Two

FEMINISM AND PROMISCUITY

Linda LeMoncheck
The strength and unifying vision of a feminist philosophical inquiry into sexuality and sexual preference is its recognition that womens sexuality can be
exploited as a powerful tool for womens social, economic, and political subordination. Many feminists point to the pervasive sexual harassment, rape,
prostitution, pornographic degradation, and spousal abuse of women, as well
as womens struggle to secure reproductive choice and adequate childcare, as
strong evidence of the prevalence of powerful social institutions supporting
mens subordination of women through heterosexual sex. (See Barry, 1979,
Brownmiller, 1975, Griffin, 1981, Dworkin, 1974, and MacKinnon, 1987).
According to this view, womens erotic desires and sexual preferences, as
well as their reproductive choices and responsibilities for childcare, are carefully circumscribed and controlled by cultural sanctions aimed at maintaining
heterosexual male power and privilege. Such sanctions are patriarchal, according to Marilyn Frye, when they form part of institutions, relationships, roles,
and activities [that] are male-defined, male-dominated, and operate for the benefit of males and the maintenance of male privilege (Frye, 1983, p. 96).
Many feminists claim that, when women live in a patriarchal society,
their sexual exploration, pleasure, and agency become targets for their sexual
restriction, repression, and violation (Vance, 1989, p. 1). A feminist philosophy of sex explores the nature and extent of this oppressive environment and
seeks to expose womens sexual subordination in an effort toward change.
Thus, a philosophy of sex is uniquely positioned to benefit from a feminist
analysis, as it is a philosophy of those very relations in which womens autonomous voices are often submerged, if not silenced altogether. (For feminist
analyses of womens sexuality under patriarchy, see Snitow, Stansell, and
Thomson, 1983, Ortner and Whitehead, 1981, Heath, 1982, Suleiman, 1986,
Moi, 1985, and Leidholdt and Raymond, 1990). In her fascinating discussion
of life as both modern artists muse and contemporary ceramicist, Beatrice
Wood writes:
In a way, my life has been an upside-down experience. I never made
love to the men I married and I did not marry the men I loved. I do not
know if that makes me a good girl gone bad, or a bad girl gone good.
(Wood, 1987)

10

LINDA LEMONCHECK

Womens heterosexual subordination by men is a subordination of identity. In a patriarchal society, women are defined in terms of their heterosexuality and reproductivity in order to serve the needs and maintain the privileges of men. Therefore, womens sexuality under patriarchy must be very
carefully circumscribed, lest it gain an independent credibility and power of
its own. Mens ideal of women is that they be sexual only in a certain way.
Americas good girl/bad girl stereotype defines the parameters of acceptable sexual behavior for women, circumscribing their identity as women
under conditions of male status and privilege. Sheila Ruth calls this stereotype one of the heterosexual serviceability of women, to emphasize how
much a womans identity is defined by her sexual access to men: the sexually
serviceable woman is the heterosexually available mistress or lover, sensuous, responsive, and receptive (Ruth, 1990, p. 87). Wives sometimes fit this
stereotype, but only when their husbands have not grown sexually bored with
them. The sexually serviceable woman is the sexually good woman, playful
yet submissive, eager, perhaps slightly mysterious. As a playmate fantasy, she
can be even more independent, experienced, exotic, or dangerous. She is to
be distinguished from the non-sexual good woman/mother/wife who is nurturing where the sexually serviceable woman will be challenging, virginal
where the sexually serviceable woman will be carnal. The stereotype of the
sexually non-serviceable woman is the bitch-temptress, immodest, coarse,
and demanding. She is a promiscuous woman who, despite her sexual availability to men, is non-serviceable, because she is sexually ungovernable, indiscriminate, and selfish. The seductive lustiness of the serviceable woman becomes salacious, lewd, and uncomfortably lascivious in the non-serviceable
woman. Her non-sexual counterpart is cloying, manipulative, and catty. A
non-serviceable woman is bad.
The irony in these distinctions is that they are arbitrarily and ambiguously applied (Ruth, 1990). Feminists not only object to the content and restrictiveness of the stereotypes, but they also object to the fickle, tenuous, and
often contradictory ways in which women are asked to instantiate them. A
wife may be congratulated by an ambitious husband for the way she successfully flirts with his boss at a company cocktail party. Having lost his chance
at promotion, he may regard her identical flirtation as an insensitive assault
on his masculinity or refer to her as the bitch who cant shut her mouth. If
her clothes are not sexy enough, she is frumpy. When in those very same
clothes, she seduces the wrong man, she is sleazy. Many husbands want a
wife who is simultaneously sexually available and chaste, the virgin who is a
whore in bed. A woman is bad whether she strays on purpose or by accident, because, like a servant, she is supposed to know what is expected of her.
What the above examples suggest is that a woman is good only by being both an experienced sexual seductress and a non-sexual maternal caretaker with the capacity to know not only which role suits which occasion for
which man, but also how to play both roles at once. Success in one social

Feminism and Promiscuity

11

setting is not guarantee of future success, even in the very same setting. The
feminine stereotype of an anxious woman fussing over her appearance, caring
more about her hair than her opinions, is testimony to the insecurity of her
position, not merely personal vanity. By being required to fill contradictory
social roles whose demands women cannot confidently predict, they must
inevitably fail to be good. The above quote from ceramist Beatrice Wood
represents the feelings of many women who hear the mixed message that the
good girl is bad, and the bad girl is good. What difference does it make, when
no matter what she does, she does not get it right?
Sexual terms commonly used to describe women are terms used to describe the promiscuous woman: trollop, vamp, slut, hussy, whore,
pick-up, Jezebel, tart, bawd, vixen, floozy (See Morrison, 1992).
Such a woman is loose, easy, and indiscriminate, a non-serviceable woman
for men, to use Ruths phrase. Not surprisingly, these terms are used by men
primarily to insult or denigrate women, since a woman who is promiscuous is
someone bad. Women are so closely identified with these terms, that they
are used, by both women and men, to insult women outside of any explicitly
sexual context. (Who does that hussy think she is, humiliating me like that?
or The slut brought me ham when I ordered sausage.) Sexualized terms for
women like broad, skirt, and tail, do not necessarily connote promiscuity, so they are often used to refer to serviceable women, as in Thats a
nice piece of tail, or Now thats a broad! When feminists object that such
language reduces women to sex objects, men often react in disbelief, complaining that women are taking offense at a compliment. (But I like broads!
or What? You dont like being sexy?) Where feminists see a womans sexuality reduced to her serviceability to men, those same men see a good girl.
Still, women can never be certain of their sexual serviceability even if
so-called sexually complimentary terms are applied to them, given the devaluation of their behavior in such phrases as Whoever let those broads on the
highway ought to have his head examined! The term bitch is always negative, since it refers to an animal in heat, an animal that indiscriminately and
promiscuously copulates, certainly non-serviceable when applied to women:
I refuse to take orders from that bitch! Not only are women being maleidentified sexually by such terms, but they are also being identified with a
type of sexuality than demeans them. Women might object less to an identity
externally imposed, if the value of that identity were positive. But their promiscuity has become so imbued with negativity, and their sexuality so filled
with contradiction, it is no wonder that Beatrice Wood regards her life as an
upside-down experience.
I am not arguing that words used to describe the sexually active man,
lecher, old goat, rou, gigolo, rake, and the like cannot be offensive, even humiliating to the man so described. My claim is that in a heterosexually-dominated culture whose male advantage rests in pressing womens
sexuality to the service of individual men, women will be judged bad when

12

LINDA LEMONCHECK

they fail to live up to particular mens sexual expectations of them, no matter

how eccentric or contradictory. Furthermore, because womens identity under
patriarchy is a function of their sexuality, such condemnation strikes at the
very core of their self-image as women. Some men are lechers and overbearing. Women are broads because they are overbearing.
In addition, special condemnation is reserved for sexually promiscuous
women, which is not matched by terms used to describe promiscuous men. A
promiscuous woman is referred to as dirt in virtue of her sexual profligacy
alone. A promiscuous man is dirt, when, in the course of being promiscuous, he has been deceptive, disrespectful, exploitative, or mean. His promiscuity alone is rarely sufficient reason for condemning him. Indeed, the promiscuous man is often regarded as appropriately fulfilling the expectations of
his masculine sexual stereotype. The dirty old man who does no more than
leer at young women is reviled by men and women alike, not because he is
promiscuous (although he would like to be), but because elderly men are stereotypically confined to an asexuality that makes their sexual objectification of
women appear out of place. One might speculate that there is no comparable
dirty young man, because it would be oxymoronic to sexually vilify a man
stereotypically expected, if not outrightly encouraged, to be promiscuous.
Indeed, a dirty old man wishes he were a rou for good reason. A promiscuous man is often referred to as a stud, a stallion, a man of the
world, a man of experience. A young, promiscuous man is sowing his
wild oats or is a hot rod. He is not described as used goods, loose, or
in the gutter the way a promiscuous woman often is. Once a woman is heterosexually promiscuous, she must justify her behavior as in some way serviceable to men or be called a slut. Feminists like Mary Daly believe that the
only way for women to empower themselves sexually is to reconceptualize
and reevaluate womens sexuality, with new terminology, if necessary, so that
their pure lust has meaning for them (Daly, 1984). Clarissa Pinkola Estes
believes that there are wild woman archetypes throughout history that
women need to regain access to in order to fulfill their sexual destinies as
women (Estes, 1992). In both cases, sexual empowerment for women is a
function of eschewing patriarchal definitions of their sexuality in order to
redefine it in womens terms.
Here we confront a fascinating paradox: in a heterosexual and maledominated society, women are both valued as sexually accessible and devalued
for promiscuous sex. Yet, should not the heterosexually identified female be
uniformly praised for doing what her patriarchal culturewith its Playboy
centerfolds, push-up bras, and Seduction (lip-plumper) lipstickencourages
her to do, namely, have as much sex with as many men as possible?
The resolution to this paradox lies in noting that an important condition
for at least some kinds of promiscuous sex is that it be the active and repetitious pursuit of different sexual partners (see Elliston, 1975). The promiscuous person, if nothing else, is the agent of her sexual desire. But in a pa-

Feminism and Promiscuity

13

triarchal society, this is precisely the role reserved for the heterosexually active male. In such a society, women are sex objects, not sex subjects. Women
are to be dominated and controlled through sex, not free to pursue an unabashed love of sex untainted by degradation or shame. If sexual promiscuity
is sexual agency, that is, the active pursuit of sex by an autonomous subject,
then the sexually promiscuous woman is ipso facto attempting to take control
of her sexual life. But this is anathema to a system of power in which the oppression of women through sex is a primary means of establishing and maintaining dominance over them. Thus, the harsher criticism that a patriarchal
society lodges against the sexually promiscuous woman can be understood as
intended to inhibit her pursuit of the kind of sexual activity that has long been
the exclusive preserve of men and as that which signals rebellion against her
oppressor. It is a striking feminist irony that the expression loose woman is
both a symbol of womens degradation and a testament to womens attempts
to liberate themselves from the sexual dominance of men.
What the above uses of language suggest, is that, in a culture whose
power and status lie in the hands of men, sex is a badge of honor for men, a
sign of power, dominance, and possession. However, race, class, and sexual
orientation intersect with gender in the social construction of promiscuity to
narrow the range of this dominance. Sex is a badge of honor for white, affluent, heterosexual men. African-American men are often sexually stereotyped
by white men and women as primitive and dangerous sexual animals with
enlarged penises, a sexuality threatening to many white men and commonly
used to degrade and straitjacket blacks. When a black man marries a white
woman, he is often regarded by his black community as a traitor to his race
and by whites as appropriating and defiling one of a white mans own (consider, for example, the common complain that if Mike Tyson had been white
and affluent, he would not have been charged with rape). When a black man
pursues a woman of his own race, he may be regarded by whites as typical of
an oversexed primitive in search of an equally lusty partner. If an AfricanAmerican man is homosexual, he may be burdened with the additional heterosexist presumption that he is a rabid transmitter of debilitating, if not deadly, sexual disease. Sexual conservatives and liberals alike have singled out
gay men of all races and ethnicities as paradigms of performance-oriented,
promiscuous sex seekers whose lifestyle of casual or anonymous sex is regarded as the primary cause of the spread of AIDS (for discussion see Seidman, 1992, chap. 4).
Outside his cultural community, an Asian or Asian-American man is often presumed to be sexually reserved where his African-American counterpart
is sexually unbridled. However, Asian communities are notorious for a culturally sanctioned sexual freedom that Asian men enjoy, regardless of class, but
which Asian women do not (see Kingston, 1989). Moreover, for many upwardly mobile Asian men, publicly consorting withand spending money
onyoung, blond, American women is an announcement of their qualifica-

14

LINDA LEMONCHECK

tion for membership in an otherwise exclusive club of white, male, heterosexual power and affluence (see Greenfeld, 1992).
Latinos are frequently categorized in sexual terms, as passionate but ultimately self-serving Don Juans who display a machismo that defines their
masculinity in terms of their sexual prowess. However, their Anglo class stereotype as coarse and uneducated often makes these very same macho men
sexually unappealing to affluent, white women determined to find a man who
will maintain, if not enhance, their social status. Many affluent white men see
large Hispanic families as no more than welfare recipients. (For ways in
which Mexican men reinforce the macho stereotype and attract American
women, see Rodriguez and Miller, 1992.)
All of these stereotypes derive their pervasiveness and staying power
from the social status and authority conferred on white, affluent heterosexual
males in patriarchy. A black mans sexual stereotype of white men as stiff and
ineffectual lovers will be of little consequence to the wealthy white man
whose institutionalized power gives him a sexuality all his own. Hes so
rich! Isnt he sexy? Unlike white women and people of color, affluent, white
men represent success objects who have become sex objects without becoming sexually subordinated or vilified. A rich African-American or Hispanic
man may also be made sexy by his money, but whites stereotypes of him
have notoriously restricted his social stature to that of the successful drug
dealer, pimp, or professional athlete. Similarly, an affluent Asian mans
wealth alone does not eliminate whites perception of him as a sexual
wallflower. Even less well-to-do white men can ignore blacks stereotypes of
them simply in virtue of an entrenched racist social standard that marginalizes
the perspectives of people of color of all classes. Sexual stereotypes exist
both within as well as across social categories, but the prevalence of any one
stereotype is determined by the power of the stereotyper to define the parameters of the category.
Women of color may be multiply oppressed in a patriarchal society,
both by the appropriation of their sexuality by men and by the particular sexual stereotypes associated with their race or ethnicity. Specifically, in addition
to being typed as heterosexual, many women of color living in a patriarchal
society are sexually stereotyped as promiscuous. If they are poor women, they
may be further victimized in virtue of their economic status. AfricanAmerican women are frequently stereotyped by whites as wild and untamed
sensualists who can offer white men a kind of exotic sexual thrill that white
women cannot. When a black woman chooses a white lover, she is often considered by both black men and black women as a traitor to her race, and, if
not already affluent, someone trading on her sexual stereotype to upgrade her
social status. To white women, she is often a threatening sexual competitor
taking unfair advantage of her color, as well as a woman who is insensitive to
any negative social impact on the children from that marriage (See Omolade,
1983; Simson, 1983; and Morton, 1991). When a white woman marries a

Feminism and Promiscuity

15

black man, she may also be warned by other white women of the dire social
consequences to the children of such a union but may be asked to consider
whether her partner, not her, is attempting to upgrade his social status, even if
he is already affluent.
Asian and Asian-American women are commonly typed inside and outside their cultural community as docile, submissive, and restrained sexually,
making them tempting targets for men whose more sexually assertive or eager
playmates fail to reinforce mens sense of dominance and control. It is frequently assumed that Asian woman eschew promiscuity, only tolerating sex
because it is required of married women or forced on them by unscrupulous
mercenaries in the commerce of prostitution know as sex tourism. The sexual willingness of geishas does not dispel this assumption, since they are typically regarded as women for whom sex is a job, not a joy. In addition, an underlying social prohibition against womens adultery reinforces the presupposition that Asian women much prefer monogamy or no sex at all (for discussion, see Zhou, 1989 and Wolfe and Witke, 1987).
By contrast, Latinas and Native American women are stereotyped by
many Anglos as poor, illiterate, and eternally pregnant. Single young Latinas
are often categorized as promiscuous, despite the acknowledged sanctions of
the Catholic Church to which many Latinas belong, but especially when those
same sanctions discourage contraception or family planning. Affluent, white
men attracted to the sexual fecundity of the Latina stereotype often also expect a feistiness they associate with a fiery and sexually exotic Latin spirit.
Ironically, many modern Latin households maintain traditional double standards whereby husbands may have affairs, but wives should be virgins prior
to marriage and faithful afterwards. On the other hand, the machismo image
of the Latinas peers makes it especially difficult for Latina teenagers to say
no to sex when young Latinos buy into their own stereotype (Espin, 1989).
Many heterosexual men regard lesbians as sexually frigid and unattractive women who could not land a man if they tried. When model-beautiful,
lesbians are often propositioned by men who cannot understand what such
women are doing wasting their looks on other women. Poverty makes lesbians and heterosexual women alike especially vulnerable to abusive men
who propose financial security in exchange for sex. Womens vulnerability in
such situations is exacerbated not only by their limited economic options, but
also by what they have been taught to believe is expected of them as sexually
serviceable women. Because each woman has a social location defined by
her race, class, and sexual orientation in addition to her gender, her oppressions multiply when she is not white, not affluent, or not heterosexual. Her
age, her physical ability or attractiveness, even her willingness to wear makeup may also work against her, if she does not accommodate the sexual expectations of her culture. Multiple oppressions will be particularly painful for
women who are already sexually oppressed by a society that makes much of
monogamy into domestic and sexual servitude for women, but often makes

16

LINDA LEMONCHECK

promiscuity degrading, if not life-threatening in an era of AIDS. Men and

women both suffer from strict sexual stereotyping; but the cultural expectation that women be sexually subordinate to men undermines many womens
self-respect in a way that expectations for men to live up to the sexual dominance and agency definitive of the masculine ideal do not (LeMoncheck, 1985
pp. 6366; 9294).
Many feminists regard the sexual liberation movement of the 1960s and
1970s, as well as its contemporary vestiges, as serving primarily the interests
of men, precisely because the movement made more women sexually available to men without affording women enough of the economic and political
tools to escape being sexually subordinated by them. According to this view,
sexual liberation convinced women that sex without love or marriage was a
good thing, without giving women the opportunity to define what good sex is
for women (Seidman, 1992, pp. 7881, 97). Heterosexual and lesbian feminists alike have argued that truly liberating sex for women requires a fundamental reconceptualization and reevaluation of womens sexual exploration,
pleasure, and agency (Seidman, 1992, chap. 3).
A womans control over her body has been one of the most important
political platforms of the womens movement. To tell women that they cannot
or should not be promiscuous seems to run counter to the feminist effort to
gain sexual subjectivity and self-definition for women. Should a feminist reconceptualization of womens sexual desire include a sexually promiscuous
lifestyle? Or are promiscuous women simply appropriating a masculine sexual value that is ill-suited to their temperament as women? What exactly
counts as promiscuous sex and what, if anything, can promiscuity contribute
to womens sexual exploration in an environment apparently exploding with
sexual violence, disease, and death? Exploring such questions is essential, if
the sexual agency that feminists seek for women is to be truly liberating.

Works Cited
Barry, Kathleen. (1979) Female Sexual Slavery. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall.
Brownmiller, Susan. (1975) Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Daly, Mary. (1984) Pure Lust: Elemental Feminist Philosophy. Boston: Beacon Press.
Dworkin, Andrea. (1974) Pornography: Men Possessing Women. New York: E. P.
Dutton.
Elliston, Frederick. (1975) In Defense of Promiscuity, pp. 222243. In Philosophy
& Sex. Edited by Robert Baker and Frederick Elliston. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.
Espin, Oliva. (1989) Influences on Sexuality in Hispanic/Latin Women. in Vance,
ed. Pleasure and Danger, pp. 149164.
Estes, Clarrisa Pinkola. (1992) Women Who Run with the Wolves: Myths and Stories
of the Wild Woman Archetype. New York: Ballantine Books.

Feminism and Promiscuity

17

Frye, Marilyn. (1983) The Politics of Reality. Trumansburg, N.Y.: The Crossing Press.
Greenfeld, Karl Taro. (1992) The Broken Dreams of the Blond Geishas, Los Angeles Times Magazinem, 8 (November).
Griffin, Susan. (1981) Pornography and Silence. New York: Harper & Row.
Heath, Stephen. (1982) The Sexual Fix. London: Macmillan.
Kingston, Maxine Hong. (1989) China Men. New York: Random House.
Leidholdt, Dorchen, and Janice G. Raymond, eds. (1990) The Sexual Liberals and the
Attack on Feminism. New York: Teachers College Press.
LeMoncheck, Linda. (1985) Dehumanizing Women: Treating Persons as Sex Objects.
Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld.
MacKinnon, Catharine. (1998) Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Moi, Toril. (1985) Sexual/Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory. New York: Methuen.
Morrison, Patt. (1992) War of the Words, Los Angeles Times Magazine, 6 (December).
Morton, Patricia. (1991) The Historical Assault on Afro-American Women. Westport,
Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Omolade, Barbara. (1983) Hearts of Darkness, pp. 350367. In Snitow, Stansell,
and Thompson, eds., Powers of Desire.
Ortner, Sheryl, and Whitehead, Harriett, eds. (1981) Sexual Meanings: The Cultural
Construction of Gender and Sexuality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rodriguez, Cecilia, and Marjorie Miller. (1992) Muy Macho, Los Angeles Times
Magazine 6 (December).
Ruth, Sheila, ed. (1990) Issues in Feminism, 2nd. ed. Mountain View, Calif.: Mayfield
Publishing Company.
Seidman, Steven. (1992). Embattled Eros: Sexual Politics and Ethics in Contemporary America. New York: Routledge.
Simson, Rennie. (1983). The Afro-American Female: The Historical Context of the
Construction of Sexual Identity, pp. 229235. In Snitow, Stansell, and Thompson, eds., Powers of Desire.
Snitow, Ann, Christine Stansell, and Sharon Thompson, eds. (1983). Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Suleiman, Susan, ed. (1986) The Female Body in Western Culture. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Vance, Carole. (1989) Pleasure and Danger: Toward a Politics of Sexuality. In
Vance, ed., Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality. London: Pandora.
Wolf, Margery, and Roxane Witke. (1978) Women in Chinese Society. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Wood, Beatrice. (1987) I Shock Myself: The Autobiography of Beatrice Wood. San
Francisco, Calif.: Chronicle Books.
Zhou, Xiao. (1989) Virginity and Premarital Sex in Contemporary China, Feminist
Studies, 15, pp. 279288.

Copyright of Avant-Garde Critical Studies is the property of Editions Rodopi BV and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.