On 7/29/06, Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Doyle Saylor wrote:
> One hundred years ago 'free love' was the socialist sort of tangent to
> conventional bourgeois love.
The problem with "free love" then was that it tended to be _free_ only
for men.
The first wave of feminists largely thought so, and they tried to make
men live up to the standard of social and sexual monogamy then
expected of women. They failed.
Debatably, that is still the case.
Abortion, contraception, divorce, etc. imho, have more or less
levelled the playing field at least for childfree women in rich
nations. If childfree women in rich nations are still not taking
advantage of the newly level playing field, that probably has more to
do with sexist socialization of girls and boys than any material
obstacles. Once women bear children, though, their leisure time goes
down, for they get saddled with much of care-giving, and so do their
chances for sexual enjoyment probably.
In at least two respects, however, penalties for men loving "freely"
are higher for men than women in rich nations:
Boys tend to get fag-baited more than girls get dyke-baited.
Men who have sex with underage girls and (worse) boys are dangerous
sexual predators who must be always punished; women who have sex with
underage boys and girls aren't always.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
