YOU Did What? YOU Are MY WOMAN! How Can I Respect YOU Now!
The OLD DOUBLE STANDARD Is Alive And Kicking! Oh No, Say It AIN'T So!
The old double standard- it seems to be very much alive and well. Hell, I thought the double standard, at least in the Western, postmodern, and postindustrialized world was going through its death tremors! It is widely assumed that the postmodern male is totally unconcerned about how many partners his wife and/or significant other was involved in before the current relationship.
After all, this postmodern male contends that it is none of his business regarding the past relationships of his wife and/or significant other. He is of the school that if he had a variety of sexual partners, his wife and/or significant other probably had plenty of relationships also. In his estimation, to think otherwise would be considered to be quite medieval indeed.
According to this postmodern male, any right thinking male does not demand that a woman have few or no sexual relationships. He knows that women are as much sexual beings as he is. The premise that women do not have many sexual relationships or avidly enjoy sex to him is quite antediluvian to say the least. His question would be, " Do SUCH men still EXIST?"
Sadly, such men STILL exist! Yes, there are some men who strongly contend that as men, they have the unmitigated right to score as with many women as they wish. Their reasoning is that since the male is the more "dominant" and "aggressive" sex, this gives them to right to conquer- and also subdue.
There are proponents, male and female, who strongly assert that men definitely are more sexualized than women. They further proclaim that it is quite natural for men to have multiple partners. After all, they surmise that this is part of being a man. These are also the same proponents who maintain that as men are the "dominant" gender, they, ins essence, own the sexual game.
In fact, many of these proponents strongly believe that if a man does not have a wide variety of sexual experiences, he is definitely not up on the sexual game. Their contention it is quite natural for men to be in the prowl and to experience life to its virile fullness. If a man is not up on his sexual game, this is interpreted to mean that his sexuality is somewhat suspect. He is viewed than less than a man- a milksop, pantywaist , and/or pejorative names!
Let me not digress. There are some men in this postmodern age who strongly believe that they are the bosses, chiefs, and the conqueror. Do you hear their premise, " ME, TARZAN, AM IN CHARGE-YOU, JANE, SUBMIT! Yes, Virginia dear, there are still some men like this!
These men assert that they can do whatever THEY want sexually but if a woman does the same, WOE betide her! To such men, a woman who has equal sexual experiences as he has is deemed to be quite a disreputable woman at best and a total slut and/or whore at worst. To these men, a woman is supposed to be as "wholesome" and "virtuous" as possible. This is translated that she should have as few sexual experiences and partners as possible.
There are men who subconsciously view women as property. To them, women are supposed to be appendages of them, not individual people. Men can do what they want, after all, boys will be boys and men will be men but women- oh no, they are supposed to be "above all of that". At least, the "good" ones, their girlfriends and/or significant others, especially if she is about to become a permanent significant other whether a wife and/or commital other.
Some men view their significant others as a badge to be show to the world. In their eyes, the "purer" the significant other is, the more esteemed he feels. Instead of being viewed as an independent human being with sexual wants and experiences of her own, the significant other is placed on an unattainable pedestal. She is elevated to exalted status. She is indeed considered to be one in a million, a priceless jewel.
Then there are other men who want to control and to be up on their significant other. If their significant other has less sexual experience and/or partners than they do, they do not feel threatened. In fact, they feel quite masculine and in charge of the situation. They want a less sexually experience women who they can "teach" and "mold" their significant others to their methodology and ways. They want to be in the sexual driver's seat so to speak.
If such men by happenstance enter into a relationship with a woman with equal and/or more sexual experience, they feel that they have lost their male sexual hegemony. They want to be the experienced ones, not the signficant other. Only a small percentage of men are quite comfortable with women, particularly significant others, with equal or more sexual experience and/or partners than they have. Some men subconsciously have the Madonna-whore complex. In their eyes, it it okay that women have sexual partners and experiences as long as it is not "too many."
To many men, even in this day and age, women are "not supposed" to have many sexual experiences and/or partners. The male ego can be such a fickle thing. Yes, there are men who deem women as their property and possession. Well, if not overtly then it is covertly. This ownership seems to be an inheritance from Neantherthal Days- YOU ARE MINE!
This sense of ownership explains why some men actually become quite unhinged if a commital/significant other, whether temporary or permanent, decides to divulge her past sexual affairs and/or escapades. It is if this commital/significant other was a mass murderer. To such men, how could she "defile" herself. There are still some men who would without hesitation discontinue a relationship if he discovers that the commital/significant other has the type of sexual experiences and/or partners which is not to his purported liking and/or approval.
To such men, such women would not be deemed commital material. These men strongly maintain that such women are good for dalliances but not as serious commital material. After all, they assert that a wife and mother must be the "very best" and "virtuous" person and anything less would definitely not do. In the movie SHE'S GOTTA HAVE IT, one of the male characters stated that a freak is fine for fun but no man want a freak for a wife!
It seems that on the average, some men are less forgiving of a woman's "wild" past than vice versa. It seems that more women are extremely forgiving of their commital/significant others' "wild" past. Their reasoning is that "Well, what HE did before me is definitely none of my business, you know, boys/men will be boys/men"!
Women seem to be more acceptable of men's varied sexual experiences than men are of women's varied sexual experiences. The response of some men is ," YOU are MY WOMAN, not Bill's, Bob's, and/or Jackson's woman. How MANY did YOU really sleep with, huh? Were THEY better than I was? Boy, YOU had me fooled!" Women are still equated to chattel ownership, nonentities so to speak! Some men are so delusional to think that they own a woman's sexuality to say the least.
Many men are quite hypocritical regarding the sexual arena. They see nothing wrong with having a lot of sexual experiences. After all, they are the "dominant" sex which gives them the right to pursue and conquer as much women as they please. They assert that they have the male prerogative to have as many experiences with many women as they please.
However, these same men take an extreme umbrage of women, particularly their commital/significant others do the same. In essence, what is deemed good and delectable for the goose is forbidden and prohibited for the gander. These are the same men who strongly assert that women, especially their commital/significant others, must be somewhat more "virtuous" and " more contained" in the sexual arena. After all, their commital/significant others should be different from the "wild" sexual women out there! The commital/significant others are "their" property and possession and should reflect "well" upon them. In essence, these men insist that they want women "they can admire and look up to" and "respect", not "mere whores" .
In summation, the double standard is thriving. While there are many men who are not threatened by women, particularly commital/significant others, who had a myriad of sexual experiences and partners, there are others who seem to become quite unhinged at the mention of such. There are a few men who believe that women fit into the Madonna-whore spectrum. They assert that either a woman is virtuous or a complete whore, nothing in between. There are other men who assert that it is quite permissible that women have sexual partners and/or experiences but "it should not be too much and too many."
There are men who subconsciously view women as objects and possessions instead of individuals with their own sexual needs and desires. Many men view highly sexual experienced women as threats to their male sexual hegemony. Their ideal woman is one whom they can complete sexually subjugate to their whims.
A woman who is highly sexual experienced cannot be easily subjugated, if at all. This woman knows what she wants and refuse to suffer sexual fools gladly. Furthermore, this woman does not consider herself to be any man's sexual property. In fact, she is her own sexual persona and many men, even some of the most liberated, simply cannot understand this premise at all! The man who is quite comfortable with a highly sexual experienced woman is quite a gem indeed. Now, HE is the real definition of what a man is and/or should be!