Woman Defined as Fuckable Object, Part 2

I once took a history class in which the professor convinced me beyond all doubt that we inherited an enormous amount of our cultural legacy from the ancient Romans. Highways, water systems, coins, mass entertainment, the legal system, the calendar, and the list goes on and on.

A book I’m reading for sociolinguistics cites research on “sexual categorization in ancient Rome” that illuminated yet another area in which our society inherits its attitudes.

The modern LGBT community loves to cite the ancient Romans as evidence of casual and accepted homosexuality, but this is very much a mischaracterization of the situation.

Rome had no conception of homosexuality at all, and no, this is not because homosexuality, as we conceive it today, was so common as to be unremarkable. Rome had no conception of heterosexuality either. Rome’s sexual categorization was divided into “active” and “passive” participants.

Sex was defined as penetrating an orifice with a penis. Sex was something men did to (not with) other people. Lesbianism was inconceivable — without a penis, women could not “do” anyone.

Instead of heterosexuality and homosexuality, the Romans had 9 sexual orientations which encoded the sex of each participant and the orifice being penetrated.

All of the “active” roles were normalized for males. As long as males were penetrating, even if they were penetrating males, they were doing sex in the accepted and non-deviant way. “Passive” was the deviant role for men.

All of the “passive” roles were normalized for women.

There were no equal relationships in Rome, same sex or otherwise. Instead, men kept people around for fucking, of whatever sex happened to be available. Sex, of any sort, was a display of dominance and male supremacy, not a sign of sexual preference. To call it “rape culture” would be an massive understatement.

In fact, “the labels for a vaginally penetrated woman, femina and puella, mean simply ‘woman’ and ‘girl’.”

I want you to think about that for a moment.

The word for woman, and indeed even girl, was a synonym for her position when having one of her orifices penetrated.

We know, today, that women are thought of as fuckholes, but in Rome, that idea wasn’t even in the closet. Can you imagine if day-to-day life consisted of hearing statements like, “There were ten men and ten fuckholes shopping at the market today,” because that’s just how half the population is named?

So it is against this inherited cultural legacy of undisguised male sexual domination:

Because of course that’s what we are. Men have always thought it and apparently can’t let it go so easily.








7 thoughts on “Woman Defined as Fuckable Object, Part 2

  1. Another brilliant post, and a great follow up to your earlier post on the the boys you grew up with. My husband is an autogynephile who came out to me 20 months ago (initially I thought we could stay married but have decided that we will not be staying together), and what you say threw into clear relief my feminist objections to the way he has defined woman, which the more I saw the more I thought was a caricature, a stereotype of femininity, right down to seeing the defining experience of womanhood as penetration.
    By the way, thanks for your comment on my Anonymous blog post this week over at the SSN. I’m a huge admirer of your blog, and it meant a lot to m.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s