andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) (01/31/86)
Relationships between men and women in our society are based on what
at least one book called "coercive sexuality". My interpretation of that
term is as follows. The man is supposedly the one who WANTS sex [a date,
a smile, physical affection, etc.], and it is his role to COERCE the woman
into GRANTING him what he wants. The "price of coercive sexuality" is
that men will associate their masculinity with their supposed raging
desire for sex, and will assert it by taking sex even where it is not
granted, by rape.
However, we cannot say that men are the only ones contributing to the
system of coercive sexuality. If you went up to typical happy couples on
the street, and asked which one of them asked the other out first, I bet
that 99% of them would say "he did". What this says to me is that although
(as we know) women are more free now to ask men out, they still don't make
significant advances such as making the first date.
In article <120@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>When I walk into a room, I must be careful not to make eye-contact with
>men. That is interpreted as an invitation. ... Yet
>men may gaze freely at me. I certainly have no right to stop them.
But consider the corresponding problem for men. If they don't fit
in to the system of coercion, if they are shy and don't often voluntarily
"gaze" at women, they get very few opportunities to start relationships
with women; and if women are always averting their eyes, the women aren't
helping.
The relatively few "passive" men and the relatively few "aggressive"
women cannot be guaranteed to match up perfectly. So men learn very
quickly that if they take up a passive, traditionally "feminine" role,
they develop few satisfying relationships. Men learn that the more
aggressive they are, the more gazing they do, the more women they approach
on the beach, the greater are the chances of a good relationship in their
lives -- *whatever* that means to them, whether purely sexual or whether
romantic and affectionate.
>I haven't really "lost" a "freedom" here, since I can, in fact, look at
>anybody I want to at any time. However, then I am damned for a "tease" by
>those who take my look as an invitation, and are subsequently rejected for
>their unwanted advances. Therefore, I am free to act as I please, but I
>have to suffer different consequences for the same action because of my
>sex.
If you accept this restriction that is placed on you, you are only
contributing to the problem. I suggest that you instead do whatever you
want. If you get advances, or are accused of being a tease, inform your
harasser that he doesn't have to push you; that you're a liberated woman,
and if you want to get to know him better you'll ask him. But by all means,
only say that when you've thought about it enough to be sincere.
--Jamie.
...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
"The winter evening settles down with smells of steaks in passageways"