i remember a while back, when i was working for a certain unnamed
non-profit organization/pit of
hypocrisy in the
theater district of boston, there was this receptionist lady over in the administrative building who once asked me for a favor. she wanted me to design her
tattoo. at the time, i was doing
web design and,
hell, practically anything at all
creative for the company and this seemed like a nice departure from the standard health- and
AIDS-awareness drivel i was regularly wont to do.
the design she had wanted was remarkable: she wanted the virgin mary (complete with halo, beams of light issuing from her hands, and overall ethereal nimbus) standing on a cloud, looking the standard holy, immaculate and pure. but she also wanted her to look like a skank whore, too: micro-mini skirt hem on the patented blue and white robes, a curvaceousness that defied san francisco's own lombard street and a plunging neckline that revealed cleavage, cleavage, and more cleavage (i have never before imagined what the virgin mary's erect nipple would look like).
i was all like "wow" when she finished describing it to me. i then followed this up with a bewildered "..why?".
she said that's how men see women: "they either want us to be a saint or a slut."
about a year later, i was hanging out with my downstairs neighbor friend, dan, one night and we were talking. somehow we got to talking about girls and he mentioned that though he would not exactly bring someone like britney spears home to meet his mom, he would be all over the chance to fuck someone like her. that whole slut vs. saint thing.
it's interesting how there is often a marked difference between who men want to fuck and who they want to spend their lives with. who we perceive as our ultimate carnal fantasy and who we want to resonate deep within our hearts. the difference being, in a lot of contexts, the slut is someone men feel like they have to be morally superior to. they would be disgusted to be associated with them in social circles or polite company. they're dirty. below them. slut. skank. whore. easy. but there is some sort of allure to the taboo that exists because they are what men often want. perhaps they represent power to men. a mere nameless body and pretty face being the vehicle to elevate men's egos and perceptions of control, allowing the animal urges to take over.
the ironic bit is found in the saint perception: the saint can never delve into what the slut does. to do so would mar the image of purity and wholesomeness that attracted the man to her in the first place. not that men prostrate themselves before her, but there is a sense of privilegedness that comes with knowing that she "belongs" to him. that she is a part of his life and he is better for it. that she holds him back for his own good. that he can in no way feel complete without her. this could quite possibly be that whole control thing again. instead of being the dominant party, the man desires to take on a more submissive (if equal) role.
i thought it could have just been a straight male kind of thing but no.. gay men do it to each other all the time. hell, i'm guilty of the same crime - i look at guys i would deem "hot" and ogle them like a rabid furry animal but at the same time i would be disgusted at the thought of being with them for any longer than a torrid encounter would take.
i guess it's just a guy thing then.