Entitlement and sex
by Jennifer Kesler
In various threads, we’ve had some discussion about whether women can naturally be as perverted as men are. For example, can a psychologically healthy woman enjoy sleeping around the way men do? Why do we brand her “lacking in self-esteem” or “slut”, while men engaging in the same behavior are viewed as perfectly normal for their gender? Does having a penis really make your sexual behavior different?
Or is it the sense of entitlement that goes with having that penis?
Living in Los Angeles, and having worked around some of the people I’ve worked around, I’ve been aware of a number of women born to wealth, privilege and a sense of their families being above the law, who pursue sex very much the way horny guys in bars do. They pick up guys they find hot, then love ‘em and leave ‘em. They say they’ll call again, but they don’t. They juggle several boyfriends at a time, and if any of the boyfriends are unlucky enough to think they were exclusive, the women just shrug and say, “We never said that, did we?” In short, rich, privileged women often treat men just the way womanizers treat women. I guess you could call them “manizers”? Or can we call women “players”?
Because no one will ever call these rich women sluts. Or if they do, they can’t hurt her. She’s at no risk of losing a job or public status. Her money and family name entitle her to behave any way she likes. Mummy and Daddy may not approve, but they’ll keep that disapproval within the family. And if her behavior has consequences, money and power ensure there will always be a way to fix it up nicely in the end.
And there’s that word: “entitle”. Even the lowest of men is entitled to go to a bar and see if he can pick up chicks, no strings attached, without risking public censure if anyone finds out about it later (excluding situations in which the man is, say, married or works for a religious organization). Men are entitled to behave like this because our patriarchal society has entitled them to it, and by and large, we all buy into it. Women are not entitled to behave this way. Women who sleep around risk a loss of respect from anyone who finds out: the boss, the person who’s approving her mortgage, her family, her friends. Even a future husband.
But rich and powerful people – that top 5% that uses 25% of the earth’s resources – live above the patriarchy. Women in that subset are entitled by money and status to sleep around any way they see fit. There may be tabloid gossip about it for the lower 95% to bitch at cathartically, but why would any member of the top 5% care what we peons think of them? None of our disapproval can touch them in any meaningful way.
The only biological factor that could inherently impact a woman’s sexual attitudes is the possibility of rape or other violence. Since men make up something like 98% of our violent prison population, obviously an informed woman must realize that sleeping with strangers puts her at greater risk than a man puts himself at sleeping with strange women. But does this preclude a woman from engaging in the stereotypically male behaviors of cultivating multiple boyfriends, or dumping a man as soon as she’s gotten the sex she came for? No. And do women have inherent desires to do these perverted things? The entitled ones often do.
Related posts:
- Entitlement & Punishment
- Dolores Claiborne: entitlement
- Let’s Talk About Sex, Lies and Exploitation
- Everybody Loves Raymond – the sex talk
- How the pill revolutionized sex… for men
Posted in Ponderables on April 17, 2006 
Subscribe to RSS feed
Submit Article: Stumble it! | Del.icio.us |
Reddit | Digg
Subscribe to Hathor's 
April 17th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
That makes me think of an book called ‘Queen Bees and Wannabes’ about tenagers in American high school written by a councellor, and one of the things she got into was that promiscous behaviour was much more tolerated among the popular girls (who tended to be the richer and prettier ones). I wonder how much more tolerated that kind of behaviour is from women who are born into wealth (after all, Paris Hilton has a rep for being more tacky and tastless then SLUTTY, per se) then women who have created their own wealth, especially out of dubious means (I’m thinking of Lara Flynn Boyle’s character from Las Vegas). But I definitely think money protects a woman from the insults that a poor/middle-class womn gets for the same behaviour. I guess because the patriarchy is basically about money and power, and whatever woman happens to get hold of that rarified money and power (particularly if she comes from a family that’s had it for a while) enjoys the same immumnity for gossip/social persecution that all men do.
But the emphasis is on ALL MEN. The poorest of the poor men of any race enjoy the right to sleep with whoever they please without risk of persecution. But a woman has to be rich and powerful to enjoy the same rights. I suppose a woman is entitled to the provlidges of the patriarchy IF she meets the patriarchy’s ultimate goals and its reason for existing – but men can enjoy them regardless.
April 18th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
I think that culture influences “gender roles,” but I would not dismiss biology as being irrelevant. Also, culture and biology are not separate but rather recursive; biology shapes culture, which affects biology. Biology determines the raw material with which culture can work; likewise, culture influences which traits have the greatest reproductive success and therefore influences the direction of natural selection.
In this particular case, it ought to be remembered that one of the roles that males play in the human species is that of co-provider, and much of human sexuality involves keeping men and women together in a relationship so that any children will have two providers. The more important having two providers is (now and historically ), the more important it is from a biological standpoint for a woman to be able to form a long-term relationship with a man; and the more important it is for a man to make certain that the children he thinks are his are his (as he is investing a lot of time in them).
It should be noted that in many areas of Africa, female promiscuity is considered the norm. In these areas, men often have little or no responsibility toward their offspring and women do 80% of the work. These things feed each other; if a man doesn’t invest much in his children, he is less concerned with making certain they are his; and if a woman can provide for her offspring sufficiently on her own, there is less need to convince a man to have a relationship with promises of infidelity.
In any case, there are biological reason for rich women to be more “man-like” than not-rich women. Finding a co-provider is less of an issue, so she can be more concerned with things like looks. Moreover, she can be more promiscuous, because she doesn’t need to trade the promise of her fidelity in return for a long-term relationship with a provider.
April 18th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
You might be interested in this post of mine from a while back.
I basically argue that why polyandry as well as polygyny would be likely to occur in the U.S. if polygamy were made legal.
April 18th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
If biology influences culture, what exactly is the biology behind racism? If we have a patriarchy because men are biologically patriarchal (correct me if I’m misinterpreting your point), then do we have a White is Right culture because, well… white is right?
I don’t think this question is irrelevant: if biology shapes the male-dominant power structure, then it must also shape the other race power hierarchy as well.
Another question: how come American society and the African society you describe have such different attitudes toward patriarchy and female sexuality? I’m sure you didn’t mean to imply there’s something inherently different between Indo-European and African biology, but I wasn’t clear on just what the comparison was telling us. It seems to me if you’re saying biology instigates culture, and Africans and Americans share the same biology, shouldn’t they have the same culture?
Again, your privilege as a male makes it very comfortable for you to assert that the culture is right and based on unassailable biology; but I can’t help thinking of the outrage of white males who have found themselves beaten out of jobs by more qualified Asians, Indians, blacks and other races.
April 19th, 2006 at 12:02 am
That didn’t answer a single question I put to you in my other comment. Oh, well.
I question most of your premises in that article. You make several blanket statements – for example, that America is more tolerant of female “promiscuity”, even though the very use of the word “promiscuous” (reserved almost exclusively for females), suggests otherwise.
Then you base your “tolerance for promiscuity” argument on the national fascination with Paris Hilton. Which is at least relevant to my initial post, since the fascination with her has more to do with her entitlement: her right to behave a certain way, more than the behavior itself.
You say “Women are considered to have a lot more rights vis-a-vis their husbands.” I assume you mean compared to nations like Saudi Arabia, which is fair enough, perhaps. But marital rape was still a legally ensured right for husbands in many US states as recently as the past 20 years, and I’m not sure it’s criminalized yet in all 50 states), so I don’t share your confidence. I mean, polygamy already is tolerated even if it’s not strictly legal, yet polyandry is absolutely not.
And then there’s this little gem:
Hmm. Is this satire? Many women I know would be relieved to finally be getting laid as much as they like, and without their mate needing an insurance-covered Viagra to get his tool up. You do realize the male sex drive declines steadily after age 18, while the female is just getting into high gear at 35?
April 19th, 2006 at 6:05 am
If biology influences culture, what exactly is the biology behind racism?
Races are essentially extended families. To the extent that people tend to prefer their own race they do so for the same reason they tend to prefer their family to non-family members. (This is why gangs and mafias tend to segregate along racial lines).
then do we have a White is Right culture because, well… white is right?
We have a White is Right culture because the majority of the people in the culture are white, and this particular culture was created mostly by whites. People tend to view their own race as “better” than others. If you were in a third world country dominated by a non-white group, most likely the dominant group considers itself superior – and is probably not ashamed at all to say so.
Another question: how come American society and the African society you describe have such different attitudes toward patriarchy and female sexuality? I’m sure you didn’t mean to imply there’s something inherently different between Indo-European and African biology, but I wasn’t clear on just what the comparison was telling us.
The difference is that historically, food has been much more plentiful in tropical areas than in Europe, and the climate much friendlier (i.e. no winters). This means that it was much less important for families to have two providers in Africa than it was in Europe, where people needed warm shelters and to store food for several months in the winter. This influenced the culture, and probably the biology as well, to the extent that monogamy has a genetic component.
Again, your privilege as a male makes it very comfortable for you to assert that the culture is right and based on unassailable biology
Based on biology is not the same thing as right. “Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above,” as Katherine Hepburn would say. Nor does something being based in biology mean that there is no way to control it or suppress it or that doing so is not a good idea. I just think that considering both biological and societal reasons is important if we want to understand behavior, and particularly if we want to figure out ways to alter behavior and society for the better.
April 19th, 2006 at 6:42 am
I’m sorry. This post was not intended as a reply to your post, the reply has since been added. I just pointed out that article because I am one of few, if not the only, “evolcons” (conservatives who analyze society in biological terms) who thinks that there are a significant number of women who would engage in polyandry if it were available.
You say “Women are considered to have a lot more rights vis-a-vis their husbands.†I assume you mean compared to nations like Saudi Arabia, which is fair enough, perhaps.
Well, yes, presumably the best compaison would be to other cultures where polygamy was considered acceptable.
Many women I know would be relieved to finally be getting laid as much as they like, and without their mate needing an insurance-covered Viagra to get his tool up. You do realize the male sex drive declines steadily after age 18, while the female is just getting into high gear at 35?
Well, then, another reason why polyandry might be more likely in the U.S. than people think.
While it is true that there is still a stigma attached to female promiscuity, higher than that attached to male promiscuity, I think that if polygamy were ever legalized and if polygyny became popular as a result, all of the unhappy mate-less males (because the alpha males have multiple wives) would cause enough societal discord that polyandry would be accepted in order to make certain that those who wanted one could find a mate.
April 19th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Oh, so this is all fact, is it? I certainly hope people don’t prefer family when it comes time to breed, although I know some do.
You do realize we are biological outbreeders, and therefore the best offspring is likely to be born of bi- or multi-racial parents? Where is that biology reflected in society? How do you get entire regions obsessed with inbreeding, if biology shapes culture?
And this is just a natural function of biology, is it? Interesting, because I never preferred white people to other races, even though I am white. The only difference I can think of is that I wasn’t taught to think that way. Which would make it – whoa, hey! – a cultural issue instead of biological.
Okay, you just totally proved yourself wrong, then tried to backtrack with mumbo jumbo. The needs of survival shaped culture in your examples, not biology. And your theory that this probably somehow impacted genes comes from nowhere.
And now we’re down to it: survival and competition shape culture. White men English, French and Spanish origin colononized/enslaved most of the world not because they were biologically or numerically superior to those they conquered, but because they were completely amoral in their quest for dominance. It’s all about competition, and the fact that when cheaters win, they are rewarded.
Culture keeps the rest of us nicely in place, thinking the way to fight cheaters is to play by the rules. Go to court and ask the very people who have marginalized you for a law to protect you. Sure, right.
I agree. I just think you’re coming at it from a strictly White Male Christian perspective, and you may not even be aware of the limitations on your perspective because that IS the lens through which our entire culture views itself. Revena explains the male lens of perception well: