Biology will have its way *UPDATE*

One of the things the feminists insist upon is absolute equality, whether that means depriving men of the opportunity to participate in college sports simply because there aren’t enough women to create parity, something that’s now being done in the sciences as well; or allowing women to engage in sexual activity as if they were men. I’ve commented on that last point before in the context of the new type of rape claim, which has women getting themselves completely incapacitated through drugs or alcohol, falling into bed with a stranger and then later, when regret hits, crying rape (Laer calls this “gray rape”).

The fact is that, no matter what the feminists insist should be reality, when it comes to sex, women operate at a handicap level men don’t: historically, they were the ones who got pregnant. In modern times, we’ve been able to control that outcome, whether through birth control or abortions — both of which can be inconvenient, unpleasant or downright dangerous. Even removing or diminishing the inevitability of pregnancy, though, doesn’t do away with the hits nature imposes against women who step out too often sexually. It is women who suffer disproportionately from sexually transmitted diseases. As the African experience shows, when it comes to heterosexual sex, women are more vulnerable to HIV. Even without that scourge, women suffer more from sexually transmitted diseases: for men, chlamydia is a nothing; for women, it can create infertility, lead to greater vulnerability to HIV and, in pregnant women, put the child at risk. Likewise, for men, HPV (human papillomavirus) is an unsavory inconvenience; for women, it can be the trigger for cervical cancer.

Given the risks sex has for women — pregnancy, dangerous or emotionally devastating abortions, death in childbirth (a rather old-fashioned risk, but still a risk), HIV, infertility, and cancer — monogamous sex within a stable marriage is a great societal gift to women. I’m not talking, of course, about a situation in which the woman is expected to be monogamous, while her partner gets to do an Eliot Spitzer. That’s a dreadful situation, and Isak Dineson (Karen Blixen), whose husband infected her with syphilis, is the perfect example of the horrors of a one-sided demand for monogamy. Rather, I’m talking about the idealized relationship that sees a man and a woman meet, fall in love, get married and only then begin to have sex — with each other, and with no one else. It’s even okay if they meet, fall in love, have sex with each other only, get married, and continue to have sex with each other only. In our sex saturated society, where there’s always the promise of a new bedmate, this may sound a little dull, but it has its great compensations, for men and women both. Sexually variety is lessoned (which is, I think, a great hit to the men), but safety, affection, stability, and ease of access are all greatly increased. Even if it’s not always achievable, it should certainly be our goal.

The flip side of this idealized and increasingly arcane view of sexual relations is the new morality that tells girls that, if boys can sleep around, girls should be able to do so too. In the guise of equality, we’ve told our innocent young girls, girls who know only the world we offer them, that it’s just fine for them to “hook up” with a strange guy, have sex with multiple people, and basically to treat their health bodies as drive-throughs for men. Boys, of course, being nobody’s fools, willingly participate in this emotionally sterile culture.

If you’re curious about this degraded culture — one that is now the norm for American teenage girls and young women, and of course for the boys with whom they have sex — there are three excellent books on the subject. The first is Ariel Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture, which describes the raunch culture in which our young girls (and boys) are encouraged to live; the second is Carol Platt Liebau’s book Prude: How the Sex-Obsessed Culture Damages Girls, the title of which is self-explanatory; and the third is Tom Wolfe’s I Am Charlotte Simmons: A Novel, a novel describing a young college woman’s experiences in this nihilistic sexual jungle.

The problem for all the feminists, and the men who recognize a good thing when they see it (no strings sex), is that nature will bite back. And so today, we read that 1 in 4 teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease, with chlamydia and HPV topping the list. These diseases disproportionately affect African-American teens.

I’m willing to bet that, in the next few days, there will be articles about how this is Bush’s fault because he’s cut back on sex education. The fact that it’s African-American girls who bear the brunt of this epidemic means people will cite the usual culprits of racism and poverty, with the crackpots invariably claiming a Jewish plot. People will write that we need to improve birth control, that we need to improve sex education, that we need to improve screening for diseases, that we need to cut down on racism, that we need to spend government funds to fight poverty amongst African-Americans, and that we need to take the embarrassment factor out of sex so that teens will learn about birth control, disease prevention and disease treatment. (This last idea will, of course, be the most stupid, because it is the nature of ones teen years to live in an agony of embarrassment about everything. You can’t remove embarrassment, since it is the dominant underlying teen condition.)

The one thing no one will suggest, whether they’re coming from the MSM, the government, the liberal blogosphere, Hollywood, or anywhere else that has a loud voice across America, is that we start changing the culture, both among white and black teenagers. No one will suggest that movies and TV shows begin to do what was done in before the sexual revolution, which is to send out to teenagers the message that sex is for marriage and adults. Nothing in any medium will start to say that girls and boys should treat their bodies as something precious; that the sexual urge, although strong, can be controlled; and that there should be room in male/female relationships for love, affection and respect, all of which get pushed aside in the headlong rush for the bedroom. All that will happen is a shrill demand for more money to facilitate more teen sex — more sex education classes; more condoms that won’t get used; more clever advertisements about STDs, advertisements that teens will assiduously ignore; and ever more strident demands from the feminists and their opportunistic male fellow travelers that girls should approach sex in the same cavalier way that boys have been encouraged to view it.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey notes that the study was small — only 863 girls — and urges an expanded study to see if the numbers still hold. I agree with him. However, I think my points will hold up even if subsequent studies show that only 1/5 or 1/6 teenage girls suffers from STDs.

I also want to note in this update that I am not advocating a sharia like crackdown on young women and sexuality. I think that is an equally appalling way to go, premised as it is on a male fear of female sexuality and a profound lack of respect for women. They’re protected, not for their own good, but because Islam preaches that they are simultaneously dangerous and worthless. I envision a new social paradigm that says women are valuable and that we should be encouraging them to treat themselves in that way — and to be treated that way. They’re not just bodies for pleasure, but they are complex human beings made up of mind, body and soul, all of which should be treated with dignity.

UPDATE II: In England, what happens when you try to teach children morality along side sex ed and to remind them of religion in a religious school (not teach them, just remind them), is that you get hauled before Parliament as a fanatic (emphasis mine):

A Roman Catholic bishop will be forced to explain himself to MPs today over fears that he is imposing religious “fundamentalism” on children.

Patrick O’Donoghue, the Bishop of Lancaster, will be questioned over his ban on what he calls “values-free” sex education in Catholic schools in his diocese and his order to put up crucifixes in every classroom.

His summons to appear before the House of Commons select committee on children, schools and families follows a 66-page document he produced last year which angered some MPs because of its strict line on sexual morality.

In the document, called Fit for Mission?, Bishop O’Donoghue wrote: “The secular view on sex outside marriage, artificial contraception, sexually transmitted disease, including HIV and Aids, and abortion, may not be presented as neutral information.”

He said “so-called” safe sex was based on the “deluded theory that the condom can provide adequate protection against Aids”.

And he added: “Schools and colleges must not supuseful-port [sic] charities or groups that promote or fund anti-life policies, such as Red Nose Day and Amnesty International, which now advocates abortion.”

Although sex education is mandatory in all secondary schools, Bishop O’Donoghue insisted that in every lesson – even science classes – it must be taught solely in the context of “the sacrament of marriage”.

The bishop has been criticised by Barry Sheerman, the chairman of the schools select committee.

“A lot of taxpayers’ money is going into church schools and I think we should tease out what is happening here,” said Mr Sheerman, the Labour MP for Huddersfield.

“A group of bishops appear to be taking a much firmer line and I think it would be to call representatives in front of the committee to find out what is going on.

“It seems to me that faith education works all right as long as people are not that serious about their faith.

“But as soon as there is a more doctrinaire attitude questions have to be asked.

“It does become worrying when you get a new push from more fundamentalist bishops. This is taxpayers’ money after all.”

The bishop said yesterday that his document had been in response to pressure from parents.

“Many parents go to great lengths to bring up their children properly and they feel that schools are not cooperating with them as well as they should,” he added.

He said Whitehall’s sex education policies had failed and 30 years of “throwing condoms at children” had simply resulted in increasing levels of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Ymarsakar

    And so falls a republic into the Cult of Personality and Religion of Peace that will offer standards, purpose, and barriers to counter-act the senseless consequences of the Hurricane of Disbelief.

  • jj

    Women suffer more from sexually transmitted diseases for the very obvious (and simple) reason that they are the receptors: everything ends up inside them. Whatever’s goin’, they get.

    As to biology having its way, I’m not convinced biology does have its way. Far too much of human society is set up in opposition to its doing so.

    Biology really has only one role for males: fertilize. As often, with as many partners as possible. Fight with each other for the right to do so, then do it, the winner passing on his successful genes. Well, society makes the fighting illegal, and the mores of human relationships make the mass breeding equally illegal, (or at the very least “immoral”), so we mostly don’t do it. Has biology really triumphed? Dunno, doesn’t look like it to simple-minded me; in fact looks rather the oppsite..

    The human race, by setting itself up squarely in opposition to biology, has thereby created a multitude of other situations (unintended consequences?) – like the creation, on Day One of civilization, of the profession of prostitute, the point of which was to deal with the male biological urge to procreate early and often. We aren’t stallions, we don’t lead prides, nor are we elk, mountain goats, or rams: we aren’t allowed to collect harems (unless we’re Mormon). So, as a virtually inevitable result, the moment the first village appears, so does the first prostitute. Ever ask yourself why?

    Sexual variety being lessened isn’t so much a great hit to men as it is a hit to the instincts that drive them, and the biological imperative that says: “Do it! A lot! Spread the seed! Pass on the genes!” Sadly, “safety, affection, stability and ease of access” aren’t things that biology, or male instinct and drive necessarily values – remember: nature/biology dictates that fighting is the necessary prerequisite to bopping. Where exactly do “safety, affection, stability, and ease of access” come into it?

    They don’t. Guys like to fight, drive fast, fly high, play smash-mouth football, compete to exhaustion physically, and indulge in stuff that sanity would indicate is stupid and dangerous. But we do it. We have always done it. I have taken the Ferrari around that 45 mph corner on the east end of town at over 100 just to prove that both me and the car could do it. Which I knew anyway – did I need to prove it? I have a splendid life – what am I doing risking any part of it on this kind of idiocy?

    The answer is simple, though (being resolutely opposed to biology) most of the world doesn’t like it: I’m being a guy. It’s all I have left: I don’t fight anymore. My harem days are long over. I’m married to a woman I adore on whom I do not step out. Don’t skydive, bungee jump, or rock climb. But I remain a guy, and those instincts remain in place. Have to do something now and then. So, once in a while I go out in the prancing horse and do the ton. (While being fully aware that probably 75% of society’s laws, rules, and expectations are efforts to control male behavior.)

    The interesting thing that’s happened, and is perhaps at the root of much you write about, is that the advance of science has freed women from the necessity of motherhood. Thus they are indeed able to become “drive-thru” conveniences for males, with both less and more (different) consequences than ever before. Regrettably the science moves very quickly, the instincts and drives (the biology) moves very slowly; and it’ll take a couple of centuries to establish an equilibrium, if one is ever established. But note: it’s women who’ve changed, not men.

    The horse is out of the barn (chasing the mares) as regards the idea that sex is for adults. It isn’t that everyone doesn’t know that: of course everybody knows it. The problem is most 12 year olds know they’re smarter and capable of more adult behavior than half the adults they see (Brittney Spears? Paris Hilton? Katie Couric? Michael Jackson? Chris Matthews? Bill Clinton? Harry Reid?) around them, so they consider that they are in fact sufficiently adult to be free to do what they will. They aren’t, of course – but it isn’t that they don’t know it’s an adult perquisite: they do. They just lok at the way we’re currently defining “adult” and figure they’re there.

    I conclude with one comment from Charlie Sheen on the subject of prostitutes: “I’m not buying the sex, I’m paying them to leave.” Again, back to biology: how many creatures with whom we share the planet live in constant company with whomever they’ve just fertilized? A few, of course – but certainly not the majority. Charlie Sheen, I guess, lives a lot closer to his instincts than most of us do.

  • suek

    Heh.

    >>While being fully aware that probably 75% of society’s laws, rules, and expectations are efforts to control male behavior.>>

    A wise man.

    I’ve always laughed at the idea that religion was a “female” thing devised in order to control men’s sexual behavior. The second half was true, but the first half…Hah! _Men_ imposed religious restrictions on sexual behavior in order to control _other_ men’s sexual behavior.

    And as for women – their strongest biological urge is to get pregnant – and their bodies will demand sex until they _get_ pregnant – which of course, is a bit of a problem if they manage to frustrate that occurrence.

    Pretty sad. Of course, the reason for much of this is that we have achieved a point of technological development where the fruits of the labor of women and men is mostly mental, and therefore, with good education, mostly equal. In earlier times, when labor was mostly physical, the output of the two sexes was _not_ equal, and each knew their job. As you say – it may take centuries to adjust.

    Although, to be honest, when I see/read about the behavior of way too many prominent females(maybe I should say “notorious” rather than “prominent”), I find it embarrassing to be included among them. One of the other problems that goes along with the sexual part is that young women don’t learn their own power over men until they’re between 25-30 or so. When society encourages them to be sexually active as early as 12 and 13, that leaves them 10-20 years to really mess up their lives. What’s more, their brains are too numbed with the dumb stuff of trying to attract men to learn anything useful. Like they need to do the dumb stuff. If you want a permanent mate, you need to work at it. If you just want a turn, stand in line – some male will come along.

    Add to that that if you don’t demand that a man be willing to take on the responsibility of supporting a family in order to get sex, he won’t. “Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free”. Why take on the responsibility of adulthood if you can get all the bennies without “growing up”. So we now have a generation of immature males, who aren’t prepared to take on adulthood. And imo, we don’t become adults until we have children. There are some substitutes, but for most of us, it’s children who can succeed in forcing adulthood, where parents were not able.

    Personally, I’m in favor of segregated schools after 8th grade… Male/female segregated, not black/white segregated. The color part isn’t important – the sex part is.

  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

    BW writes:
    “I envision a new social paradigm that says women are valuable and that we should be encouraging them to treat themselves in that way — and to be treated that way.”

    Nothing whatever is “new” about that paradigm….it’s what I was taught by my parents, who were taught by their parents, etc. ad infinitum in the Christian West.

    “Back to the future…..” is much more like it.

    Read Wendy Shalit “A Return to Modesty” — this return will not be a “sacrifice” of anything worth having….it will be the saving of our lives and our communities.

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels()

  • Pingback: Soccer Dad()

  • Allen

    Let me preface my remarks with the fact that I am a senior scientist at my place of work, and that most of my time is now spent mentoring young scientists and engineers.

    I truly was shocked to read that article on Title IX and the sciences. If they succeed the ramifications will be huge. I can already picture the deconstruction of science and engineering if they have their way.

    I have mentored both women and men, of all races, and have found no appreciable difference in their abilities based on gender or race. The main thing I have observed over the years is that to be successful in the field requires specific personality traits, one of those being an innate curiousity.

    Yes, there are fewer women than men in many of these fields and I would like to see that changed. The question becomes how does one do that without changing the fields themselves. Which by the way is what these Title IX proponents are really after. The problem lies early on in the education system. I don’t think girls are given enough role models and encouragement early on, and they tend to drift away from those areas. Thus a concerted effort is needed down at the earlier grades to encourage girls in math and science. Some restructuring of classes may also be needed as we all know how boys act differently than girls when they are younger. This might entail (shocked silence) gender segregated math and science classes.

    I do not really buy into the biological differences theory on this, but I do buy into the idea that we might need to take into account behavorial differences based on biology when we think about educating boys and girls.

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels()

  • Pingback: Soccer Dad()

  • Pingback: The Colossus of Rhodey()

  • Pingback: Baby Review()