A left-winger's ranting on America, religion, capitalism and pie.

If the discussion with rape advocate Eivind Berge proved to be good for anything, it was stirring my mind on the subject of female sexuality. It’s a subject that, even in this day and age, is both a mystery and a taboo. Even feminists cannot agree on what female sexuality is and what it should be, whether women should be sexually freed or sexually muted, whether they should embrace their sexuality or refuse to be sexual creatures.

I am hardly a wild, promiscuous thing, but I have for a long time leaned towards the former–the freeing of female sexuality.

Part of the problem is a lack of understanding. For so very long, female sexuality has been defined, sought after, and hidden by patriarchal society. Our sexuality is cast in a Madonna-whore dichotomy, mythicized, lied about, misinterpreted, treated as sin. The treatment has been almost universal. Even scientific attempts at understanding female sexuality have for the most part been male attempts, and not female attempts.

We are seeing the beginning of female scientific inquiry into the subject, however. Professor Meredith Chivers of Queens University, who proclaims that she "wants everyone to have better sex", has been studying female arousal. And she’s found some things that are both fascinating and disturbing. First, the fascinating:

No matter what their self-proclaimed sexual orientation, they showed, on the whole, strong and swift genital arousal when the screen offered men with men, women with women and women with men. They responded objectively much more to the exercising woman than to the strolling man, and their blood flow rose quickly — and markedly, though to a lesser degree than during all the human scenes except the footage of the ambling, strapping man — as they watched the apes. And with the women, especially the straight women, mind and genitals seemed scarcely to belong to the same person. The readings from the plethysmograph and the keypad weren’t in much accord. During shots of lesbian coupling, heterosexual women reported less excitement than their vaginas indicated; watching gay men, they reported a great deal less; and viewing heterosexual intercourse, they reported much more. Among the lesbian volunteers, the two readings converged when women appeared on the screen. But when the films featured only men, the lesbians reported less engagement than the plethysmograph recorded.

On the surface, it seems to confirm what men want to hear–that women who are telling them "no" don’t really mean it. And, you know–maybe it’s true. Male sexuality and desire is accepted, even revered. Sexuality in a woman—thanks to the Madonna-whore dichotomy—inches her towards “slut” if it appears to exist at all. Is it any wonder that despite being more easily aroused, women rarely admit to masturbation? However, let’s read on to Chiver’s theory for why women are so easily aroused physically but not mentally.

She has confronted clinical research reporting not only genital arousal but also the occasional occurrence of orgasm during sexual assault. And she has recalled her own experience as a therapist with victims who recounted these physical responses. She is familiar, as well, with the preliminary results of a laboratory study showing surges of vaginal blood flow as subjects listen to descriptions of rape scenes. So, in an attempt to understand arousal in the context of unwanted sex, Chivers, like a handful of other sexologists, has arrived at an evolutionary hypothesis that stresses the difference between reflexive sexual readiness and desire. Genital lubrication, she writes in her upcoming paper in Archives of Sexual Behavior, is necessary “to reduce discomfort, and the possibility of injury, during vaginal penetration. . . . Ancestral women who did not show an automatic vaginal response to sexual cues may have been more likely to experience injuries during unwanted vaginal penetration that resulted in illness, infertility or even death, and thus would be less likely to have passed on this trait to their offspring.” Evolution’s legacy, according to this theory, is that women are prone to lubricate, if only protectively, to hints of sex in their surroundings.

Clearly, we need to investigate female sexuality instead of having men tell us what it is. Because we are finding more and more that female sexuality is not what we were convinced for so long it was.

The finding above, however, makes sense, especially considering evolutionary psychology regarding the matter. In his book The Moral Animal, Robert Wright explains why females of almost every species are naturally more restrained in their sexuality than males: parental investment. Females, no matter how promiscuous they are, must invest a great deal into each offspring and can only produce so many offspring. Women can only have so many children, each child takes a long time to carry, leeches their health, risks their death when born, and requires a massive amount of time, effort, and resources to care for. Males only need to mate a lot to have good reproductive success. Thus, the sex who has to invest more and who has more risk when it comes to reproduction—females—is more selective and does not have sex with anyone. They select for whoever will both reduce the risk/investment, and make the risk/investment more worthwhile. This is the cause of hypergamy.

There are, however, a few fascinating things to note.

Primates, which are very similar to us in their minds and social organization, can organize sexually as monogamous, polygamous, polyandrous, promiscuous. Etc. Interestingly, however, is that in both primate and human societies, increased promiscuity correlates with increased gender equality. This is something I pointed out in my discussion with the rape advocate. And it makes sense.

Picture this. You’re in a society where you are barred from having a job, getting an education, or living on your own. If you are raped before you are married, you can consider your life over. In order to survive, you must marry. And the more wealthy a mate you marry, the better chances of survival you have. This is, essentially, how sex generally works in monogamous societies, primate and human. Females trade their sexuality to males for resources. Not because they’re greedy, but because it’s necessary.

Now, consider another scenario. You are living in a society where you are able to get an education and a job, at the same pay level and degree as a man. You are not culturally prodded into a Madonna-whore dichotomy. You are perfectly able to, and do, take care of yourself financially. Yet, you still want a mate—and now survival isn’t the driving force behind your choice. You can choose when you want, how many you want, and who you want, regardless of resources, because it’s not something you need any more.

Finally consider that in gender-equal human societies, contraception and abortion exist, which allow women to make that investment only when they choose, and engage their sexuality for reasons other than survival and reproduction. Gender-equal societies lend themselves to increased communal and father care of the offspring as well, which only makes gender equality even more conductive to promiscuity.

It’s a trend we’re seeing in more gender equal parts of the world, where women are free to be sexual and men don’t need to get married or spend money on a prostitute to get sex. Wealthy businesswomen are even sexually harassing their subordinates in the work place for the first time—something that clearly isn’t hypergamy.

In effect, while we’re still mostly monogamous (and will almost certainly always be), we’re becoming more promiscuous, which reduces the need to rape, promotes more honest sexual/marital couplings, and allows us to see more clearly what female sexuality really is.

We are a society in transition, however. Women are still held to the Madonna-whore dichotomy, even if they no longer live their lives by it. They feel guilt and shame for even being aroused—something which is incredibly sad when one considers how easy it is for women to be aroused.

And it may, it seems, be a violent transition. Misogyny and male entitlement is alive and well. Conservatism demands not only women’s bodies but dominion over them, and this clash has often meant rape, witch-burnings, destruction of pagan religions, and legal restrictions. Perhaps, the thought of relinquishing control over what men make a precious resource is frightening. But it is only precious because of the investment currently required by women in reproduction, and the lack of responsibility by men.

Despite the violence, despite the repression, the burnings, the laws, female sexuality exists and hopefully will always exist. Because of it’s preciousness, it has evolved to be unique, subtle, mysterious, enthralling. These qualities have made it something that has inspired art since the beginning of human culture, given rise to religions and even religion itself, evoked religious and spiritual emotions despite repression by those same religions, and lent itself to expression which transcends male sexual expression. Female sexuality, to sum it all up, is pretty damn cool. I’m finding myself fascinated in such an elusive and misunderstood subject. I’ll be reading in the near future a book on female sexuality and menstruation and how it might have affected the formation of early human society. I’m rather excited with what I might come away from it with, so hopefully we’ll be seeing some more posts on this subject in the future. Until next time…