The Ol' Straitjacket...
Aug. 29th, 2010 11:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsIt's often been said that if straight men could reliably get from the object of their attraction what gay men get, reliable, relentless, reciprocated, active desire with understood and appreciated feedback, they'd whine a lot less. (Of course, this assumes that women are exactly like men, and lesbian relationships would in general look much more like gay male relationships, which of course is not the real world.)
Recently, the press has been handwringing that we're trying to straitjacket women into a role like that of gay men, where they're expected to be all of the things I described above without bringing any feminine qualities to they're relationships whatsoever. The "Hook-up" culture, the pundits have warned, is all about having sex, and devastates any potential for a meaningful relationship among the participants. And several studies have shown that yes, people who hook up tend to break up at a statistically higher rate than those who wait to have sex.
And the evolutionary psychologists over in the corner have talked about "strategies" for our Darwinian success as a species, and pointed out that there are two standard foci around which reproductive strategies converge: high-investment and low-investment. "High investment" strategies emerge during periods of sufficient resource: because there's enough food, parents put much effort into fewer "high-quality children" while ensuring that those those resources are secured for the familial gene pool for future generations. "Low investment" strategies emerge during periods of strife and famine, when women bear the brunt of genetic scattering, having many "low-quality children" in the hopes that some will survive to adulthood and carry the selfish familial genes on.
What seems obvious is that some percentage of women will be optimized for one strategy over another, and find themselves mis-fit to the strategy indicated by resource availability. This is a long-winded way of getting around to saying: hey, some women are happy being promiscuous. Just like some men are happy being monogamous.
University of Iowa researcher David Paik asked a rather obvious question: if we take those women out of the studies about hook-ups, what do we see? The answer, unsurprisingly, is that people who hook-up are just as likely to have meaningful long-term relationships as those who delay sex.
It seems to me we're seeing an echo of the ancient "Madonna or Whore" story, only this time the echo is weaker. Maybe someday we'll be able to just let people enjoy themselves. The barriers to sexual satisfaction, such as disease or accidental pregnancy, can be mitigated, and hopefully eliminated someday.
The cynic in me believes that will probably be about the same time that sufficiently advanced sexual surrogates will exist such that "real sex," with another human being, with his or her sweat and bodily fluids, his or her own competing desires and agendas, will be another kink, an option taken only by the masochistic.
Recently, the press has been handwringing that we're trying to straitjacket women into a role like that of gay men, where they're expected to be all of the things I described above without bringing any feminine qualities to they're relationships whatsoever. The "Hook-up" culture, the pundits have warned, is all about having sex, and devastates any potential for a meaningful relationship among the participants. And several studies have shown that yes, people who hook up tend to break up at a statistically higher rate than those who wait to have sex.
And the evolutionary psychologists over in the corner have talked about "strategies" for our Darwinian success as a species, and pointed out that there are two standard foci around which reproductive strategies converge: high-investment and low-investment. "High investment" strategies emerge during periods of sufficient resource: because there's enough food, parents put much effort into fewer "high-quality children" while ensuring that those those resources are secured for the familial gene pool for future generations. "Low investment" strategies emerge during periods of strife and famine, when women bear the brunt of genetic scattering, having many "low-quality children" in the hopes that some will survive to adulthood and carry the selfish familial genes on.
What seems obvious is that some percentage of women will be optimized for one strategy over another, and find themselves mis-fit to the strategy indicated by resource availability. This is a long-winded way of getting around to saying: hey, some women are happy being promiscuous. Just like some men are happy being monogamous.
University of Iowa researcher David Paik asked a rather obvious question: if we take those women out of the studies about hook-ups, what do we see? The answer, unsurprisingly, is that people who hook-up are just as likely to have meaningful long-term relationships as those who delay sex.
It seems to me we're seeing an echo of the ancient "Madonna or Whore" story, only this time the echo is weaker. Maybe someday we'll be able to just let people enjoy themselves. The barriers to sexual satisfaction, such as disease or accidental pregnancy, can be mitigated, and hopefully eliminated someday.
The cynic in me believes that will probably be about the same time that sufficiently advanced sexual surrogates will exist such that "real sex," with another human being, with his or her sweat and bodily fluids, his or her own competing desires and agendas, will be another kink, an option taken only by the masochistic.
