CJ

‘I would be interested to know from what authority SJF's redefinition of this orthodox anthropological term [polygyny] is derived.’

I don’t know if you’d call it an ‘authority’, but one book I’d highly recommend – that uses the term ‘polygyny’ in the same sense that I do – is ‘The Cassanova Complex’ by Peter Trachtenberg.

Trachtenberg writes, not as a cultural anthropologist, but as a recovering sex addict. He believes that male sex addiction is a widespread social problem that goes largely unacknowledged because of the misplaced glamour that surrounds it. He argues that traditional polygynous practices – such as having more than one wife, having one wife plus several mistresses (virtually mandatory among successful, powerful men), expectations for boys to sow their wild oats, the glamorising of the serial seducer (Cassanova, James Bond etc), businessmen going to brothels and strip clubs, the male dominance of the porn market, girlie posters strewn around male workplaces etc – make it difficult for men to develop mature relationships with women, particularly if they have had difficult childhoods. This in turn creates the psychological climate for many men to develop an addiction to sex to fill the emotional void this leaves.

In talking of his own recovery from sex addiction, Trachtenberg writes:

‘It is hard to convey the wonder of such a discovery, as though after spending years in a dark warehouse filled with mannequins one were finally to walk onto a sunlit street populated with real human beings.’

Vanilla,

Thanks for the encouraging words. The feeling is mutual.

Danielle,

‘Rather than the digital age becoming a dark age for women, perhaps it is meeting certain needs created by the changing society in which we live.’

Sobering but true.

Whitty,

I think you badly need to read ‘The Cassanova Complex’!

SJF - thanks for that clarification. It sounds like an interesting book, but without having read it I don't think that conflating the technical anthropological term 'polygyny' with more generalised male promiscuity is very useful. Societies where men achieve higher status through formally marrying more than one wife are, as you suggest, closely correlated with patriarchal structures.

However, to confuse this with the widespread tendency of men to have multiple sexual partners illegitimately, tends in my view to confuse the analysis of power relations between men and women. It is not a trivial distinction between polygynous societies, where it is both legitimate and desirable for men to acquire several wives simultaneously, and formally monogamous societies such as ours where there are legal sanctions against people being married to more than one person at a time, regardless of illicit sexual relations that may be more or less tolerated under various cultural and historical circumstances.

Also, I've always been suspicious of the recent invention of the 'sex addict', whereby people's responsibility for their own sexual behaviour is pathologised, thus rendering them apparently less culpable for the consequences of their acts.

SJF,

'I think you badly need to read ‘The Cassanova Complex’!'
How so? Have you decided I am a sex addict? Or just patronising me?

'... make it difficult for men to develop mature relationships with women'

Oh yes. I'm sure this book would be right up your alley. Anything that reinforces the myth of women's emotional and social superiority over men. The REAL problem is that all these types of books are framed by the currently prevailing female-oriented view of emotional maturity and relationships. i.e. Those nasty men just not behaving how little princess wants them too. Women naturally demand (and usually command) the emotional centre-stage. They are trained from birth by their female role models and by the complicity of the male role models to feel free in expressing their emotions at any time. They then learn to expect that their emotions should be responded to.Over time this can translate to an inability on the part of women to recognise that men have emotional needs of any validity at all.

The feminine discourse is usually ignorant of basic male realities, the males are seen as wrong and perverse to brush aside the advice of women to be more like them. Every man just needs a good woman to 'soften' him or 'mould' him into being a 'responsible' person. Basically I think any trait more predominant in men has been demonised as being a social problem. Any trait more predominate in women is considered the ideal.

If women were the major viewers of porn there would be no problem. It would be 'liberating'. And men would be advised to get some counselling to deal with women's needs and rights to view porn.

Sex addiction was created as an excuse for guys who choose not to be manogamous.

Whitty

'The feminine discourse is usually ignorant of basic male realities, the males are seen as wrong and perverse to brush aside the advice of women to be more like them. Every man just needs a good woman to 'soften' him or 'mould' him into being a 'responsible' person.'

That sounds like something straight out of Anne Summers' 'Damned Whores and God's Police'. You old latent feminist, you!

CJ

Fair enough. Let's agree to disagree. My ironing's starting to pile up. I'm outa here.

The writer Caroline should be congratulated. She is absolutely correct.

A parallel problem also arises with the internet, especially via these public forums - as good as they may otherwise be.

This debating medium is a stridently male domain. Although many of the posts use anonymous names like bushwacker and gecko it's not hard to tell the gender of the writer. Amongst those who do use real names, the vast majority of writers are male.

If this sort of iternet medium is, in part, deriving and developing the shared values of society, then there is something missing.

A high proportion of debates on the internet are imbued with intolerance, aggression and simple lack of maturity and respect for democratic values. This may be a learning experience for young disempowered computer nerds, so maybe it will help develop a better sense of democracy in the long run, who knows?

But I wonder if the Internet is imbedding and deepening a disenfranchisement of women from the body politic.

(Gecko is a bloke, by the way.)

gecko,

One could agree with what you say. I use my own name, and one particular OLO male writer, who always sounds moderate and reasonable to others, goes into an hysterical lather when he responds to something I have written.

However, for the most part I find writers of both sexes responsible. Some become heated, sure. But this is the nature of debate. Also the adversarial system, however much we dislike it, is imbedded in the law courts and parliament.

You state:

“But I wonder if the Internet is imbedding and deepening a disenfranchisement of women from the body politic.”

I believe contrary - that the Internet, especialy public forums, is providing women with the means to have a say when they, otherwise, would not be able to open their mouths, before some male spoke “over them”. Posts indicate that women are articulate with as much, sometimes more, to contribute than men.

However, I think that the tenre of Caroline Norma’s article was bound to produce the reactions it did.

Norma presents a very compelling argument about the digital age and porn; but, a close reading of the article poses many questions ... and she didn’t cite sources correctly to be verified, also to look at the surveys submitted.

“The 2007 medical journal finding that “high pornography consumption added significantly to the prediction of sexual aggression” makes sense when you see the pornography of the Internet.”

I would suggest that this would occur only in those in those already with a predisposition towards sexual violence.

“The Australian Institute in 2003 reported that two in five boys in Australia had sought out pornography on the Internet. Just under three quarters had seen an x-rated video. A survey taken in the US in 2005 found that 38 per cent of 16 to 17-year-old boys had sought out pornography on the Internet.”

cont ...