Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    (I am assuming a definition for "sexuality" of something akin
    to "feeling free enough to admit strong sexual feelings." I
    also have answered the only way I can, from personal
    experience, rather than "this is how it is for all women.") 

re Note 822.0 by YODA::BARANSKI

> In What ways is the sexuality of women suppressed?

    My parents were quite good about teaching me about sex and
    reproduction, although I knew that it embarrassed them quite
    a bit to talk about it.  During my early teenage years, when
    I asked questions pertaining more to sensuality/sexuality
    than to sex, they seemed even more embarrassed.  When I felt
    my first really tremendous sexual attraction for a boy, at
    age 17, I simply felt unable to talk to them about it, or ask
    their opinion on how to handle it; in some sense, I already
    knew their answer would be along the lines of "don't touch,
    too dangerous."  (I had had such feelings for girls for
    several years before that, but cautious testing of the waters
    convinced me that my parents could not talk about that
    either, and my friends found it either baffling or abhorrent.)

    I know from many men that they were brought up about the same
    way.  I don't think boys have many advantages over girls in
    learning about sensuality or sexuality from parents.
    However, some boys reportedly have a peer group which
    discusses sex and sexuality ("locker-room" talk).  I have
    heard (from men) that "when women get together they talk just
    as raunchy about men as we do about women."  Maybe some women
    do; the girls I grew up with *never* talked about sex except
    in extremely vague and euphemistic terms.  Among women now,
    we do occasionally talk about sex, less vaguely, but still
    quite euphemistically.

    So I'd say that a lot of my sexuality was suppressed simply
    because it wasn't acknowledged.  Note that I didn't grow up
    in "the dark ages," whenever those were, I am 28 and grew up
    in the supposedly sexually liberated 1960s and 1970s. And
    even though it is difficult for me to express my own
    sexuality in many (appropriate) cases, I'm also pretty sure
    that I'm still freer in this respect than many women about my
    own age. 

> ...How can this be corrected?

    In my case, a good start came in the person of another
    individual, a warm, understanding, uninhibited lover who
    introduced me to sensuality and sexuality several years after
    I'd started "having sex."  I also find that reading about
    other women's experiences, fantasies, and thoughts helps.  I
    expect discussing it in person with other women would be even
    better, but it would be very hard for me, and perhaps for
    most people, to discuss such an emotionally charged subject
    in public. 

> I've heard it told to me that this is another case of men oppressing women.
> I doubt it.  I can't see the motive resting solely on men.

    Well...we could say that the problem is "society," but
    society is just people, no?  And whoever's in power is least
    likely to want it to change, no?  And it does seem to me that
    men have more of the power in our society, so if we're going
    to change it, we have to convince those who have the most
    power--men, especially white men, upper and middle-class
    men--that any change is for their benefit also. 

> Seriously, why do you suppose that men in particular do not want women to be
> sexual?  ...The only reason I can think of for suppressing female sexuality is
> a motive irrespective of sex.

    I don't know.  I do know that most of my male lovers have
    preferred a woman who was "a lady in public and a whore in
    private."  I read that as "non-sexual around my (male)
    friends, but highly sexual with me, at least when I'm in the
    mood for it."  I can't buy into that anymore.  Certainly not
    *all* men are that way...but *none* of my female lovers have
    been that way.  Chance? 

> That reason is that if young men and women are equally sexual, historically
> speaking if a pregnancy occurs, the problem is going to come to roost with the
> family of the girl, not the boy.  For this motive, *everyone* involved with 
> the girl may try to suppress her sexually.

    This answer has always felt like so much bull to me.  If past
    cultures were so concerned with female sexuality and
    pregnancy, why not teach children about ways of expressing
    sexuality that don't risk pregnancy?  It's got to be a lot
    easier than trying to convince an adolescent that she or he
    shouldn't be "doing it" at all!  Historically speaking, 
    not all contraceptive techniques were invented in the last
    few decades.  Oral sex is a great "contraceptive technique,"
    possibly more pleasurable than "real" sex for many women, and
    certainly some men prefer it as well.  Surely people have
    known about oral sex nearly as long as they've had enough
    intelligence to worry about who's going to take care of the
    baby?  Or why not teach children that "sensual sex" is what
    one does with others of one's own sex, and "reproductive sex"
    is what one does with the opposite sex?  Not my choice,
    but it also seems like it would be easier than trying to
    suppress it altogether. Many cultures in the past have had
    few qualms about exposing unwanted children (of either sex);
    have they also been willing to allow women full expression of
    their sexuality?  If the only concern was with unwanted
    children, why not? 

    -- Linda

    My understanding of the suppression of female sexuality linked it
    to patriarchal society. If inheritance etc flows through the male
    line, then a male must know who his offspring are. He won't know
    if the women have sex with anyone they want to. Women are thus taught
    that having sex out of wedlock is wrong (no legally defined father
    - no means to trace paternity) and the means of enforcing this is
    to teach negative images of sex to combat our natural drives.
    
    Face it, if society didn't teach us that the biological father of a child is
    important, there would be no reason to worry about who he was. And
    then no reason to worry about how the child was conceived, and perhaps
    no reason to repress sex until marriage. But it is important in
    a patriarchal society. And if women have many lovers, there's no
    telling who that father is. The best way to discourage something
    that's fun and instinctively pleasurable is to create horrible taboo
    images. And boy, does it work!                       
    
    I'm not really sure how to combat this. I didn't mean to equate
    sexual liberation with multiple partners, but they may be related.
    
    Another thing to remember. The point of marrying a virgin ENSURED
    that any offspring was definitely the husband's. (It must have been
    inconceivable that she would fool around once she was married!)
    Anyone who has read about the birth of King Arthur will remember
    this.
    
    LKF 

    I heard [from somebody who is familiar with biological research],
    of a genetic study that reached the following conclusion:
    
    10% of the population is not genetically related to the person who is
    supposedly the biological father.
    
		bruce

    I've always thought it funny that *men must marry a virgin in order
    to insure that any children are "his"*.  He could simply refrain
    from intercourse till the woman had had her next periode (or two
    if he's parinoid!).  Of course, the woman would then have to be
    kept under lock and key to be sure she didn't "see" anyone else,
    but since this attitude came mainly from the past patriarchial
    societies, and the woman WAS often literally locked up anyways,
    the only difference would be that the man would have to refrain
    from exercising his RIGHT to HER body for a month or so.  
    
    Guess finding a virgin was easier than denying himself one of his
    god-given rights.

    Of course, the males I hang out with don't talk about sex much, if at
    all.  This really sounds like just another generality, which can
    be argued either way successfully.

    Well, while in actuality locking the woman up for a month or two
    would be sufficient to guarantee paternity, it was not seen that
    way.  There was a belief -- and you can still find it today -- that
    a man's seed hangs around for longer than a few days.  Which is
    why widows are supposed to remain in mourning (i.e., not marry)
    for at least a year.
    
    Also, "virginity" is promoted as a mystical concept of inarticulable
    importance.  But locking a woman up for two months makes it *very*
    clear what the motivation is, and "we" wouldn't want that, now,
    would "we"?
    
    						Ann B.

    Re .0, I think that even today that *most people* tend to be more
    shocked to hear about a woman who has had a lot of sexual exploits
    than they do a man.  I think the most obvious, and easiest way of
    suppressing female sexuality is to make women think that other people
    will think less of them if they are thought to be sexually free.
    
    When I was a teenager growing up in a small Mass. town in the 60's,
    it was impressed upon me that I had to be afraid of getting a "bad
    reputation" and not being considered a "nice girl".
    
    My mother had told me that I most likely wouldn't enjoy sex and
    that if I ever got pregnant without being married, that she didn't
    want me to come home and tell her.  
    
    After high school a friend and I used to hang out with a bunch of
    guys who knew a girl they used to call "Rag" because she had had
    sex with so many of the guys.  I thought they were mean, and felt
    bad for her, but made up my mind that I definitely would never have
    sex with more than *one* of the guys in that crowd.
    
    I think that suppression of female sexuality has just been another
    way for men to have control over women.  Women used to need husbands
    in order to support them through life.  Men didn't marry women who
    were considered tramps (which was any woman who had sex with more
    than one man or even one man if she wasn't married).   It's a way
    to keep a woman in line if she knows that if she fools around on
    the side she'll get thrown out of the house and have no money and
    no job.  
    
    Lorna
    

    Oddly enough, as freely as I converse on almost any topic, I have
    never covered this particular idea, particularly as to its relation
    in my life.  There was a point, when I was much younger, that I
    too had been raised with the idea that "sex" was NOT something nice
    girls even thought about--romance and "pure" love was fine, but
    sex had nothing to do with it.  When I ran across the word
    "masturbation" and asked my mother what it meant, she was shocked
    beyond belief.  I ended up looking the word up in the dictionary,
    although I didn't know girls "could" until AFTER I WAS MARRIED.
    My husband had to convince me that such a thing was possible for
    women as well as for men!  Orgasm was another item that was taboo.
     Again, I thought it was for men only.  What a surprise to learn
    that I too could experience such a sensation!  Now, many years later,
    I have discovered myself married to a wonderful man who believes
    women should be sexual, and encourages me to express myself sexually
    in all ways but one.  If I am feeling "turned on" and approach my
    husband first, he has a tendency to back off.  After two years of
    marriage, he's gradually accepting the fact that sometimes I want
    to be the person to initiate sexual intimacies, but I sense that
    there is still a slight hesitancy on his part, and it lessens the
    feeling of the moment for me.  We've talked about it, and I understand
    that it's partly his upbringing, and it's partly a sense of insecurity
    he's had due to a physical disability, but understanding about it
    and sharing the feelings still doesn't change the way I feel when
    it happens.  I hope that my daughters won't have to feel the same
    way.  I've brought them up to feel that it's right to express their
    sexuality, and they seem to be a lot healthier for not being tabooed
    to death.
    
    Barb
    

    re .10, Barbara
    
    Wow!  I too did not know that women had orgasms or that they
    masturbated (though I _did_ find out before I got married: thanks
    to _Our_Bodies_Ourselves_).
    
    Re: the man backing off when I make sexual "overtures" - this has
    happened to me with a number of lovers.  It leaves me terribly
    insecure, especially since most of these men have told me more than
    once that having their lover be aggressive sexually is a major fantasy
    of theirs.  I love to hear that, because I do enjoy taking _my_
    turn initiating.  
    
    When they back off because of my aggression, the feelings I get are: 
    insecurity (you said you _liked_ that; am I doing something wrong?  
    or am I so terribly repulsive that I cannot arouse you even by
    invoking one of your "favorite fantasies"?), and betrayal (you said
    you liked this but that is not true and now I feel bad because of
    an untruth you told me).
    
    I understand (all too well) how yuchy it is to have a lover be
    aggressive and tenacious when you are uninterested in sex, but I'd
    still like to be able to initiate _some_ of the time.
    
    Lee

    	It is not uncommon for what someone fantasizes in their mind
    	to cause no reaction or a negative one when it occurs in real
    	life.  Don't assume that when someone tells you their fantasies
    	that they actually want you to enact them.
    
    	Regarding this topic, I think sexuality ( as opposed to reproduction )
    	should be discussed in mandatory sex ed classes at the high school or
    	college level.  However if done in high schools, alot of parents
    	would probably object.
    		Linda

    Lee,
    
    I to like my woman to be agressive; however not all of the time.
    
    My wife and I have reached a compromise where we are each agressive
    some of the time.  I believe that I could not be comfortable with
    any woman who was agressive all of the time.
    
    BTW my wife is Lee Ann.  Lee Ann had been married twice before and
    had never experienced an orgasm during those years.  I taught her
    to take what she needed, and that worked for her, but since we are
    friends, that helps because we talk things out, and there times
    when she is too agressive and I usually can not respond.  We just
    wait things out and everything works A-ok.
    
    Good Luck,
    
    Dave