Is Repressing Sexuality a tool to create Economic Slavery?

Question

The social construct of nuclear family is a comparatively recent phenomena in cultural terms, and throughout the ages humans have had many different social constructs.

The idea that a man and woman bind together in a single insular economic unit excluding all other possibilities has certainly become a societal norm in much of Europe and the US, but this was not always so.

I come to wonder if the constructs of Monogamous marriage have become a mechanism by which people have become more isolated from one another, confining their intimacies, and defining their interests in a very narrow family unit in a hostile and competitive marketplace. "You and me against the world",

Are the typical gender roles we have come to adopt imposed on us to make us more compliant to the demands of Big Business?

In short, is the repression of sexuality a tool that is being used to force us into economic slavery?

Answer 1

Great question.

Not only do they have us paired up to just one woman (and the woman to just one man) but then along come the 70's and they tell that woman that, to be a truly 'modern woman', she has to join the work force (in a crappier job, making far less money).

And did all this extra money coming into the house improve our standard of living?

Personal debt in the US is at the highest level it's ever been at, and we have less free time than we had at any point since World War 2.

Ever get the feeling you're being played?

Maybe we shouldn't be able to marry before 30, with that marraige contract coming up for renewal after 3 years, and then maybe every 5 years after that.

I'm not sure what we're doing now is working...

Answer 2

hm,i think it is on the contrary

in Europe sexuality has reverted to Renaissance times .

many older couples have accepted younger lovers for both partners

and gender does not seem to be an issue any more .

many people that i know are on their 3rd marriage .kids sometimes having multiple parents and far less kids ,to start of with

a particular community in Africa that i know is about 10 couples maybe 5 kids all together and the partners have shifted along the line ,

the kids don`t loose out they get much more Xmas presents

on friend in England was the only son of a divorced and then remarried parents
each one was a millionaire in his or her own right
this kid had 4 millionaire parents
shame poor kid

Most modern marriages that i know do not last 3 years .

Many wives is a much better Idea, as they still do in some parts of the world ,take new ones but don`t discard the older ones ,they can still cook ,ash ,look after the kids ,and the number one wife keeps control

And I have older rich women friends who collect lovers like plants ,
having quite a garden at any given time .

Now is economic repression creating sexual slavery ?

YES
that is already common.

Answer 3

I won't be getting a best answer b/c I don't agree with the concept. The "evolution" from tribal society of hunters and gathers into smaller nuclear untis of farmers and later into smaller units of the modern world have nothing to do with modern capitalism. As humans became more independent in feeding and sheltering themselves the evolved into the modern nuclear family which is disintegrating further, even the technology were are communicating over contributes to this devolvement. Polygamy was common in cultures with shortages of males due to wars, disease and famine which thankfully the modern western world has less, at least of the last two.

Answer 4

Sure our sexual attitudes can be manipulated for profit and our sexual araingements are controled by customs and law in many places.

I think it is not about repressed sexuality but that the nuclear family was the most useful type of family for industrialised societies. And smaller nuclear families became a better situation for the people living in them and I think this probably influenced western societies as much as it was influenced.

You can say that many people feel isolated from each other in modern societies and I can agree because I feel it too but the past agri-civilisations and 3rd world rural living is nothing I would want. You are talking about situations with a lot of tension and often violence and people who do not have freedom. Being repressed and trapped is the reality in those situations. The good old days never really were.

I was born raised in different social conditions in the (far) north and I can honestly say that I see a lot of problems in society in modern "civilisation" and especially in America but I also see good things and I can think of much worse that's out there in the world today.

I think that what forces people into economic slavery is cash flow and legal force and conditions. Power and politics.

Answer 5

Interesting insight, Twilight.

I've had this discussion a few times with some people, have brought up that polygamy was an ordinary aspect of many cultures, considering the ratio of women per each man (and even now, significant), as any other specie, reproduction is essential for our survival, so it was not uncommon for one man to have several wives, yet through the partnership of politics and religion (leading to social and economic control), monogamy has become the ideally, romanticised and popular norm, in some cultures.

I am not promoting polygamy nor against it, but do think that it should be a legal option for individuals who are willing and capable of managing loving relationships with several partners.
I think that our views of love may be limited to what we have been taught in our specific society/culture (cultural "values" or opinions passed down), and most of us are biased to the way we were made to think of such, understandably so, yet each culture and individual holds different beliefs and views on love, monogamy/polygamy.
To me, the saying "to each his/her own" would be appropriate, since polygamy is obviously not for everyone, but only for those who feel comfortable in that kind of relationship.

I don't think much of the institution of marriage, to me, it signifies nothing but legalities and tax benefits.
Love and commitment are not based or sealed with a piece of paper, they are found and exchanged among the individuals themselves, through ANY form of relationship that each may be naturally inclined to, whether monogamous, sexually open, polygamous/polyamourous, etc. This is my opinion.

Answer 6

I would almost say that economic slavery is a choice based on priorities. I know quite a few people that are debt-free, married to one of the opposite gender (lol), and do not feel sexually oppressed at all. But I digress.
I, too, carry credit-card debt -- due to my priorities. I chose to self-publish a book and start a small at-home business. Had I not done that, I would still be married to one woman and not feel sexually repressed. I see where you're going, connecting the two, but I don't think they MUST be connected.
"Feeling" sexually repressed would almost have to be a choice, also. Whether or not anyone is trying to repress us, if one is happy being "repressed", is it really repression? I'm perfectly happy with one woman. Are there many attractive women in my environment? You bet. Would I enjoy "throwing off my repression" (lol) with a few of them? In other circumstances, probably. I, however, have chosen not to -- and I don't feel a bit repressed.
To answer VERY directly, in the terms of your question, though I don't agree with how this sounds . . .
I chose my "sexual repression", so it isn't repression. I chose my "economic slavery", so it isn't slavery.
Have a great day!

Answer 7

Granted I'm a feminist, flirting with the idea of becoming a women's historian if not for my already determined educational goals, so my opinion will obviously be biased toward the historical ideals associated with women behind the nuclear unit.

As a poster indicated above, monogamy predates big business (I'm unsure of the exact dates, but I think a millennia is overstating it by a smidge lol).

But economic factors are a conclusion many historians and sociologists have pointed to as the reason for monogamous unions, and further matrimony.

Economy and marriage go together hand and hand throughout American history, with women unable to own property unless inherited as an heir-less widow. Later as laws changed, property rights were increasingly granted to married women, leaving single women out of the equation.

Consider the English common law ideal of coveture, with its cultural implications stretching into our own modern day society. A woman (or child) is "owned" as a piece of property by the man, whether it be her husband or father (or his father), evident by the practice of patriarchal surnaming. Obviously this also correlates to other practices of English commonlaw such as rape restitution historically being paid to the woman's "owner" (husband/father) rather than the woman herself. Some point to the idea (and I agree) that women were owned in this way because of their reproductive abilities. In most pre-industrial societies child labor was a huge asset to agricultural families, and the way to (virtually)ensure this labor stayed with the father (property owner), was to keep the nuclear unit intact via monogamous unions. Simply put, it's economically favorable to have free labor provided by sons than it is to pay an "outsider".

In this sense, historically you could consider these nuclear units as businesses themselves.

Answer 8

There is nothing to imply monogamy creates economic slavery. I think you need to go back are re-work your thesis and de-couple economic and moral agendas. If anything a non-monogamous paradigm would create greater ecomomic growth and less economic slavery, which you really need to define if you continue to use the term. Also your preaching about the constructs of monogamy as a means to isolate are unfounded as monogamous marital units create stronger and longer lasting social bonds while non-monogamous relationships create more sexual partners but less enduring social interactions and greater isolation as participants age and become less sexually active.

Check the basis of your statements and I think you will find that you have a prejudice that is misleading your assumptions.

Answer 9

Hmmm...Maybe..Definitely a seductive idea or question.

The economic powers that be have no investment in any of us tasting joy in any form. Joy is radical, liberating. Joy is life-enhancing and life-changing. (TY Charlotte Kasl.)

As for monogamy specifically, I have learned that enforced monogamy was instituted as an attempt to give men complete control over their "property" rights--including their right to totally control their women and to assure complete "ownership" of their offspring.

Things have gotten so twisted now, however, that many women, myself included, are choosing sensual or passionate celibacy in order to reclaim control over our own bodies and sexual sovereignty. I still enjoy all the sense pleasures of life, but I decide with whom I will share my body, my sexuality, my infinite sensuality--and when, and for the right reasons. I do not believe in enforced monogamy, but I also do not believe in enforced polyamory. For me it's about my freedom and my right to decide. For me, it's about everyone's right to choose.

So, yes and no, in short, beautiful Twilight. (Btw, thanks for reading my posts.) Sexual repression can be a tool of the system to enforce economic slavery, to keep us enslaved to the work grind, so to speak--to keep us heartless, mindless, joyless, and numb. But for those of us who find actually more sexual freedom in the warm embrace of a monogamous or mono-amorous relationship, it's a whole different story. Spreading it around just doesn't do it for me. Exploring all the possibilities fearlessly with the right partner for me is not repressive, it's freakin' exciting, energizing, nurturing, and nowdays ironically radical.

Answer 10

Traditional monogomy in the western world precedes "Big Business" (en entity so vague, yet apparently so important that it apparently deserves to be capitalized) by millenia.