I’m not entirely sure why this came to mind this afternoon, but in one of the early episodes of The Beverly Hillbillies (a ratings record-holder to this day), the Granny Clampett character chops up a bunch of firewood in the kitchen, throws it into the oven door of her fancy new electric stove, and lights it.
Smoke naturally fills the room. Granny’s conclusion: a) “folks call that a real stove;” b) “the stove is so ‘primitive’ it doesn’t even have a chimney;” c) it didn’t work the way she believed it should so it was a piece of crap.
When I talk about men indoctrinating themselves to believe that women are the “no-sex” class — innately disinterested in sex and therefore in need of continuous male management — I’m talking about the same mentality Granny Clampett brings to an electric stove: despite being perfectly functional she believes a stove must have a fire lit inside it in order for it to work. In fact she insists it must work that way despite considerable evidence to the contrary.
Sound familiar?
A couple of parallels: The Granny character is like a lot of social conservatives: to them it doesn’t matter what new capabilities might have been discovered, or developed — stoves (or women) simply shouldn’t be any other way than the old-fashioned way. Now a lot of liberal and progressive men think they’re way more with it when it comes to women but we’re generally more like the Jethro Bodine character: they put firewood in the oven and then turn on the broiler because that’s how you’re supposed to light a modern stove. But in either case it’s simply inconceivable that a stove might heat up without first sliding a little wood into it.
Sound familiar?
Now let’s think about the TV show for a few lesser parallels.” First, in the context of the show were the Beverly Hills millionaires the Clampetts wound up amidst any better connected to reality than their rustic neighbors? No. Were they any more admirable? No. Would there have been much of a show if either side had been either more flexible, less willful, or less thoroughly inculcated in their world-views? No. Would everybody have been better off if the hillbillies had adopted the Beverly Hills lifestyle? No. If the millionaires had adopted the Clampett’s Okie lifestyles? No. But might they have had less misunderstanding, fewer attempts to take advantage of each other’s cupidities and stupidities, and perhaps a more vibrant synthesis of cultures if they’d pulled their respective heads out of their butts and instead looked, listened, and learned instead of knee-jerk reacting to each other? Yes.
Sound familiar?
Tags:
Submitted by 1467 (not verified) on Thu, 2007-07-05 17:28.
The fact that heterosexual prostitution and pornography have historically (and I mean over the centuries) been much more oriented toward a male audience, not to say, consumption, is a good indicator of stronger (that is, more frequent) male demand and interest in these sorts of things.
I'm not sure this would be the case if women had more status, power and income. All the crap to stand out among many women, just to get laid, could be dispensed with; especially when women get older.
[I can't agree with you enough, Five. Assertions about prostitution or pornography, made without acknowledging simple structural economic and reproductive differences, simply aren't complete -- it's sort of like saying "the fact that historically wealthy people have owned diamond mines just goes to show that the poor aren't really that interested in diamonds or diamond mines." Now I'm pretty sure that's not what was meant. To me it just indicates how deep the "no-sex" class paradigm reaches. It also indicates that I need help articulating and spreading the word. Thanks! --fl]
Submitted by 1467 (not verified) on Mon, 2007-07-02 06:50.
"I think sex drives are as written in stone as is being a morning person or an evening person. It's simply what is."
I don't think I can agree with that, at least from my experience, I would say that libido can vary for people, sometimes quite dramatically over time.
[I agree that the variation over time is a) huge and b) incredibly overlooked. Thanks, A. --fl]
Submitted by 1467 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-07-01 10:04.
Very true, Figleaf....
But once again I go back to the basic necessity of man and women having similar sex drives...
A man who wants sex five times a week is much smarter if he finds a woman who feels the same way, rather than him pursuing a woman who only wants it once a week.
Compatibility in all things is very important to long-lasting success and happiness.
Emotional, intellectual financial and sexual ways of behaving all come into play.
I think sex drives are as written in stone as is being a morning person or an evening person. It's simply what is. You may "adapt" somewhat in the beginning of a relationship, but eventually who you really are comes back out.
So use your heads, men and women alike. Don't settle. Keep being open/looking for someone who really fits you, rather than trying to make somone fit simply because you are lonely, and think compromise will work...
It often doesn't. Not on something like that. On something like do we use blue tile or cream colored tile in the bathroom, it does....
[Now the big concern I have Annie, is that men may unintentionally *drive* their partners to want sex less often. Because at least in the beginning of relationships people seem pretty evenly matched. It's *possible* that women are just "going along to get along" early on... but if I was a man (hey, I *am* a man) I'd want to look and see if there wasn't something going on from *my* side... since that's the only side I can really do anything about. And the more I look the more "ah-ha" little self-induced gotcha's I keep uncovering. Thanks! --fl]
Submitted by 1467 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-07-03 17:57.
Oh figleaf, I love this post.
Sound familiar?
:o)
[Music to my ears, Cathy. Thank you. --fl]
Submitted by 1467 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-07-01 15:55.
Sweet simile!! Sex additudes like the Beverly Hillbillies. I like.
[Thanks, DFP! I worried I was going out on a limb but it just seemed so apt. I appreciate it. --fl]
Submitted by 1467 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-07-01 18:48.
Fig, I agree with Loving Annie regarding compatibility of sex drives. In particular, her reference to "five times a week" got my attention because of its relevance to frequency.
Way back on one of your earlier "No Sex Class" postings, I posited that in general, repeat, general, I think that the difference between men's and women's sex drive is a matter of frequency, not so much intensity, that is, men need sexual release more often than women.
The fact that heterosexual prostitution and pornography have historically (and I mean over the centuries) been much more oriented toward a male audience, not to say, consumption, is a good indicator of stronger (that is, more frequent) male demand and interest in these sorts of things. Again, this doesn't indicate differences in intensity of sex drive (I suppose that slippery term, quality could be used as well), as it does quantity/frequency of demand on the male side.
As well, this doesn't mean that there isn't female demand for these activities; there is, but again, it's nowhere near the levels recorded on the male side of things.
The same thing goes for masturbation in that it happens more frequently on the male side (I leave it to more knowledgeable sorts to quote figures, I think everyone knows what I mean).
No system is static and everything is always subject to change, so it could very well be that the frequency difference I cite is changing such that the male and female sides are drawing closer as a result of generational changes, changes in mores, etc., but I suspect that there's still a marked difference in the frequency in seeking sexual pleasure between the sexes at this point.
All that said, when I read your series on the "no sex class", I get the sense that you're implying that a large proportion of the male population thinks of women as you posit, i.e., women have no interest in sex. You don't mean that, do you?
Finally, I miss the logic connection in the statement women are the no sex class -- "innately disinterested in sex, and therefore in need of continuous male management". While it might be that some, repeat, some women are indeed innately disinterested in sex, I think that, with all due respect to these women as people, that they'd be uninteresting to men interested in sex; they just wouldn't connect - or are you saying that some men would actually believe that they could manage the sex drive of a woman?
[Yeah, just to be very clear, I'm not *prescribing* that women be the "no-sex" class. Eww, yuk, no! Instead I'm *describing* what I perceive as a pervasive, reflexive, and totally unfounded patterns of behavior -- primarily by men -- that appears to be based on an assumption that it's true. The whole point of my posts on the subject is to *refute* that dominant paradigm. "I get the sense that you're implying that a large proportion of the male population thinks of women as you posit, i.e., women have no interest in sex. You don't mean that, do you?" Yes, I'm implying that's how men ultimately, and *correctibly,* think women are. Thanks, T. --fl]
Submitted by 1467 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-07-01 02:01.
To make life easier in their looking, listening and learning, they needed a user guide for the stove - education. Some people just never read the user guide though...
[Well put, A. Thanks. --fl]