“Sex in Common” Shouldn’t Be Common
The practice of “sex in common” involves viewing women as communal objects for the male population. I adamantly disagree with the casualty of such a practice and fail to see the purpose behind its intended benefit. Herodotus, who surprisingly detects similar flaws in other customs, mentions there is a logical motivation behind a society practicing “sex in common.” Apparently, the motivation behind stripping women of any power within society is to ensure a brotherly comradery within the male population. Since women were so openly tossed around between men, the males in a “sex in common” society were considered to be one large family with women at their disposal to enlarge it. Not only does this concept create an unnecessary bond between men with too much power already, but it further limits the women already being suppressed.
Not only do women lose the ability to freely make decisions regarding their sex life, but they also are left with the absence of an important aspect of general human culture. Perhaps the most upsetting aspect of a society practicing “sex in common” is the inability of women to form a healthy, stable family dynamic. Today, the modern culture surrounding family life is centered heavily around a strong bond between family members which values a male and female presence equally. “Sex in common” only accounts for a male family dynamic, failing to provide women with any sort of such familiar bond. My only hope for the women that suffered such limitations is their ability to lean on each other for support and for any hopes of fulfillment or foundation.