Screwed

As unsexy as it might seem, sex is highly codified. It is a social activity, and like all social activities, it involves specific ways of interacting with each other.

And since our sexual traditions tend not to be discussed or studied — and therefore questioned — we are all the more conformist when we engage in them.

This conformity is apparent from the first moments of the heterosexual encounter. Women and men have traditionally adopted clearly defined roles based on what is expected from both sides. These roles are supposed to be complementary (we love to think of everything related to heterosexual sexuality as complementary!) and highly differentiated. Things are black and white: man is a hunter, and woman is his prey. The result is an active/passive relationship. This is the first component of the cumshot principle.

In pornography, the “cumshot” is the moment when the camera captures a man ejaculating onto a woman’s body or face. It is the final scene, and leaves the actress covered in sperm.

This image is a perfect representation of the principle underlying a typical heterosexual relationship: in our dominant conception of sexuality, desire originates with the man and is directed upon the woman.

Female passivity is a direct consequence of this principle: the woman acts as a target, and a target is passive. The person launching the projectile is active, while the target’s defining function is to receive the object.

This principle comes into play as soon as the man and woman enter the seduction phase.

As a society, we have decided that women embody sex. A woman fundamentally “possesses” sex within her. We have also decided that men, who do not embody sex — and therefore do not possess it — must convince women to give sex to them. Which means that a woman must give herself to a man.

The rules of conduct I am about to describe are stereotypes. This is intentional. They are our ideals, the male and female behaviours we expect. Certainly, there are thousands of situations where these rules don’t apply, but the behavioural patterns they create have a powerful influence on our relationships. Even if we don’t always adopt them, violating them makes us uncomfortable, makes us fear judgment. Most of the time we abide by these rules without thinking, whether out of habit, imitation, or because the price to pay for defying them is too high.

Let’s look at how these ideals are manifested during a heterosexual encounter.

The man plays the active role during seduction. It is his responsibility to approach the woman. The man is expected to begin by complimenting her or striking up a conversation, which he must sustain. It also falls to him to ask for the first date.

During this time, the woman must hold the man’s interest while remaining relatively passive. She shouldn’t take the lead and must curb her enthusiasm or risk appearing desperate. Or aggressive. Or obsessed. Think Samantha Jones in Sex and the City.

Samantha’s character claims to embody the “liberated woman,” yet she is the only one to initiate romantic encounters; Carrie, Miranda, and Charlotte display classic passive behaviour with men. Far from the typical representation of a modern woman, Samantha is an anomaly, and shockingly so. She is a kind of anti-hero of seduction. Samantha serves as a counterexample that underscores just how unusual it is for a woman to act this way (which creates a comic effect).

Getting back to the classic scenario: a man who makes the first move doesn’t seem desperate, intense, or obsessed. He is behaving as we would expect any “normal” man to behave. To be considered aggressive, he would have to become very persistent in the event of a rejection.

Women do not expect men to seduce them with their bodies. As a result, men can get away with being much less concerned about their appearance. Of course, men are judged on their looks, but a man’s body is not usually a deal-breaker when it comes to attracting a woman.

WHAT ABOUT THE NEXT GENERATION?

You might think that this active male/passive female dynamic is a thing of the past, more applicable to our grandparents’ generation. While it’s true that the blurring of these roles is not as shocking as it once was, the majority of us — teenagers included — still adhere to them in practice. The basic picture remains as topical as ever.

In a course given by American sociologist Paula England on relations between men and women on university campuses, 75 percent of students surveyed said it was acceptable for a woman to make the first move.¹ Yet almost all of them reported that in reality, it is men who initiate an encounter. Young people therefore accept the notion of a female hunter/male prey in theory, but this is not reflected in their behaviour. Judging something to be appropriate doesn’t mean we embrace it as so with our actions.

Men can often compensate for an average physique with a sharp sense of humour or a good reputation, by being cultured or having impressive knowledge, by possessing significant financial resources or having prestige associated with certain jobs. These attributes won’t garner the same sex appeal for an average-looking woman.

From this wide selection of criteria, women also frequently cite a sense of humour as being important in a mate.

Indeed, humour plays a major role in courtship; both men and women claim to look for this quality in a partner. However, studies have shown that the genders are actually talking about different things. A woman looking for a “sense of humour” wants a man who makes jokes and who likes to laugh. A man looking for the same quality in a woman does not expect her to be funny; rather, he wants her to laugh at his own jokes.²

Jeffrey Hall, University of Kansas researcher and author of a 2015 study on humour, believes this difference in meaning reflects the everyday sexism³ that influences the dynamics of courtship.⁴

Hall argues that the way heterosexuals express humour is connected to the traditional roles attributed to each gender: “Humour production during courtship could be interpreted as a sign of dominance and laughter in response to a sign of submissiveness.”

According to Hall, the man performs for the woman, who is his receptive audience. The active/passive dynamic is once again at play.

We observe the same phenomenon when it comes to communication skills. According to a recent study conducted by the University of Buffalo’s Department of Communication, women find men who are good at storytelling sexier than men who are not. Men, however, tend to be indifferent regarding this talent in women.⁵

In fact, if the woman in a couple tries to initiate sex, her desire and advances may go unnoticed. According to three studies conducted by the University of Toronto and the University of Western Ontario⁶ in 2016, men have a hard time determining when their partners are in the mood for sex, while women are well attuned to the signs in their male partners. The signals men send are therefore perceived far better than those sent by women.

When a sexual encounter is under way, men are expected to maintain control. Like dominant Christian in Fifty Shades of Grey. Or like men who toss women this way and that in porn films.

This imperative is also reflected in our language. A man “takes” a woman. A woman “gives herself” to a man, “yielding” to his advances, whereupon he “possesses her.”

Or consider the verb to screw, often used to designate a sexual encounter. The term can be used by both sexes: “I want to screw him,” “I screwed her,” etc. But if we reflect on the verb’s principal meaning, to screw places the emphasis on the implement; the tool itself joins two objects together. This brings us back to the prescribed roles for both genders: the man actively unites the two bodies by inserting his penis into the woman’s vagina. The man screws; the woman is screwed.

When we talk about penetration, we are referencing just that: the act of penetrating. It is the man who penetrates the woman and not, for example, the woman who pleasures the man or who shoves the man’s penis into her vagina. But why? If the woman is on top throughout sex, she is clearly the one acting on the man’s penis. If the man remains motionless while the woman grinds her body against his, again, she is the acting force. But do we ever use this language to talk about a vagina and penis interacting? No. That would mean giving the woman an active role, an idea that makes us uncomfortable.

Although women don’t anticipate seduction will rely on a man’s looks, men expect to be seduced by a woman’s appearance. While it is certainly not the only thing they take into account, it is the first element they are drawn to consider — a hunter’s first step is to choose his prey. And how does he choose? By selecting the “best” potential targets according to current standards of beauty.

From a young age, women learn that their physical appearance plays a fundamental role in determining their value as a human being. Consequently, they come to take great care in maintaining their image. The pressure to be beautiful comes at them from all sides: fashion, makeup products, hair dyes, plastic surgery, and so on. Though we may claim that men are equally preoccupied by their appearance, the numbers don’t lie: women are the largest consumers of fashion and beauty products.

This imperative is a matter of objectification. The disproportionate amount of attention we place on a woman’s physical appearance automatically consigns her to the role of object during courtship. For a woman to be seduced by a man’s personality, sense of humour, prestige, wealth, or intelligence, she must first get to know him. She will have to talk to him, ask him questions, and treat him like a whole and complex human being. As a hunter, a man doesn’t need to do the same. A physique that meets his standards of attractiveness will often suffice to pique his sexual interest — personality is far outweighed by desire.

This double standard is at the core of the mass objectification of women. A woman deemed desirable can be two-dimensional, while a man must have a certain amount of depth.

As we have seen, men initiate the courtship process. Women, as the object of male attention, must decide if they are willing to be courted. Perhaps they weren’t in “seduction mode” when initially approached; a woman who is walking down the street when she is stopped by a stranger probably isn’t looking for a romantic encounter. Yet frequently, men immediately perceive a woman they consider sexy and attractive to be in seduction mode (which is, of course, a passive mode for her). The man’s logic might look something like: “I find you attractive, therefore you willingly provoked this reaction; you seduced me, which is a green light.” In the eyes of the man, the decision to approach said woman is thus perfectly justified, and bound to be welcome.

WHAT WE SAY AND WHAT WE DO

Fortunately, the prescribed rules for the type of heterosexual encounter described in this chapter aren’t always followed to the letter. And it’s interesting to note there can be a real disparity between conforming to stereotypes in theory and unconsciously displaying different behaviour in practice. In a 2008 study, psychology researchers in Illinois asked members of both genders (168 single students, approximately twenty years old) what they look for most in a potential partner. The men claimed to value physical appearance while the women valued a partner’s wealth.⁷ The study seemed to confirm the stereotypes; men like pretty women and women like rich men. But interestingly, when participants were put in real-life situations during a speed-dating session, things looked quite different. Faced with an opportunity to spend more time with the people they had enjoyed meeting earlier, participants reported attractiveness and wealth of the potential partners as equally important. There was no observable difference between genders. “People may lack introspective awareness of what influences their judgments and behaviour,” concluded the researchers.

It seems, then, that the stereotypes we think we conform to don’t always match up with the complexity of our motivations. All the more reason we should question these stereotypes, which set expectations and inform our choices.

This is why many men will get angry if the object of their attention rejects or ignores them. Obviously, no one likes to be rejected. But in the context of predatory courtship, male anger goes beyond the unpleasantness of rejection. It becomes a mixture of disappointment and feeling as though an injustice has been committed. The man is rejected even though he was certain he met the woman’s expectations by approaching her. The least she can do is show some gratitude! He believes he has acknowledged efforts made by the seductress (as he perceives them) and that she should be receptive. He has validated her role as prey, so why on earth won’t she return the validation of his role as active hunter?

Owing to their role as prey, it falls on women to fend off undesired advances and live with the hostility that sometimes results.

Men experience rejection more often than women when it comes to courtship, since they are usually the ones making the first move. The woman plays a semi-active role after the fact, by saying yes or no.

But what happens in shorter- or longer-term relationships, when the parties involved have differing views on the nature of the relationship? This is where the notion of the “friend zone” comes into play. This term refers to complaints typically voiced by a man who wants to have sex with a woman, though she is only looking to be friends. While he is aware of her sexual disinterest, the man pursues her in the hopes of changing her mind. He believes he will be able to convince her to sleep with him if he is patient and persistent enough. The idea here is that even if a woman hasn’t openly attempted courtship, it doesn’t mean she is not interested — and therefore the man should not give up. The woman’s inaction should be taken simply as a passive and latent potential for sex.

Paradoxically, women are also expected to fend off the advances of men they are interested in.

We expect a “good” woman to give off hints of sensuality while remaining within the limits of modesty. As prey, her body should be put on display — but there’s a fine line between appropriate female charm and the disapproval that comes from exposing the tiniest bit too much.

We use the terms “elegant” or “classy” to refer to a woman who is attractive yet stays within the limits of “good taste.” And these limits are ambiguous. When is a low neckline too low? What is the right way to wear leggings? How much makeup is appropriate? There is no universal rule of good taste. Styles change over the years according to fashion trends, and even differ depending on who you ask. But one thing is certain: a woman who pushes the envelope too far will be severely judged.

Similarly, a woman whose sexual conduct is considered too brazen or forward will be punished. If her behaviour is not respectable, we might say she doesn’t deserve to be respected.

Even within a dating context, a woman who accepts a sexual proposition too quickly — or one who initiates sex — runs the risk of being seen by men as a nymphomaniac⁸ or a girl who shouldn’t be taken seriously: good for a roll in the hay, but not “girlfriend material.”

Women face yet another problem when they start falling for a man: for certain skilled hunters, the fun is in the chase. These men find it exciting when their prey resists for a while.

Women therefore end up with a social duty to fend off a man’s initial advances — even when they are wanted.

Finally, to add another layer of confusion, we also expect women not to resist a man’s sexual advances, either wanted or unwanted. Our culture considers it a woman’s duty to remain sexually available. We have even coined terms to humiliate women who thwart men who want sex: (cock)tease, flirt, temptress.

I already talked about street harassment and how certain men get angry if women aren’t receptive to their advances. And each time the issue is raised by the media, it’s fascinating to see just how many women rush to defend male conduct. They consider it a question of seduction, not harassment. Like the men who pursue them, these women believe every woman should enjoy being approached on the street, should feel grateful to receive compliments from total strangers. They want that kind of validation, and buy into the idea that a woman shouldn’t resent these advances or, at the very least, should deflect them by offering a gracious smile instead of acting annoyed, scared, indifferent, or angry.

What’s more — and this is particularly disturbing — statistics for sexual assault by men against women⁹ show that consent is often deemed superfluous in heterosexual interactions. Unfortunately, all too often, resistance from a woman is not judged by the aggressor to be a valid response.

One of society’s expectations is that women should make noise and contort their faces during sex. In porn, as in real life, women shriek and moan enthusiastically and for extended periods, while men remain impassive, silent participants.

This is a ritual, a learned behaviour, which is even consciously adopted in certain cases. But surprisingly, many men — and women, for that matter — believe it to be an instinctive, uncontrollable reaction. It’s comical, in a way, to see a woman masturbating on television: she inevitably makes noise and contorts her face into elaborate demonstrations of pleasure. Yet any woman who has ever masturbated knows that such a performance would be ridiculous if there were nobody to witness it.

Expressions of pleasure through sound and facial expressions may involve a measure of spontaneity, but there’s no reason they should be more common among women than men. We see and hear women climaxing because it is an integral part of the passive role they have been assigned. Women must go into “reaction mode” when they’re in bed. They have to communicate their pleasure — whether real, exaggerated, or completely fabricated — to encourage the man. In so doing, the woman allows her partner to maintain his silent arousal so he can focus on the deed without having to put on a show.

“WE CAN’T EVEN HIT ON WOMEN ANYMORE”

When women complain about the sexual harassment they face, they are frequently accused of wanting to eliminate all games of seduction between the sexes.

The unfortunate reason for this is that many people can’t tell the difference between harassment and flirting. To clarify the terms, ask yourself the following: Is the person making the advances looking for signs of reciprocity?

When a man approaches a woman, is he checking to make sure she feels comfortable? Is he ready to stop the moment she indicates she is uneasy, annoyed, or unwilling to pursue the interaction (e.g., by ignoring him)?

If he is flirting, the man may hope that the interaction will be reciprocal, but he can recognize when it’s time to humbly admit defeat — without getting angry or insulting the woman.

A man guilty of harassment doesn’t necessarily care how the woman responds. His goal is to intimidate, to impose advances without considering whether or not they are welcome. He may think flagging a woman down on the street is a simple demonstration of masculinity, or that the woman owes him a positive response.

This practice is a good example of how women are perceived as passive beings that are acted upon by men. A woman must moan and cry out to show the man that she likes what he is doing to her.

If women had played a more active role during sex throughout history, men would have made much more noise in bed. The two genders would have met somewhere in the middle.

Since men play the active role in heterosexual courtship rituals, women’s sexual tension is dependent upon them. The female libido lies dormant as she waits for a potential partner to prove he is worthy of her interest. He must be deserving for her to “give” herself to him. Men make the first move, so it is up to them to prove their worth.

Because women do not make the first move, they don’t get to choose their partner. They are chosen by a man. This means that whereas the man is clearly interested in the woman, she may not be particularly interested in her suitor at first.

(I’m curious to see if dating apps like Tinder, where users select each other — swipe right! — will reduce men’s privilege as hunters in the future. But based on my observations so far, it appears that we stick to traditional behaviours once the match is made.)

Clearly, if a woman doesn’t care for a man’s physical appearance, she is unlikely to desire him at first. But she might remain open to the idea of being won over by his personality. Is he charismatic? Funny? Smart? The woman’s interest will evolve over time as she gets to know him better. The man, on the other hand, is clearly interested, since he selected the woman based on her appearance (including fashion choices, hairstyle, the way she moves, etc.).

But that’s not all. The disproportionate amount of attention placed on a woman’s appearance and a man’s personality means there is a discrepancy in what generates sexual arousal.

Our collective obsession with women’s physical appearance results in the fetishization of the female body. Breasts. Ass. Mouth. Legs. Feet. Hair. Men’s bodies are never worshipped in the same manner.

Because our culture places such focus on a woman’s appearance, men receive much more visual sexual stimuli. On a first date, for example, the man’s clothes are less likely to be as revealing or as colourful as the woman’s. He won’t be wearing makeup; his hairstyle will be simple. His date will not excessively fetishize his body, because she has not been conditioned to see it that way.

Simply realizing that they are prey, that they have no agency as hunters, stifles women’s libido. What’s the use of being attracted to a man if they can’t make the first move? If they are expected to wait for something to happen, to see if they pique his interest? Under these circumstances, it makes much more sense to maximize their power of seduction and entice as many men as possible to approach them. Female desire thus becomes secondary.

The hunt arouses a man’s excitement, since it forces him to consider his immediate desires — which are based on criteria that can be assessed in an instant. But the prey’s arousal is less pressing. Women tend to defer their desire.

By having to wait passively, women are also made to follow the pace set by the man. Take a first date: If a woman feels the urge to kiss the man at 8:30 p.m. but waits for him to make the move (as per her role), by the time he actually does kiss her (let’s say around 9:15 p.m.), the moment when she might have experienced the most pleasure may have passed. Similarly, a kiss that takes places at 7:45 p.m. might be too early for her. Whoever makes the first move always sets the pace.

I used the example of a kiss above, but the same notion applies to oral sex, penetration, or fondling. The woman must stay in her role as prey, even during sex. And regrettably, this leaves many women unsatisfied in bed.

Obviously, intercourse requires two people, and, barring some rare synergy (more a fantasy than a reality), one of them will have to initiate it; the other reacts. But the traditional dynamic between heterosexuals dictates that the man leads and the woman follows. There is little room for variation.

This hunter-hunted relationship has a further consequence when it comes to libido: the man also leads in terms of ideas for sexual activities, since he is the master of ceremonies. He conceives of an action, and he carries it out.

The hunter approach also prompts a sense of urgency. A man’s adrenaline will surge the moment his prey appears responsive to his advances; he jumps at the chance, lest the woman change her mind and call things off. And the fear of not sealing the deal may make his desire surge faster than the woman’s.

His prey — who has not hunted or sexualized him as he has done to her, and who is not motivated by the fear of missing an opportunity (she assumes the man is after sex at all costs) — will lag even further behind the man in terms of desire.

Women are expected to observe multiple contradictory imperatives while being pursued, which curb their desire and amplify their ambivalence. What strategy should they take when a man makes advances? Resist because they’re interested? Resist because they’re not interested? Not resist, and let things happen? None of these eliminate the fear of being reproached, taken for a sex maniac, or labelled a cocktease, and that goes a long way in subduing their desire.

Moreover, libido is closely linked to self-esteem. Someone with a strong sense of self-worth is in a better position to feel sexual excitement or desire for others. It follows that a woman who laughs at a man’s jokes throughout courtship helps boost his libido and his self-esteem at the same time.

Of course, men also try to bolster the self-esteem of the women they want to seduce, for instance, by complimenting their appearance in order to please them. But praising a woman’s appearance is a double-edged sword: it can also lead to a sense of insecurity when it comes to sex. Women are well aware that a naked body may not have the same allure as it does in a cute dress. “Does he still think I’m sexy when he can see everything? When I’m not wearing a bra? Can he see my love handles? How does my hair look? Is my mascara running?” Women have much to worry about, because they know the important role appearance plays during the courtship phase. Yet men don’t feel less funny or less charismatic when they take off their clothes; such “skills” are simply no longer relevant. They therefore have fewer concerns during sex. While men also suffer from body image issues, they can rest easy knowing their power of seduction does not hinge primarily on their appearance. Their desire is not affected by these insecurities.

The way that our culture creates and fuels body image issues in women essentially places their self-esteem in the hands of men. When confronted with a woman seeking approval, a man has the immense power to reassure her, or to make her more vulnerable by withholding the long-awaited approval. The verdict may be encouraging or devastating; regardless, our culture, which consistently nurtures women’s body image fears, fosters a dependency on men.

Indeed, if a woman doesn’t already, it falls to her partner to “teach her to love her body” by lavishing compliments on it and admiring it for her. It is somewhat ironic that many of these complexes have been so deeply and irreversibly etched into women’s minds that even when a man tries to reassure, he often fails.

Of course, men may also experience anxiety in the bedroom, but it is most often linked to sexual performance (achieving and maintaining an erection, making a woman orgasm, etc.). Which brings us back once again to their role as active.

And while men fear the humiliation of a poor performance, the woman’s passive role comes with different risks — which may even prove dangerous for her safety.

Since 2014, there has been much discussion on the topic of rape culture: the tendency in our culture to trivialize sexual assault.

Public conversation has largely focused on the consequences of rape culture for the victims of sexual assault (i.e., difficulty being believed and obtaining justice). But what still escapes notice is the unbalanced sexual dynamic that sets the stage for rape culture.

Whenever I’m asked in public to define rape culture, I say that it is what happens before, during, and after a sexual assault. After, when we vilify and ignore the victim. During, when the offender normalizes the abuse and delegitimizes the victim’s experience. Before, when our ideas of sex eroticize sexual assault against women, or, quite simply, when women are objectified.

Women’s passive role when it comes to sexuality is intrinsically linked to rape culture.

Feminists who criticize rape culture question the events that unfold after an assault; but few, I think, question the view of sexuality that imposes the role of prey onto women. Perhaps because it seems more urgent to help the victims and get justice for these women. But unless we attempt to challenge our traditional view of heterosexual sex and how it makes women vulnerable, the prevalence of this type of abuse is unlikely to diminish.

It is important to introduce and reinforce the notion of consent — but it isn’t enough. We must also promote the idea of reciprocity in sexual relations so that women are no longer seen as receptacles of desire; we must stop normalizing their passivity. I want to show how the passive role imposed on women in a heterosexual relationship contributes to rape culture.

In the stereotypical game of seduction, a consenting woman gives subtle visual and vocal cues before engaging in sex. She might smile, run her hand through her hair, blush, or laugh at a joke. The signs of passive consent are not as clear as those of active consent (such as approaching, touching, or undressing a partner).

When we consider this kind of reserve to be the appropriate or “normal” sexual behaviour, we actively put women in danger. We place them in a grey area where everything is subject to interpretation, everything is ambiguous.

The notion that female desire is inherently passive means that to many people, if a woman does not explicitly say “no” to a man — or further, if she doesn’t put up a fight when he takes control of her body — we can legitimately say that she consented. That she did not actively participate in the supposedly consensual act does not seem problematic.

Advocates of verbal consent try to free us from this trap. They argue that consent must be clearly stated, and that there’s no such thing as implied consent. They maintain that “silence is not consent.”

But again, this view places the person giving consent in the role of prey — or we might just as well say “a woman.” It also places the man to whom she expresses her will in the role of predator. If we really hope to adhere to “silence is not consent,” and since, legally, consent may be withdrawn at any time, the person leading the proceedings (the man) must continually ask during the encounter, “May I do this? May I keep doing it? What about this? May I do that, too?” And his prey must answer every question with “Yes. Yes. Yes.” Which is why many well-meaning people are resistant to framing consent in this way. They find it infantilizing, and argue that it takes the fun and excitement out of the bedroom.

In fact, sexual partners give and withdraw consent for various actions every day, without it creating problems — even if they don’t always verbalize it.

Let’s assume that most men are capable of recognizing consent, through verbal cues or otherwise. Still, others may take advantage of the myth of women’s innate sexual passivity to assault them. Aggressors view a woman’s body as theirs for the taking, a receptacle for ejaculation, an assembly line of fantasies. A woman is a masturbatory doll.

These two ends of the spectrum can help us understand why heterosexual men tend to balk when it comes to talking about consent. Men know that since they initiate sex, it falls to them to secure consent. They are obliged to self-monitor. We therefore ask them to put a bit of fear behind their actions: they should be afraid of raping in order to avoid raping.

Conversely, few women are afraid of raping men. Then again, it’s fairly easy not to violate a partner’s consent when you’re neither initiating nor directing sex.

Some women are also resistant to the notion of affirmative consent (the idea that a sexual act must begin with an explicit “yes”), because they enjoy seeing themselves as prey (often it is these women who defend street harassment) and they enjoy being pursued. They consent to having men not solicit their consent. It may seem paradoxical, but it is nonetheless conceivable once you buy into the notion of predatory seduction, precisely the model of seduction that excites us. This preference isn’t inherently problematic: a woman who tells a man he can do “whatever he wants” is exercising her freedom. But clearly her personal desire should not be perceived by men as the universal preference among women.

The problem is not that one individual enjoys being pursued relentlessly. Rather, the problem is that we interpret this attitude as a preference that applies to all women. The problem is that being a woman means being predisposed to getting assaulted, because women are automatically seen as passive receptacles for male attention and advances. A person’s gender has an impact on their likelihood to either suffer or commit assault.

It is difficult to foster empathy within a culture where sex is a unilateral activity between an active man and a passive woman.

Someone who is rarely put in a position of vulnerability, who does not consider themselves to be potential prey, will have a hard time taking the emotions of the other person into account. It’s easier not to bother trying to understand why a partner is hesitating, when her role is thrust upon her automatically.

“MAKE IT HURT, JOHNNY”
NOT “MAKE IT HURT, JOANIE”¹⁰

While anyone can have a taste for sex involving consensual and controlled humiliation or physical violence, custom dictates it is the woman who is most often the subject of these practices. Analysis of today’s pornography proves this fact. According to a 2015 study on the fifty bestselling porn videos, 88 percent of verbal attacks and 94 percent of signs of physical violence were directed at women. These numbers have increased since the 1980s (78 percent and 73 percent, respectively).¹¹

If we truly consider sex to be an equal partnership between individuals acting together, consent becomes imperative. Yet many still refuse to acknowledge that the hunter/prey dynamic is a tradition that needs dismantling, rather than a biological fact.

Our tendency to construe women as biologically passive comes up again and again when we study animal sexual behaviour. In his book What Do Women Want?, Daniel Bergner cites researcher Kim Wallen, who studied rhesus monkeys. Wallen describes how scientists in the 1970s were convinced that female rhesus monkeys are sexually passive, when they are, in fact, dominant.¹² When they want sex, the females pursue males to the point of harassment. It has since been observed that females play a highly active role among capuchin monkeys, Tonkean macaques, and pig-tailed macaques. Female orangutans and bonobos also display dominant behaviour.

Though there are always risks to comparing animal and human sexuality, it is a mistake to think all female primates are passive by default, and to then extrapolate that human nature is not so different.

1

Me Hunter, You Prey: Passivity as the Cornerstone of Femininity

Me Hunter, You Prey:
Passivity as the Cornerstone of Femininity