NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/philosop/misc/2540

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-19 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!mucs!nessie!db.mcc.ac.uk!zlsiida
From: [e-mail] (dave budd)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Sexual drive
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Nov 92 14:19:35 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News System)
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Lines: 72

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Philip Hoelgaard) writes:

>It seems to me that people are confused about their sexual identity.
That's nothing new.  It's just different people who are confused these days.

>I feel that this is due to the blurring of the differencies between
>men and women.
Which specific !non-artificially-imposed! differences?

>Everything has become so complicated - the old conventions and role-
>playing rules made it easy for both parties to settle down into roles
>that were of mutual benefit.
Actually things are SIMPLER now: there used to be all these gender rules
you had to learn and follow; now you just do what you want (As long as it
doesn't hurt others...).  As for roles of mutual benefit, have you heard of
wife-battering?

>The man, the provider of the family - the one with the formal power
>of decission and consequently having the power to be generous.
Or to be a despot.  And what if for some reason he can't do the providing?

>The woman, the raiser of the children and the island of love and
>security - in an ocean of ambition and hostility.
An idealised view of women from a non-existant Golden Age.

>That things are not that simple any more are probably to blame for
>the extremely high divorce-ratios in all the industrialized
>countries.
Try extended expectancy of life, and the fact that women now have improved
means of escape from relationships they find unsatisfactory - previously
they had no way to get out, so they stayed.

>Furthermore the marriage-frequencies are at an all-time low, and people
>get married much later than before - not only due to the level
>of activity of both parties, but because young people are uncertain
>of each other, confused about their roles.
Again, women no longer need a provider, so refuse to be trapped into
unsatisfactory relationships.  Things weren't better in the past, it's just
that women had so little choice in the matter.

>I feel that it is wrong that women should compete with men in the
>job-market. I do not doubt that they can manage careers - but
>blurring out the differencies destroys the sexual drive of both
>man and woman -
Au contraire.  Career women typically have greater sexual drive.  In fact,
like many men, success careerwise is often a sublimation of the sex drive.

>the woman needs to admire and respect her husband and to be protected
>by him -
And there's the reason marriage is down and divorce up: women DON'T admire
and respect men.  Can you guess why?  The average man isn't worthy, and they
won't stand for it anymore.  Would you?  Try sharing a flat with a male
friend for a few years and see how much you admire and respect him at the
end of it.

>the man needs her admiration and her warmth and to feel protective.
He'd better do something to deserve it then instead of whining here.

>I really think that things are exactly as simple as that.
Grow up.  Talk to some women with the patience to explain it to you.

>I personally would have liked things different - how do you feel,
>honestly?
>
I can't speak for the sexual side, being physically attracted only to women,
but there are very few men of my acquaintance that I'd be prepared to live
with

  From the UK phone book Yellow Pages:  BORING - see Civil Engineers

  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033
  [e-mail]                                          fax 6040