Seraph, I would say that if a culture is putting women on a pedestal, look more deeply and one will find someplace where that same culture is also demonizing and or discounting the feminine. The pedestal is merely overcompensation imo. I have come to the conclusion that in general deification equals demonization.
Additionally, I think it has to do with the body spirit split. We westerners tend to demonize the body, matter, the physical and deify the spiritual, the non material. Somehow when patriarchy emerged, the feminine came to be identified with the former and the masculine came to be identified with the latter and thus with higher status. All very screwy if you ask me! I do think it is a matter of biology. For example, there are chemical changes that occur in a female that cause her to bond more readily than the male. I think this is important for a woman to consider even if there is no risk of disease and even if there is no chance of pregnancy. Also and more importantly, I believe that a woman takes on a man's karma when they have intercourse. IMO this is really important for a woman to consider even if no disease and no pregnancy are guaranteed. On Saturday, January 18, 2014 9:45 PM, "s3raph...@yahoo.com" <s3raph...@yahoo.com> wrote: "Marriage is for women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution." - Bertrand Russell The human race has emerged from prehistory and has developed its culture for millennia but we're still confused about sex. I mean what could be simpler? Boy meets girl. Then . . . well you know what. Why is something as elementary and essential as the attraction between the sexes still a battlefield and the source of constant disputes (the "War of the Sexes")? I've sometimes wondered if the problem is "equality" - the idea that men and women must be regarded as equal in all respects. If we allow ourselves to generalise, men do *seem* to be more promiscuous than women; women do *seem* to be looking for a permanent partner. (Proof? Gay males have far more partners and far more sex than straight men. Lesbians have far less sex than any other group. Heterosexuals lie between those two figures.) This difference was recognised in the Victorian period when a marriage between a man and woman was assumed to be permanent (and divorces were regarded as scandalous) but at the same time there was an army of prostitutes to satisfy the novelty-seeking desires of the male population. I don't have an answer to the discrepancy - I just think we should look at the issue with wide-open eyes. Maybe it is just a result of women having being controlled by men for centuries; men who had their supremacy recognised by law. Now that that patriarchy is breaking down the differences between the sexual habits of men and women *may* vanish completely. But I certainly don't rule out the idea that such differences are rooted in biology. There are some wonderful ironies here. Is putting women on a pedestal (as happened in the 19th century with the "cult of the lady" an acknowledgment of women's superiority (or at least equality) or is it a cunning (probably subconscious) put down? I've quoted Malcolm Muggeridge twice before on FFL. Here it is again: "It's impossible to string together three consecutive sentences about sex without making a complete hypocrite of yourself." This post must make me guilty as charged. One thing is for sure: the sexual utopia envisaged by the sixties revolutionaries has failed to materialise. On the other hand the days when a woman could die from "sexual hysteria" (it really did happen - see Ruskin's infatuation with Rose La Touche) are long gone! Reply
