a hot as hell pick up line. It’s just not really true.
Ghost Busters had it right.
“I make it a rule, never get involved with possessed people……actually, it’s more of a guideline than a rule.” Bill Murray (Doctor Peter Venkman) in Ghostbusters
Or as I prefer to paraphrase:
Never get involved with a woman crazier than yourself.
Thanks you for your great article. I used to be one of those wimpy men near the end there. Glad I grew up.
I have your latest book on my list (first read about it on Scalzi’s site) but it is not available on the Kindle. Any plans to release it on the Kindle? I am addicted to that thing and don’t even know how I ever read paper books before.
Am I obsessed or what?
Based on the “fact” that 3% of men and 1% of women are interested in highly fetishistic sex it can be said that the difference in sex drive between men and women is about 1/2 standard deviation.
You can definitely tell the difference. But it is not a lot in the center of the curve.
If there was too much difference men and women couldn’t bond. And that would be bad for the children.
Common law:
If trespass is notorious and longstanding then the path across your property becomes public. Or at least is not an offense against the law.
Eric being the lawyer in the group probably could explain it better.
And just to throw another one in there.
Jews had this down for a very long time. In a Jewish wedding the man and woman sign a contract. Called a Ketubah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketubah
Traditionally, the content of the ketubah formalises the various requirements by the Torah of a Jewish husband vis ? vis his wife (e.g. giving her adequate resources for dress, food, and shelter, and providing her with regular sexual intercourse), and stipulates the sum to be paid by him in case of divorce (or death), which is traditionally 200 Shekalim (a Talmudic currency) – generally considered the sum to support oneself financially for six months (Talmud masechta Ketubot; Talmud masechta Gittin). There are minor variations between Orthodox groups, but none of major legal or theological difference.
Reform Jews permit personal innovation in the text of ketubot. Interfaith couples, for example, often opt for more egalitarian language, similar in tone to marriage vows, which stress the values on which they base their relationship and marriage (love, companionship, family, tradition, etc.). The text used in ketubot under Reform auspices may be a traditional text, accompanied by a more creative, poetic and egalitarian rendition in English. Because there are a variety of available texts, betrothed couples often consult their rabbi or wedding officiant in order to determine which text is right for them. Recent non-standard texts provide options for same gender couples, couples with only one Jewish partner, secular humanists, and other individually crafted commitment texts.
Conservative Jews often include an additional paragraph, called the Lieberman clause, which stipulates that divorce will be adjudicated by a modern rabbinical court (a beth din) in order to prevent the creation of a chained wife.
==
In these more egalitarian times the contract probably would involve obligations on the woman as well (at least in Reform Circles).
Love that post! I took the additional liberty of placing the links inside the appropriate text.
(BTW, I use the Ctrl-Shift-A feature, which is pretty much second nature noe….)
M. Simon, you can find Darkship Thieves in various e-formats at Webscriptions. Among the formats available for download are those that are Kindle-friendly. Hope this helps. It’s a great book.
One little point Sarah.
You said,
unless Eric kicks me out
You should be more worried about my not allowing you to leave!
🙂
M. Simon,
On deviation, you should take in account there is no scientific way to measure one’s interest in any type of sex and that women lie on this routinely. It used to be expected — in society — for women to be “demure”. The new rules expect us to not enjoy sex, at least not with men. So, most of us lie. (Not me. I lie for a living. If I’m not getting paid, you’re stuck with the turth.) I suspect it’s a lot closer than it looks. The difference is one of “quality” not of interest.
Eric — thank you. And thank you for fixing links too.
Plutosdad
Eh. When we were young all of us believed what we were handed. Personally? Hiding women is lack of respect. Wanting to look at them is a compliment.
I’m also a kindle addict. “Hi, I’m Sarah, and I’m a kindle addict. It’s been an hour since…”
My book is on kindle format, no DRM. Other electronic formats too. It’s just Baen keeps those on its site. This should be a way to find it: http://www.webscription.net/p-1102-darkship-thieves.aspx
Statistics are notoriously squishy. Especially in social science.
However the answer seemed to fit well with the “not tonight dear I have a headache” syndrome.
Again, so not understanding the headache thing . My husband gets all happy when I say “I have a headache no aspirin can dent!” (Our kids think we’re insane.)
Nice, another Heinlein fan.
I’ve always wondered how women would take to him.
I don’t think he’s anti-woman, he’s from a time when men were men and women were women and everybody knew their job.
In his early books, moms are always pliant and agree with dad and you think they’re 2-dimensional and just “a girl”, until he “fleshes” her out and you realize mom is in charge. Heck, in any novel about living on the moon (Rolling Stones and Harsh Mistress for example) women are emphatically in charge.
Men are there as muscle and to die for the women.
Now I have to see if I have any of your books or stories, if not, I’ll have to remedy that.
One thing, I think the Crazy Years were the 60s, we’re heading into Nehemiah Scudder time (recall he was elected in 2012).
“Heinleinesque”?
Which Heinlein? Starship Troopers Heinlein or the much more disturbing (and disjointed) Number Of The Beast Heinlein?
The Heinlein that sold the movie rights to Ver Hoeven and have it butchered without an ounce of what made the book so great (hint: its not the power armor)? That Heinlein?
“Never get involved with a woman crazier than yourself.”
Luckily, I’ve never had to worry about that.
Sarah, over the years I’ve come to believe that there are only two kinds of people in hte world [other than the kind that believe “there are only two kinds of people in the world” and those who don’t].
There are the kind who want to tell you how you should live your life and use force [usually government] to make it stick and those who don’t. [The first group contains people from every ideoloogy — Leftists, Rightists, and just about every kind of person you can imagine.] You’re obviously in fthe second group. Welcome.
The idea that “99%” of men are promiscuous in the kid & candy store sense is widespread, believable, and wrong. Human males have far stronger tendencies to monogamy than the mammalian norm. About half could be considered reliably monogamous – they stick exclusively to ‘the one’ once they’ve found her. Even the other half is less than perfectly reliable.
Comparison with the most similar creature – the chimp – underscores this. If it’s female and fertile the chimps want a piece. They don’t have any standards beyond that. The very fact that human males form idealized images of the ‘perfect’ woman and have preferred traits in a partner are actually evidence for the emergence of a monogamous streak among humans.
We shouldn’t be too surprised by that, either, human children take a long time to mature and two parents with a stake in their development gives them a tremendous leg up. That’s a very strong pressure to push humans away from the usual primate pattern.
The cover pic seems to show a woman who couldn’t get dressed without getting all tangled up. I suppose that could be considered demeaning. I shall have to look some more to analyze it further.
Locarno,
I did point out that was the genetic tendency. It is moderated by brain and socialization. It’s still there, though, in how men look at women. And I’m NOT complaining.
Raf,
actually, though I love the cover — very EVOCATIVE of the book — my first thought was “Oh no. She’s out in space without a suit OR a helmet.” 😛 This is not a “scene from the book” cover. Though my male fans assure me it is very representative…
Scott M, “Heinleinesque”? What’s your reference? You’ve asked questions but without some sort of context, I’m not sure how to respond. I will point out one thing, iirc Heinlein is not the one who sold the rights to Starship Troopers. He was already dead when that happened. And his wife deplored the movie.
Sarah, my point was that 99% is *not* the genetic tendency. Yes, cultural factors are a major contributor, but they’re the duct tape of evolution and behavior. Without pre-existing genetic support in the larger male community they wouldn’t hold up anything, not on such a basic drive.
Sarah,
Thanks for a good article. I just wanted to mention that I have a Baen T-shirt with the cover of your book. I havn’t got to the book itself, but at least the image is being promoted.
Scott,
Possibly. I’ve never been in a male body, so I’m not going to claim greater experience, but empirically, most men I know, no matter how happilly married/attached have more of a roving eye than women. I could be completely wrong, and I give you that we are a “tame” species — but the testimony of all other species favors males… er… being more free with their favors. At any rate, as M. Simon said, it’s not that much of a variant in the middle range. And I’m NOT — very much not — trying to be prescriptive about what anyone believes or how they live their lives. Particularly not the last. If you tell people what to do, you’re responsible for what might result. I will take responsibility for myself, thank you.
Also, as pointed out, “how men look at women” is not really evidence of kid-in-candy store promiscuity. If the overwhelming majority of men were, then any young woman would do on the cover of your book to elicit interest. Instead, she’s a pretty girl. Why do men prefer pretty girls? It’s part of *their* gatekeeping programming. Other male mammals can get away with promiscuity because there’s no cost to fitness if they’re not around after. Human males DO incur a cost to fitness in their offspring if they don’t hang around and help raise the tykes. And time and attention is a limiting factor, like female fertility, and is the reason for a monogamous streak in human men not found in, say, chimps or gorillas.
So why are there still a lot of promiscuous traits among men? It’s a work in progress, that’s why. But the long term trend in humanity is quite clear.
The reason that the American culture is under attack is that it is quite different from Europe’s.
Alexis de Tocqueville, in his 1830s book, “Democracy in America,” identified four areas which were vastly different from European culture. Americans were quite different in how they responded to local government, civic associations, religion and family. These unique practices resulted in Americans having an attitude of independence toward their government which was not evident in Europe. Ever since the 1830s, those four areas have been under attack by the state and federal governments.
This process was outlined in Paul Rahe’s book, “Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift.” You can see and interesting interview of Paul Rahe on Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson.
The first of five segments is below.
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=NjE2MmFiNzRkNjA2OGJlMzFkZDRlMjc0MTEyZjUxZmE=
As a Puritan I appreciated the monogamous relationship of the protagonist in Darkship Thieves. Racy cover notwithstanding, I thought the book family-oriented. The protagonist clearly goes through a socialization process where she starts out amoral sociopath and ends up an engaged, compassionate person and that socialization is part village, part family, and part relationship with her hubby.
I don’t find much to complain about the sexual ethic that Ms. Hoyt describes and depicts. I would have to start Bible thumping to gainsay the details.
Perhaps I should write a book review…
As for Kindle reading. I’ve already written this up: here.
“There are the kind who want to tell you how you should live your life and use force [usually government] to make it stick and those who don’t. [The first group contains people from every ideoloogy — Leftists, Rightists, and just about every kind of person you can imagine.] ” — Scott
I used to think that too, before I realized with experience (and greater self-understanding) that everyone falls into both categories at the same time. The entire debate about ‘free’ government and society is about where to draw the dividing line between that which is public (and thus potentially a legitimate subject of coercion from without) and that which is private and ‘nobody’s business’.
Which in turn is why, under the surface of the debate, the ‘culture war’ is almost 100% a matter of conflicting religious articles of faith, including on the part of the pure secularists. That, in turn, is why the debate is both so fevered and so futile, because every faction involved starts with the premise that counter-arguments are wrong by definition.
If you believe that only heterosexual monogaomy is the only legitimate form of sexual expression, as some faiths teach, then that’s not an argument, it’s a definition and arguments will bounce off that assertion of faith. If you believe that sex is fundamentally a private, non-moral matter between consentind adults with no larger moral dimension, then that too is an article of faith against which arguments bounce off.
Both POV want society and the law organized to some degree around their preferred premise.
Sarah,
Roaming Eyes – The Waboose and I have stood there and commented on women. In fact more the once she has elbowed me in the ribs to point out a sharp lookin gal. And she is the one who pointed out to the bimbo on display and complaining about ogles that they were WMDs not Smart Bombs she had corseted. So yeah women have roaming eyes. And God did not create beauty, just so we can pretend we are blind.
Marriages – Me I am reactionary. I think the government should issue civil unions and stay out of marriages. Marriages is a religious ceremony. EX: Two brothers (TV Show – Full House) want get a civil union so they can raise the kids then they should be allowed and the pensions and applicable medical benefits should accessible to both partners as needed.
Sarah,
Roving eye does not equal roving penis.
I think you (and other women who believe they know how men think) dismiss Locarno too quickly.
I knew that “kid in a candy store” comment was going to bring comment! And, I think it is a bit off-base applying it only to men. The big difference I see is that men are much more prone to narrowing the definition of how the perfect woman looks, while women are open to much wider range of attractiveness in men.
I’m glad your editors sent you off on this blog tour. I hope you’ll stick around Classical Values.
I’m another Heinlein fan with matching X chromosomes, ever since I read Have Space Suit, Will Travel as a tween o so long ago. So nice to know there’s another out there! And I never thought Heinlein was misogynistic, and Ginny Heinlein was and is my hero.
“And while lack of sex would not put me in a madhouse, it would make me truly, truly cranky.”
And yet the stereotype of ‘men enjoy sex and women (resentfully or not) put up with sex’ is still very pervasive across society.
While this almost certainly has cultural aspects, I also suspect it reflects a genetic factor about the distribution. It’s only a speculation but I have a hunch there’s some truth in it.
Pre-civlization, males with naturally low sex drives would be much less likely to successfully pass on that trait than males with a relatively high libido, everything else being equal. It takes time and energy to pursue females, after all, and it isn’t risk free.
OTOH, a female with an inherently low libido was probably almost as likely, again everything else being equal, to pass that trait on as one who was naturally higher.
I suspect that the result of this is that males tend to cluster on the high end of the distribution of ‘innate’ libido, though low- and no-libido males do exist. On the other hand, I have a suspicion that women range across the entire distribution curve much more than men do.
Result? Men tend to perceive women as being ‘uninterested’ or ‘not as interested’ because there are many more high-libido men than high libido women, yet that isn’t the same thing as ‘no interest’ in most women.
The other side effect, I suspect, is that the larger number of naturally low-libido women are frustrated by the constant pressure on the subject, and come to resent it, and they tend to cluster into the groups that see women who aren’t that way as ‘giving in’ or ‘indulging oppression’.
I’m sure that’s only a part of the reason why things work the way they do, and I might well be wrong. But if explains some things if it’s true.
discussions. And never in the context of public policy. I am by nature monogamous and my husband seems to be so by choice. This is fine with both of us — but we know people who aren’t, and it is not up to us to tell them to be.
Which brings us to Beorn — I sympathize with your opinion on marriage, but I don’t think you can appropriate the word to mean “religious” nor do I think this is a brilliant idea in the end because the law of unintended consequences will turn around and bite you. I blogged about this on my LJ sometime ago.
Frankly, marriage has “always” existed — and not always in the male-female format. (yes, I’m very doubtful about evidence for medieval gay marriage. Seems to be a matter of wishful thinking more than anything else.) Possibly the historically dominant form is one male and several females. (RARELY the reverse except in limited times and circumstances. And most of those, again, seem less a proven matter and more wishful thinking.) However, from the time humans had some form of legal thought there was “marriage” and not always — not even most of the time — religious, though it might be religion-endorsed, of course. (Most of the time, it seems to have been marriage by kidnapping, to be honest. Seems to be the oldest, default mode.)
The reason I think the “civil union” thing is a really bad idea is that if you don’t call it marriage, there is no weight attached to it. What weight? Tradition. Expectations. This gives “marriage” psychological weight. And heaven knows if you want the institution to survive it’s needed because the times they are achanging –(more on that on the bottom.) And no matter how much you say civil union is ONLY for “different” couples/groups, the kids will default to civil unions, because it’s easier. “Mom and dad won’t expect us to stay together forever or anything.” And then will stop there. It’s a dangerous, dangerous path, if you have any sort of belief in “sacred marriage.” So, turn the question on its head and go for “Sacred Unions” which would be set apart and different from what’s legally allowable. They would be more demanding and conform to your beliefs/dictates of your religion. And no one’s business. No one could be forced to perform a sacred marriage for a non believer, for instance.
However, while on that — I never said government should be in the marriage business. It is one of the many, many things I think they should leave alone. Have registration of contracts be undertaken by legal firms or companies who undertake to keep them inviolate and safe. (Register your marriage with Secure, the premier marriage registration service int he country!) Government is force and that has no business in marriage.
On the other hand, just in my life, I’ve seen technological change speed up to ridiculous levels. This is will only get worse (or better, if you believe, like me, that it involves more human dignity and freedom.) One of the things that’s happening is that reproduction is getting unhinged from usual channels — right now in the negative. We can fool around and not get pregnant. If you think that’s a major change and if you look at what it wrought, look out for the next one — birth at will without the usual process. Children might — in biological fact, not just legally — have five or six parents and not in the combinations you expect. Yeah, okay, this seems a long time in the future. It might be. On the other hand, it could happen tomorrow due to some breakthrough we never saw coming. In the face of this, everything will dissolve and change. If you want to preserve marriage with any weight of tradition and strength, you HAVE to let it change. You have to let it adapt. And if you are religious you have to preserve the sacredness of the union by making it just that. A sacred union. What has been the “natural form” is already splintering. Save what you need to, and let others live. If you want to save people’s souls do THAT first. You can’t save their souls through their bodies.
Jamie,
Ginny was the brightest PERSON I’ve ever had the pleasure of exchanging opinions with. And I know several brilliant men and women.
Oh, NO. This ate the beginning of my comment somehow. This is what should be atop the comment above:
Mariner,
I NEVER said it equated with roving penis. If you read above, what I said is that men can socialize and this means over civilizing millenia, btw) to be monogamous. Or can decide on monogamy, out of intellectual conviction. Actually from what I’ve seen doing this requires the men to have a FAR MORE idealized vision of marriage than women. And that’s fine. I made no value judgements. Nor will I. My religion is an intensely private matter and this is neither the forum for it, nor do I normally engage in theological
If you want to preserve marriage in its traditional form, you can do what the social conservatives are doing and defend it to the death. Or you can take a Hoyt’s view and let anything go. Or you can *outlaw* it. In the long run it will come right back to a societal norm of heterosexual monogamy (with widespread violations, and possible sanction of polygamy which is not often used). That’s what works, and that’s what humans inevitably revert to, and will revert to, even with contraception and genetic engineering and all the other fun stuff. All in the long run, and we’ll all be dead in the long run, but no less true for that.
Of course, this does not apply for any theoretical posthuman civilization. But in that case everything goes out the window, probably in multiple branching directions.
For reason’s not entirely understood by anthropologists the mention of RAH drives Liberalis Scificfan into babbling screeds.
If people don’t believe that there are smart, successful, attractive women who like having their bottoms pinched, having lots of sex (which they enjoy tremendously) and having babies ought to come the The Barfly suite.
The bottom line to any discussion about sex is the agreement amongst the participants that sex is fun. It feels good and makes us smile. Any one who tries to vary that basic understanding (example women are always raped when having sex with men) just isn’t worth having a debate with because their viewpoint is so alien.
Almost any political/social alignment (including libertarianism) is based on an underlying set of articles of faith, to the effect of “this is how the world should be”.
RAH’s work violates several elements of the ‘liberal/left’ underlying articles of faith, generating the usual rage that offenses against core beliefs generate.
Sarah,
Impressive and thought-provoking. Thank you. My own take on the currently “acceptable” female attitude of reluctance toward sex, for what little it’s worth:
First, I strongly suspect that a contributing factor is that our society has taught, for so long, that sex is something that should never be discussed and should be hidden from view – leading to most of us not being very good at it, at least when our relationships start. Particularly if we actually live up to that “no sex until marriage, followed by lifelong monogamy” ideal.
Second, by societally (and religiously) demonizing sensible birth control, young girls enjoying sex all too frequently leads to unplanned pregnancies. So girls are societally programmed that they “don’t want to be one of THOSE girls”, leading to a deep-seated prejudice they have to cure themselves of after reaching adulthood.
Of course, what do I know? I’m a guy, who IS married to the only woman I’ve ever been intimate with – hardly a knowledgeable resource on the topic – but I’d say Heinlein already gave us the best answer on this topic, by way of Lazarus:
“Freedom begins the day you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.”
Again, so not understanding the headache thing . My husband gets all happy when I say “I have a headache no aspirin can dent!” (Our kids think we’re insane.)
Assume there is no headache.
[Waves hand] Another double X Heinlein fan here! When I was a 10th grader (1969-70) there were two books that were the rage among my class and divided it. The Hobbit and Stranger in a Strange Land.
I read the latter and was forever hooked on Heinlein.
I could never understand the argument that went “but if we allow gay people to marry, then polygamy is next!”
Actually, it’s simple. The current argument for same-sex marriage (cuz “gay marriage” already exists. No one at City hall asks you your orientation when you apply for a license) is “I should be allowed to marry whomever I love!” cannot be logically limited. What if I love more than one person?
And polygamy has never benefited women, not withstanding Heinlein’s attempts to showcase modern/future group marriage as a positive.
It only succeeds in Stranger because Michael Valentine Smith is more Martian than human.
I fully understand your response. What I don’t understand is those who deny the validity of the argument. (Or rather, I understand perfectly well, but I resent the insult to my intelligence.)
Surely I’m not the only one humming Salt-n-Pepa.
Yes? Sorry. I’ll let myself out.
My college girl friend loved Heinlien so much after I introduced her to his works, she took my whole collection when we broke up.
My first wife made sure to grab all the Heinlien books during our divorce, after I had introduced her to Heinlien over the years previously.
And my second and current wife, of 12 years, is deeply fond of both Heinlien and Prachett, both of which I introduced to her. Friday has long become her favorite comfort book.
I think women find just as much significance as men do in the works of Heinlien.
‘And polygamy has never benefited women, not withstanding Heinlein’s attempts to showcase modern/future group marriage as a positive.’
It has benefited a very small subgroup of women, in a very limited and specific way.
From a genetic POV it can be a bigger reproductive payoff to share the resources of one high-status male than to have monopoly attention of one lower-status male.
But that doesn’t change the overall truth of the statement, and it doesn’t address that there is so much to life and relationships can can’t be defined in evolutionary terms (to the great frustration of a certain sort of determinist).