Entitled to Sex? or "Fuck Him"; An Unorganized Bit of Theory on Female Evolution

Our society has somehow created a male mentality that they are entitled to sex. That they need it, deserve it, and shouldn't be denied it.

In high school boys only want girls if they'll put out. Once they do, they're used, dirty, slutty. Yet if they don't, they're prudish, teasing bitches. This trend doesn't really end after high school, it just goes on in different ways.

Case in point, my friend G recently tossed a guy who, after less than a few weeks, called her a cunt because she wouldn't have sex with him.

I'm not exactly what you'd call a raging feminist, but there are parts of our society that you can't deny, including the superiority men have had throughout most of our "civilized" history.

One of the worst products of that superiority, it seems to me, is the male viewpoint that sex is their right. I have no idea how this really came about, but it is one of the top things I blame for high incidences of rape as well as the Madonna-Whore idea, and women's inability to be sexually equal to men.

We have created every aspect of male mentality. Every sexual thing men think, we as a society have put there. We've taught men that they should be hunters. Why? More than likely, any primal society would have had both men and women hunters because everyone would have had to be put to work. Yet this mentality that men have to be in control is still there, because our past societies have put it there. Then there's the idea that men NEED sex, we put it there! Men don't need sex any more than women do, but we've given them this huge gap of logic when it comes to this area. Why?

There's no denying that women have different sex drives than men nowadays, but maybe that's society's fault too?

Perhaps women have been dealt the low hand in evolution. Maybe once upon a time women were as sexually active as any man standing next to them, because they got the same strong, evident urges as men do now, and were pleasured just as easily, were considered just as sexual.

When the more dominant patriarchal societies came along, and got more and more powerful, our sexuality became less needed. Over time as women were more and more often considered sexual objects instead of sexual beings (even, and especially, in religiously dominated societies such as the Christian Europe and Muslim Middle East), we had less and less use of our sexual pleasures, and evolution gave up on us.
While men continued to grow sexually, women were stunted. Sexual pleasure was no longer a value to women, it was a deformity, it became a liability and Mother Nature said "Well, if you don't want it..." and now women (while we still have sex, want it, and enjoy it) just aren't to par with male sexuality.
Part of that is in our mentality, yes, just like mens sexuality has been warped with myths about needed and deserving sex, ours has been tainted with thoughts of immorality and romance over sexuality. But that mental stunting wouldn't change so much of our physical inadequacies, would it?

Think I'm wrong about the inequality?
It could take a woman up to an hour to have a single orgasm, and not even through intercourse, while it takes most men ten minutes. I'm not saying the ridiculous stereotypes of women not needing or enjoying sex like men do are true, but there is a definite unbalance between the two which I think wasn't always there.

No matter how much we strive to own our sexuality. To love our bodies and take hold of our own orgasms, we've still been dealt the short stick.

FYI, we made 1327 hits in June!

An Apology. Actually, more of a Rant. Abstinence.

As anyone who's seen this whole page may know, at the bottom of my page I have a little ticker of News stories involving sex, romance, homosexuality, heath, etc. This is a blogger feature and I thought it was a nifty idea.

Unfortunately I can't screen these news stories. While attempting to update my stuff today, I watched the ticker for a bit to see what kind of stuff came up. One of the ones I tried out was called “Studies disagree on sex ed, abstinence” from the Journal Gazette in Indiana.

I just want to apologize to anyone who read that horrible article, and say how annoyed I am that it is on my site. It makes me very angry that I can't screen those articles, but hell, at least it gives me something to talk about.
So let's.

The main idea, at first, seemed to ask why 1 in 14 girls from 14 to 18 have an STD if the government is spending so much on Abstinence Only. I started out with a sort of Hurrah.

“Despite the millions of dollars spent each year on sex education, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that one in four teenage girls ages 14 to 18 has a sexually transmitted disease. What has gone wrong?“

See? Seems promising. It then, however, goes on to say how Planned Parenthood (hopefully we all know who they are) say that Abstinence Only is to blame, and that the Surgeon General last year pronounced the Abstinence Only campaign as ineffective. Which I actually didn't know, so at least I learned something.

However. Here it comes. The turn.
“There are numerous credible reports refuting the surgeon general’s findings.“

Wait, what?

“In 1999, a study was commissioned by the Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils based in Washington, “The Declines in Adolescent Pregnancy, Birth and Abortion Rates in the 1990s: What Factors Are Responsible?” by Jeffrey M. Jones, who has a medical degree and a Ph.D., and 10 other medical doctors.
While the study focused primarily on pregnancy, birth and abortion, its findings are applicable to sexually transmitted diseases because condoms are the primary tool used to prevent both pregnancy and STDs in teens. The document says in part that “the contention that these declines are due to increased contraceptive use by teenagers does not withstand critical analysis and review. … Abstinence and decreased sexual activity among sexually active adolescents are primarily responsible for the decline during the 1990s in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates. Attributing these declines to increased contraception is not supported by the data.””

First my jaw drops because they're trying to prove the Surgeon General wrong about abstinence! The fact that this study came out almost ten years ago, makes me surprised they can even use it as evidence. I mean, really, the 90's is when condoms became readily available to anyone who wanted them, of course pregnancy rates went down! The article even claims that ““the contention that these declines are due to increased contraceptive use by teenagers does not withstand critical analysis and review. … Abstinence and decreased sexual activity among sexually active adolescents are primarily responsible for the decline during the 1990s in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates. Attributing these declines to increased contraception is not supported by the data.”” That doesn't make any sense! They have no reason to imply that any of that drop was due to abstinence.

But then, the idea behind the studys proof! Oh my god!

“While the study focused primarily on pregnancy, birth and abortion, its findings are applicable to sexually transmitted diseases”

WHAT??!!
I can't believe they can legally claim to that.
In case you didn't know, STD's and pregnancy are not correlated. Let me tell you why.

First off, you do not not not to have to have INTERCOURSE to get an STD. You typically have to have intercourse to become pregnant. There are exceptions, but typically, thats what it takes. STDs are contracted through intercourse anal, oral, possibly other forms of foreplay. If a couple is using a condom during intercourse, but not during oral, Ta duh; limited pregnancies but lots of STDs! I can't believe this article claimed this correlation. It's horrifying.
But that really isn't the worst part of the story. Near the end they quote a “study” done, involving members of Virginity Pledges (maybe we'll talk about those some time, arg!).

“The 2001 study concludes with the following: “As a group of more than 2,000 physicians who deal daily with the ravages of STDs and teen pregnancy, we see a simple solution: abstinence until marriage with an uninfected partner and monogamy thereafter. This is the lifetime prescription for optimal sexual health.””

......
I am speechless.
What a horrible way to use “physicians” to push your ignorant and unrealistic opinions.

And then, even friggin better....
“Planned Parenthood and many other sex-education organizations promote condom use for “safer” teenage sex. But how much safer is sex using condoms? A study by the National Institutes for Sexual Health on condom effectiveness states that even with consistent and correct use, chlamydia, the No. 1 bacterial STD, is found to be prevented only 50 percent of the time. At the 2002 National STD Prevention Conference, it was stated that condoms are only 60 percent effective in preventing genital herpes, an incurable disease that infects one in five Americans age 12 and older.”

AAAAHHH!!! Luckily this is the last paragraph, because I don't think I could take any more ridiculous frustration. I have to explain this though, because they're using a semi-real statistic and twisting it to fit their ideas.
Condoms are NOT 100% effective in preventing STDs.
They aren't. That's the sad fact; nothing is. It just isn't possible yet. STDs are an epidemic.
But I have to address the two they point out. Chlamydia and Herpes, of course they aren't 100% prevented with condoms. What does a condom cover up? The penis. Where do skin based bacterial STDs like chlamydia and herpes typically live? Just about the entire genital area. Including what? The scrotum. And what is the scrotum doing during sex? Bouncing back and forth, completely uncovered, against the bottom of the vagina! Is that skin contact? Yes! Could you get an STD that way? YES!

The thing is that with condoms, you have a massively higher chance to NOT get an STD. This article is practically saying that they are useless! What kind of message is that sending our generations? That condoms aren't really that great so they shouldn't even bother??? Is this what we want them to think???
I hope not.

Now. I know I'm a bit angry as I write this, but hopefully it still makes sense. Please let me know if there are any mistakes or inaccuracies that need to be fixed.

I just really needed to rant.



Related Posts: The Sex Taboo, The Many Ways to Play Safe