Luxy Reid said:
That is a very valid question.
Thanks. It's good to get finally off my chest and not find it to be not instantly deemed a stupid question.
Luxy Reid said:
My current theory is that patriarchy is based off of biology. Originally women were the stay-at-home-gather-veggies etc. type and men were hunter-gatherers purely because of strength differences between the sexes. Since then sex has been heavily tied into gender roles which is skewed in today's society because we no longer necessarily need the strongest to go out and hunt or the biologically less strong to gather and garden-tend for our survival.
That's a possibility. Though the most popular theory is that it started with agriculture, which translated into land inheritance which then translated into controlling women's sexuality to ensure the heir was genetically belonging to the father. I'm assuming what I'm saying is a gross oversimplification of the theory as a whole but I'm pretty sure that may suffice as the nutshell version.
Luxy Reid said:
As for tying the sex industry into things...that is a whole huge complicated mess. But my thoughts on it summarized are biology is a basis for patriarchy, patriarchy oppresses female sexuality because it's a threat and thus gives it some kind of weird power
Interesting how you use the word 'power' isn't it? There are many old school 2nd wave feminists (and still quite a lot of modern feminists) who see the sex industry as benefitting men at the expense of women (I'm guessing they're not talking about financially :? ) but it's obviously is not seen that way by a lot of women. Again I'll demonstrate a point of view of a woman in the sex industry:
I can't help agree with her in a way. SHE uses it to deny patriarchy exists. However to me I'm uncertain whether this is true as I don't think it's decided whether this phenomenon is due to biology or culture. I don't necessarily see it as a refutation of patriarchy, just that if patriarchy exists than that is a result of how can backfire on men and occasionally benefit (some) women.
Luxy Reid said:
because it's been tabooized (I think I just made up a word. lol)...which is why I think the sex industry is heavily focused on the female counterpart, because the sex industry is one of the few where a woman has immediate higher earning potential than men,
I'm not what sure what you're saying the focus is? Focus by people fighting against the sex industry??
Luxy Reid said:
and also it is ingrained within us since birth to just understand that men are more sexually driven and also more socially acceptable to be perverts. (I call bullshit on that though, because who says women aren't naturally just as equally likely to buy sex/sexual service/watch porn/etc.)
Who says? I'm not sure. At the end of the day I say it's up to women, though I admit I don't know what it's like to live in a culture that implicitly assumes women's natural chaste nature. One thing that I found interesting that was pointed out by my current partner (who identifies as a RadFem btw) said is that when being taught sex education, when teaching that masturbation was ok, it was always the BOYS who were told this! The educators acted like female masturbation didn't exist! I was embarrassed to find I never thought of that!
Luxy Reid said:
Maybe I am biased because I am potentially more perverted than the average female?
Maybe you are, maybe you aren't. I admit it can be hard to tell in a climate where women themselves can be some of the worst misogynists and slut-shamers. But slowly women like yourself are slowly coming out of the woodwork as our culture slowly relaxes its expectations of how women (and men) should be. So it will be interesting to see how things turn out as they progress.
Luxy Reid said:
But I definitely wonder the statistics on that as well if they weren't so skewed. Example, what exactly are/would be the percentages of female sex service purchasers compared to that of men if the social stigma were removed?
Well in fact, the purchase of sexual services by women IS becoming a little more common than it was once was (or maybe it's more acknowledged??)
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-bus ... 31hjs.html
^ That article may be an interesting read for you. You will notice however, that generally women will want something with a more intimate and emotional experience to it, rather than just sex, which again begs the question as to whether that's due to biology or culture.
Luxy Reid said:
Edit: EasyA, I have heard other women bash men for claiming to be feminist because you're male, but I disagree with that! I think regardless of your sex or gender, you can identify with being a feminist so long as you agree with the idea that genders should be equal! But if you don't really care then that actually kind of hurts my feelings on behalf of my gender. But whatever, you are entitled to your own opinion.
I know that was directed at EasyA, but it's one of the reasons I prefer to call myself a feminist supporter rather than a feminist. Some feminists just wouldn't want me associated with it, which is fine. I don't need to be PART of a group or moevement to support it. I agree with it and all I have to do is work toward a more equitable society for all.
Plus I don't call myself one because even though I agree with it, I find too many of the loudest voices the ones I disagree with most, and the least well known ones I AGREE with the most (that SUCKS).