Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Dichotomies, Dichotomies, Dichotomies!!!

About a week or so ago there was a lot of talk about dichotomies (which has more than likely cooled off by now, I hate having to schedule posts in order to spread out my content).

First Bridget Welch chimes in about the virgin/slut and protector/rapist dicotomies.

Then Ozy talks about the knight/beast dichotomy.

So why not join the fun?

As I'm sure most folks reading here are familiar the belief that when it comes to sex women are often held up in a dichotomy that says they are either perfectly pure and delicate virgin angels or down trodden dirty sluts. This is a view based on a woman's sexual activity (or lack thereof). So after wondering for a while and seeing a comment by the user Rapses over at Bridget's post I saw what I think may be the male equivalent of the virgin/slut.:
Answer: Pairing virgin-slut dichotomy for women with protector-rapist is oxymoron. Men are not responsible for protecting women who are not related to them and rape is a punishable offense. The male equivalent for this dichotomy is loser-stud.
Now I'm not certain the writer of that post was trying to say that protector/rapist was the equivalent of virgin/slut but I think that when you look at how male sexual activity is looked at Rapses correctly points out the male equivalent of the virgin/slut. The stud/loser.

The stud. We all know this guy. This is the guy who gains popularity by having lots of sex with lots of different women/girls. Sure he is often looked upon with admiration by other guys and looked up with captivation by women but is it really all that rosy on that side of the fence? Some think that the stud is getting all positive praise for his active sex life (while a similar woman is painted up to be a whore) but I'm not sure its that clear. If he weren't having said active sex life he would be looked down upon. Looked down upon as if he was less than a "real" man. Just as with women men are appraised based on their sex lives. If the stud was not having all that sex he would suddenly not be a man anymore. No he would indeed become a loser.

The loser. We know this guy as well. This is the guy who doesn't have lots of sex with lots of different women. And for not doing that he is looked down upon by other guys and by women. Yeah since he isn't out there trying to get with every woman/girl in sight something is apparently wrong with him. He doesn't want to have sex with (insert popular attractive actress)? Oh then he must be gay or something. Any "real" man would be interested in (insert popular attractive actress). Oh if only the loser would get out there and have sex with some woman, any woman, and he would finally become a "real" man.

And when you look at it there is a line up of insults waiting for both of them.

The stud must be afraid to commit. The loser must be gay (yes its wrong to use gay as an insult but bear in mind that the person that's saying it is saying because they want to insult the loser's sexual orientation). The stud is a dog. The loser immerses himself in geek/game/fantasy culture and no "real" man does that stuff. The stud never treats women right. The loser wouldn't know what to do if he were ever with a woman (because even in this age there is still a presumption that guy's are supposed to just "know" what to do in the bedroom). (I think that last reason is part of why a male's viginity is treated like a curse that must be dispelled).

A guy has lots of sex then he must be damaged. A guy doesn't have much sex (or none) then he must be damaged.

Now just to go back up to that "equivalent" bit I said.

1. For all that is holy no I am not trying to say that stud/loser is exactly the same as virgin/slut.
2. I'm not trying to say that one is worse than the other.
3. I'm not trying to say that one is more important to deal with that the other.

I'm just saying that when it comes to measuring the worth of a man or woman in terms of how much sex they have or do not have men face the stud/loser dichotomy and women face the virgin/slut dichotomy. They are both heavily restrictive and they both need to be done away with. I mean really, trying to measure the worth of a person by how much sex they have?

Bonus section: When it comes to how women are measured by how much sex they have and the way that affects men we see that we have women as virgin/slut and men as either beast/knight. When it comes to how men are measured by how much sex they have and the way that affects women we see that we have men as stud/loser and women as...?