Discussion Main / AllWomenArePrudes

On a related note, on a subject a little more broad than my last comment, the introduction (I awkwardly edited the first sentence to read "certain parts of fictionland" back in the day) and many wicks throughout the wiki make it sound as if this trope, or the idea that "all women have no desire for sex, nor should they, and any exceptions are aberrations" is actually a common theme of modern fiction that has largely or virtually displaced anything to the contrary... when, well, it hasn't. Not remotely. Is there something I'm not seeing here?

I do notice that at any chance, All Women Are Prudes tends to be shoehorned into as much tropes as possible, taken to ridiculous levels. It sounds like someone has some serious Author Tract to say that women do not and can not like sex, while men are always, or at least more perverted. About half the pages mixed with gender sexuality seems to give off this message.

Odd, all of the examples I've seen make it sound like someone has a serious ax to grind about how vast swaths of modern fiction supposedly say that women-do-not-and-can-not-like-sex-et cetera... when, again, that's one thing I can't attribute to a single work of modern fiction that I know of, never mind seeing it as the prevailing attitude. Maybe we're reading different pages?

Either way, there's a problem.

I cut out some of the things that have built up over time. I'm sure I could come up with a hundred examples of fictional women who enjoy sex and aren't portrayed as utter monsters for it — seriously, that one still has me lost; acknowledging that sexism is certainly a problem, it sounds like finding victimization where it doesn't exist — and enough where enjoying sex doesn't designate them as "easy picks" to keep it from being an accurate generalization of Fictionland.

"And (whether you personally agree or not) when did saving yourself for marriage become a Warped Aesop?"

Heh. I suppose any Aesop that promoted anything but promiscuity and consequence-free sex would be 'warped.'

How about this thought. Present the pros and cons of both positions and let people decide for themselves.

"I'm trying to come up with any examples of "a woman who enjoys sex" being associated with "this woman is a Complete Monster" and coming up blank."

What about Fatal Attraction?

Well, I never saw Fatal Attraction... but if it seriously paints Alex as an evil beast for her pursuit of sex, I guess that would be one example. (Otherwise it's just "a woman who enjoys sex" — shock — "and is also evil," which has a much stronger grounding than "a woman who enjoys having sex and is therefore evil.")

Seconded. What does it actually mean?

The belief that women should just "lie back and think of England" during sex. Because sex pleased the husband and we all know it doesn't please any woman.

So, why isn't the picture on Lie Back and Think of England?

And why has the pic got the Union Flag on it instead of St. George's cross?

I just went ahead and took it out— it didn't seem to have any purpose at all except as a Take That!. There are lots of little Take Thats and people using tropes to deconstruct their personal strawmen scattered all over the wiki. From what I've seen, 99.9% of the time, they really don't serve any purpose at all, certainly not to aid in explaining the trope in question or why a certain thing is actually an example of it. Anyway, people shouldn't worry about going ahead and deleting these when they run across them— the main page for Take That! even asks people to get rid of them.

I support your decision Caireach. I attempted to edit it to make sense and get rid of the snark but I think there was little substance to it beyond snark.

Firstly, this is not about monogamy, it's about not having sex before marriage / finding your "one true love." There's no comment on monogamy (i.e. being in a sexual relationship with only one person) in that line at all.

Secondly, the language does not strike me personally as judgemental. This section of the article simply explains the reasons for why women "wouldn't want sex," as portrayed in the media. "Older than dirt" is not a way of judging an idea, but simply points out that it's old by referring to another trope (which is neither good nor bad. "Older than dirt" is often used in a fairly positive way, to refer to "classic" ideas that have a long history). Saying the idea is waning also isn't a judgement of it. It is waning. Again, this neither means that it's a good idea, nor that it's a bad one. Good ideas lose popularity sometimes, and bad ideas come to the fore; and the reverse also happens. It is a fact that abstinence until marriage is not nearly as huge an idea in society today as it once was. That's not a judgement of people who choose to be abstinent.

Thirdly, this line is meant to point out that there was a standard for a woman to only lose virginity to the man she loves. This trope is not gender-neutral. I think we can all agree that having separate standards for men and women as far as promiscuity and abstinence goes is a bit unfair. I still don't think the line is judgemental, but in your comment you make it sound like it's a gender neutral statement about the relative values of promiscuity and abstinence. Bringing up "A Man Is Not A Virgin" also highlights this. That trope doesn't say "virginity is bad," it says "virginity for a man is bad."

And incidentally, that trope doesn't actually portray the idea that men shouldn't be virgins as a good thing. It simply states that this is an idea often found in the media. The fact that a trope exists does not mean that the Troper community endorses its application to Real Life (in fact, that's rarely the case) — only that it is an idea often found in the media.

So, in short, I disagree with the call to edit the line.