03-08-2013, 02:37 PM
(03-08-2013, 01:52 AM)StCeciliasGirl Wrote: [ -> ]But the seven deadlies are pretty bad, homosexuality merely an obvious part of one. I really got lucky with a lack of lust (as most women seem to avoid),
Women don't avoid lust any more than men do. They cheat at the same rates as men, for ex.:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/women-cheating-men-study/story?id=13885519 -- and when they cheat, they cheat with more people: http://s2smagazine.com/16392/women-cheat...tners-men/
The idea that women are relatively sexless and passionless is Prot-Victorian "stuff." In the Middle Ages, for ex., it was women who were known, as men are today, as the "lusty sex": http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian...desire.php
Excerpts from that last link:
Contrary to the modern stereotype that views males as more susceptible to sexual desire than females, during the Middle Ages women were often seen as much more lustful than men. General opinion held that men were more rational, active creatures and closer to the spiritual realm, while women were carnal by nature and thus more materialistic. In the Decameron there are many examples of lusty women with insatiable desires. The nuns in III.1 ("whereas a single cock is quite sufficient for ten hens, ten men are hard put to satisfy ten women," 198), Alibech, who develops a taste for "putting the devil back in Hell" in III.10, and the wife of Calandrino ("this woman's going to be the death of me... with her insatiable lust..." 661) in IX.3 are just a few examples.
Isidore of Seville believed that man derived his name (vir in Latin) from his force (vis), just as woman acquired her name (mulier) from her softness (mollities), and he considered women to be "very passionate... more libidinous then men." According to Jerome, "...women's love in general is accused of ever being insatiable; put it out, it bursts into flame; give it plenty, it is again in need; it enervates a man's mind, and engrosses all thought except for the passion which it feeds" (Salisbury, 86).