For over 5,000 years woman's sexuality has been turned on its head, inverted by society to fit the needs of its agenda...to keep woman strapped to a vaginal destiny. She has been inculcated with the belief that she was created to serve man, that her essence is her vagina, and that as a human being she is inconsequential. Her self-sacrifice for the benefit of others, to the exclusion of her own, is her natural calling.
Evolutionary theorists tell us she is simply a product of her Pleistocene ancestors, but they are wrong, and they know it; she is the result of millennia of crass manipulation built on erroneous concepts designed to keep her fucking.
Throughtout this period, scientists, religous zealots, white-coated mysogynists, and researchers have all contributed to the charade to coerce woman into accepting her copualtory mandate as her transcendental sexual expression. But, slowly, methodically, the truth seeps out. Woman has been duped. Her sexuality coopted. Her subservience is a cultural construct. The sex she has accepted as evolutionary is not the sex of her ancestors, not the sex as intended, but sex as scripted. She is a pawn in the hands of the master, a sacrifice on the altar of phallocentrism.
Unconsciously, woman knows a dichotomy, a decided difference between what she believes and what she feels--it's the problem with no name that Betty Friedan wrote about. The problem that forces woman to live a lie. She feels, but cannot articulate, the innate force driving her to answer her genetic call for orgasmic euphoria, the call she inherited from her ancestral sisters for mate assessment and male transformation--a call that has been all but extinguished since the Inversion and the creation of the male sex paradigm. With the elimination of the female sex paradigm, she became man's sexual slave.
But, as her sophistication grows, as she becomes more aware of her innate sexuality, and as her self-confidence in her innate abilities as a human being blossoms, she will shed the yoke and once again assume the ascendency intended. She is the driving evolutionary agent, the force behind humanity, and she is the salvation of our species.
Nevertheless, she needs to step forward, to accept her birthright, and reawaken her feminine destiny--a daunting task, but an essential one if we are to survive the insanity of male control.
For over 50 years, we have been studying her plight and documenting her feelings by asking her to contribute her beliefs and concerns about her sexuality. We have amassed and compliled the voices of almost 8,000 women during this time and continue to do so. We plan to publish the narrations, together with the voluminous data, in a book sometime later this year. We will, however, continue to listen to all women, whenever and wherever they are willing to share their most personal and intimate secrets.
If you would like to contribute to our understanding of woman's sexuality by sharing your feelings, beliefs, and concerns, please join us at www.esybron.org and participate in our forums, complete our questionnaires, and/or request a personal discussion. Visit our blog discussion and give us your valued opinions. We welcome your participation and your interest in advancing woman's knowledge of her sexuality. Together, we can change the world, as what is culturally constructed can be deconstructed and that, in turn, can be reconstructed. Please join us in this effort.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Woman's Sexuality.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11741
Great article. But I have to say I've always chafed at discussions of 'women's sexuality' simply because of the sort of blanket assumption in the term that all womens' experiences of their sexuality is similar. Even in a feminist context and in the feminist desire to investigate female sexuality, I (personally) resent the implicit assumption that I'm supposed to feel a particular way about my sexuality. Cuz you know, some days I don't really think about it at all. It's like this documentary I saw in my women's studies class once. The entire film was about breasts, and women's experiences with them. All sizes, shapes, real and fake. Almost all the women on the video seemed to have so much to say about their breasts. Almost like, ME = BREASTS. Well I guess I can't speak for all women but I finished the film unimpressed because I really don't give so much importance to my breasts. Likewise with sexuality. This is not to say that I don't have my fears and gnawing questions and anger at the millenia of rape and shame that I've inherited from the collective female consciousness. I do feel the pain, believe me I do. But I still resent the implicit notion that I'm supposed to be either super-duper contented with my sexuality or woefully conflicted about it. Sometimes I don't feel a damn thing about it. I certainly don't sit around pondering the magic of my vaginal folds. I think we should include that in our discussions as well. In a world that is constantly throwing contradictory demands and expectations at women, sometimes it's a relief to just be truly indifferent about something. I'm pretty sure men don't sit around reveling in the beauty of their penises. So yeah, when we discuss our sexuality, I think it's important to include that wonderful gray area where we can just shrug our lovely female shoulders and say, "hey, I don't have time to think about my vulva, I'm about to write my novel/draw my picture/hike Mt. Everest etc.
And that's all I have to say about that.
"I certainly don't sit around pondering the magic of my vaginal folds"
Speak for yourself!
"I'm pretty sure men don't sit around reveling in the beauty of their penises."
Thats probably because they dont have vaginas!
I think about my vag and the crowned queen (ahem... = clit) many times a day!
I think about my vaginal folds at twilight. =)
For over 50 years, we have been studying her plight and documenting her feelings by asking her to contribute her beliefs and concerns about her sexuality. We have amassed and compliled the voices of almost 8,000 women during this time and continue to do so. We plan to publish the narrations, together with the voluminous data, in a book sometime later this year. We will, however, continue to listen to all women, whenever and wherever they are willing to share their most personal and intimate secrets.
Is this not contradicting this article by saying "share their most personal and intimate secrets" - I thought so certainly.
Being an avid male reader on here and commenting less frequently, I became compelled to make a comment.
"But, slowly, methodically, the truth seeps out. Woman has been duped. Her sexuality coopted. Her subservience is a cultural construct. The sex she has accepted as evolutionary is not the sex of her ancestors, not the sex as intended, but sex as scripted. She is a pawn in the hands of the master, a sacrifice on the altar of phallocentrism."
I could comment all day long. What truth? Her evolution? Do you believe in God? It was Eve who was the first sinner; woman sinned first, and indeed woman is more in power than woman thinks. The way you argue it is incredibly flawed. "Woman has been duped"??
What position did "Woman" play back in the cave man day ego you are trying to highlight then? According to the to people who you are trying to argue and support - woman was in the cave and man did the hunting.
Men think, women are emotional thinkers. Another fact.
I do not wish to argue, I think your argument has no point except promoting a ludicrous book - IMO.
KM
I could comment on YOUR comment all day long, but I don't want to feed the troll. FACT.
"Men think, women are emotional thinkers. Another fact."
No shred of evidence to support this. "Thinking" is always a complex mixture of logical and emotional processes. Emotions are what allows the brain, for example, to prioritize information and stimuli. People who suffer from a deficit due to trauma in the areas responsible for emotions, are impaired in their ability to make even the simplest decision.
And while while women's and men's brains do tend to light up (via fMRI) in different areas when making decisions and performing tasks, on average men and woman perform the same.*
*With notable exceptions being rotating objects in 3D and being able to discern micro-facial expressions.
....and you KNOW he doesnt comment here, nor read this blog. What a fucking idiot!
"*With notable exceptions being rotating objects in 3D and being able to discern micro-facial expressions."
This can be changed permanently however, if females play video games. After women played video games, they scored the same as men. The brain is not *hardwired.
TROLLLLLL sighting!!!!! I could give TROLLLL tours! Spot the TROLLLLLL! Look right above folks, its a fucking TROLLLLLLLL!!!
The phrasing grates with me a little bit- I don't think it helps anyone to paint all men as Man and all women as Woman.
Also, "She is the driving evolutionary agent, the force behind humanity, and she is the salvation of our species." feels to me like not only are you painting all women as Woman, but that you're putting that Woman in the position where she is responsible for the wellbeing of the entire species, which is grossly unfair and representative of the Patriarchal standard where women are held responsible for the happiness of all thoese around them.
If what you wanted to say was "The patriarchal society in which we live, and which is reinforced by misogynists on a daily basis, tells women how to fuck and have sex and make love and who they should fuck and have sex with and make love with, and that shit ain't right" then I'm right there with you. Just some of the phrasing turned me off on this.
Good morning world. When I posted this article yesterday, I was hoping to elicit a variety of responses that would provide us with insight that only readers could offer. To us, in our quest for a deeper understanding of woman’s sexuality, every person’s opinion is a valuable resource, one that offers the opportunity to view perception through another’s eyes. Although only a few responded, what they had to offer is graciously accepted and I would like to respond and acknowledge their contribution.
I certainly agree with Alma’s comment that there is a wide diversity of how women perceive their sexuality that varies with the circumstances of their lives. The thousands of women with whom we have worked over the past half-century aptly demonstrate this. At times, a woman may feel passionately about her sexuality, while at others she is ambivalent or even hostile. A woman’s sexuality can never be painted as black/white or love/hate or as Alma states, “super-duper contented with my sexuality or woefully conflicted about it.” There simply are too many shades of grey. Nevertheless, if we are to advance our knowledge and understanding of woman’s sexuality, we must pry, not by constructing experimental situations common to research in the past several centuries, but by listening to what women have to say—let them, in all their diversity, tell their stories and paint for us a picture of what they truly feel about their sexuality.
Alma, I do not mean to imply that a woman “should” feel, believe, behave, or otherwise act in any prescribed manner, for these are her personal decisions that only she has a right to decide. For millennia, woman has been told who she “should” be in the eyes of society and it is long overdue to jettison that farce.
To FitBox, I must say I do not follow your thought that “Is this not contradicting this article by saying "share their most personal and intimate secrets" - I thought so certainly.” What am I missing? By talking with and listening to women, we gained a better understanding of how they felt and what they believed. It is only through their willingness to share the information that we can postulate conclusions. If you read this, please elaborate so that I can make appropriate adjustments.
I would like to respond to several points you make, as I feel they deserve consideration.
(1)You asked what truth? The truth, as we see it, is that woman’s sexuality has been manipulated by patriarchal society to fit its specific agenda, that it has been inverted, and that her transcendental expression of her sexuality is not as presented—she has been deceived into believing and living in a sexuality that is antithetical to her true essence. Obviously, our truth is a postulate, one that is to be accepted or rejected by weighing the evidence, not by ideology or emotional appeal, and I would not think of asking you, or anyone else, to do so without presenting all the data, which in this case is not feasible as it takes a book to cover the attestations.
(2)To argue religion is fruitless, but to answer your direct question: No, I do not believe in the fiction of biblical creation and that Eve (woman) is sinful. In fact, we argue that this work of man is the root of misogyny and woman’s subservience. And, yes, in our opinion, woman has been duped into believing the religious and cultural dogma authored primarily by men for the last 3,000 years.
(3) As I understand your position, relative to the Pleistocene era, you subscribe to the male version of woman as the passive, docile, helpless mate sitting in her cave waiting for the return of her fearless other and man as the provider, protector, great hunter—correct? If so, you are sadly mistaken, for this story is fictitious. First, there were no cave dwellers. Our ancestors did not live in caves. Second, it is now recognized, almost universally, by scholars that woman, not man, provided the bulk (from 60 to 80 percent) of resources needed for survival during our prehistory (up until the Neolithic). Moreover, as patriarchy has aptly demonstrated, whoever provides the resources controls the society. Third, recent research indicates that woman, not man, was the driving force behind most of our human accomplishments. It completely shatters the myth of woman’s invisibility created by male authors. Fourth, the myth of man-the-hunter has been thoroughly debunked, since it was impossible to hunt big game until relatively recently in our evolutionary history. It was woman who supplied the necessary nutrients, especially protein (via nuts and small game trapped in the snares she invented) required for our evolutionary development. Lastly, your comment, “Men think, women are emotional thinkers. Another fact” requires elaboration, as I admit; I am lost in its interpretation. What are you saying—that men are the rational species and women the emotional creatures? I cannot begin to comment on your pronouncement until I understand precisely what you are saying about the putative differences in their capacity for thought.
Magpie_seven, your contributions, like Alma’s, are extremely helpful as they point out my inability to properly convey my thoughts. I have no intention of positioning ‘woman’ as representative of all women or of painting her as solely responsible for the well-being of humanity. I am, therefore, in need of correcting that assumption. We do argue, however, that it would be prudent for woman to reassume the directorship she most likely furnished in the 190,000 years prior to the last 5,000 years of patriarchy if this world is to survive the feckless stewardship of male domination. To contemplate this, she needs access to an unbiased account (in so far as humanly possible) of her past history and how society has inverted and co-opted her sexuality. I also apologize for giving the impression that we believe the stereotypical notion of woman as self-sacrificing, nurturing to all those around at the expense of her well-being, as representing her natural self, as we agree, it is a patriarchal fallacious standard. Your parting comment says it better than I do and I would like your permission to use it in the future for it sums up our belief forcefully and accurately:
"The patriarchal society in which we live, and which is reinforced by misogynists on a daily basis, tells women how to fuck and have sex and make love and who they should fuck and have sex with and make love with, and that shit ain't right"
Thank you all for your comments, as constructive criticism is invaluable in pointing out the errors, misrepresentations, and other misconceptions that might prevail. It makes our understanding more complete, albeit imperfect, but at least it provides a foundation.
If there are more of you who are willing to add your voice, critical or not, please do as it contributes greatly to women in general.
They also found that in chimpanzees, (the species that is closest to human DNA) the female has invented weapons for hunting. So the first weapons creators in the chimpanzee world are females. They sharpen the sticks and use them to stab their food.
You are right and the list goes on and on. How about language (the need to communicate the myriad nuances of survival to her offspring, the contention that man invented it to 'bond' during hunting is another bogus attempt to co-opt woman's ingenuity); rope for baskets, rafts, nets, shelter, etc.; tanning; weaving; sewing; clothes; pottery and utensils; traps and snares for small animals; food processing, cooking, and agriculture (her downfall). BTW, what exactly was man's contribution during our first 190,000 years?
Use the quote as much as you fancy! Thanks for replying to my comment.
I will say that I disagree with the idea that women should "resume directorship"; although that might be just a word-choice thing again. "Directorship", with the connotations of a rigid and static power structure beneath it, is again a very patriarchal idea- I think new words would need to be invented for a feminist and women-led model of society, since full inclusion would be a necessary guiding force of such a model.
What you suggest brings out the problem...wording. I agree that new words must be formulated, preferably by women. We posit that in the Pleistocene, for numerous reasons too lengthy to discuss here, woman was, indeed, the 'Leader' in a cooperative venture that gave us 'civilization'. It was she who lead the way...Directed? Guided? Managed? Administered? Regulated? Governed? Supervised? All words appropriate to her leadership, but as you point out, all words intimately associated with patriarchy. I really like your analysis and if you can, help me with the wording.
There is something deeply creepy about this post. I can't put my finger on what, but there just is.
There must be something that bothers you, that causes you to pause and wonder. Can you not identify words, phrases, or concepts that don't seem right to you? If you get this feeling that something is "deeply creepy", then there must be a reason. Something we say or intimate is setting off red flags and in my experience, this is an accurate indicator that something is not right. This is exactly what I was referring to in my answer above--finding the pieces that don't fit. In reading the article, everyone will have a different take. It would be immensely beneficial to us if you could try to dissect it and find where your finger falls.
If you need to ask questions, rip away, cut to the bone, and let's find out what bothers you about the post. We have invested over 50 years of our time and almost 8,000 women have contributed to this ongoing study and your contribution to fleshing out any inconsistencies is more than welcome. So, please pick it over and I will respond to anything you wish to ask or comment on. Let's see if we can find the creepy culprits.
I find the mysterious "We" pretty creepy:
"We have been studying"
"We have amassed"
"We plan"
"We will"
It sounds very much like "We know better than you", "We are THE authority", "We will give the orders". Sounds very religious/culty, particulary since there is no 'opinion', everything is presented as an unquestionable FACT. Reading this I got a similar feeling to when I read the Bible once and kept noticing the phrase "I am the LORD" is repeated like a mantra through the first half of the OT.
Then there's:
"she is the salvation of our species."
Which sounds VERY much like a religion/cult type thing to say, and also a religion/cult with apparently a very definite idea of what a woman is.
As an aside - Does anybody know where I can find the evidence that women invented language, textiles, weaving, sewing, clothes, traps etc etc? It sounds a bit like the usual evolutionary biology psuedo-science but in reverse...
The 'we' you find objectionable refers to the two of us, the coauthors of the study, and in no way connotes any degree of implied authority, especially the patriarchal or biblical type. We do not paint ourselves as 'above' anyone, nor do we advocate or prescribe any particular lifestyle or pattern of behavior--our point is to make available information that has been buried for millennia. We are not a cult or religion as you infer in your comment:
It sounds very much like "We know better than you", "We are THE authority", "We will give the orders". Sounds very religious/culty, particulary since there is no 'opinion', everything is presented as an unquestionable FACT. Reading this I got a similar feeling to when I read the Bible once and kept noticing the phrase "I am the LORD" is repeated like a mantra through the first half of the OT.
If you would re-read other portions of my posts you will note that I do not present everything as fact. Note that I write 'we argue that', or 'in our opinion', or recent research indicates',etc.
The important point, however, is that you find the contents distasteful and that has great significance to us. It means that somewhere I failed to convey the message in an appropriate manner and that will turn many women away from what we have to say. This is unacceptable to us and I must find a way of preventing this.Your criticism is well taken..any suggestions? Anyone?
Lastly you ask:
As an aside - Does anybody know where I can find the evidence that women invented language, textiles, weaving, sewing, clothes, traps etc etc? It sounds a bit like the usual evolutionary biology psuedo-science but in reverse...
Yes, there is much out there that is not the pseudoscientific, mumbo-jumbo psychobabble of evo-psych, but it is scattered wide; however, I would recommend that you read "The Invisible Sex: Uncovering the True Roles of Women in Prehistory" by Adovasio, Soffer, and Page. This book does not contain all, but it is an excellent starting point if you are truly interested in learning of woman's contribution as the driving force behind our civilization. I leave you with an interesting quotation from the book: “…that females and women have been as important as men, if not far more so, as the engines of our emergence as a species and of our success at colonizing and living on this planet.” Note the subtle phrase...if not far more so... and contemplate its meaning.
In the meantime, please let me know your suggestions for making our message agreeable to you.
can we work with the idea that maybe the billions of women on the planet have a different sexuality than each other, and shouldn't all be considered the same? this same thing bothered me in the NY Times article a while ago. Women don't all have the same sex, nor do they all think about sex the same way. that's good. so articles about "women's sexuality" are always going to have a problem, in that women's sexuality isn't a single thing. it isn't unified.
Dr. G: on your site, you mention something about male transformation being the outcome of female sexuality. I appreciate how most of the rhetoric of your site is not in least bit heteronormative, except this part. Could you explain it to me?
Simone, male transformation is the antithesis of heteronormative sex and constitutes one of the many awesome powers of woman that have been buried over the last 5,000 years. It is the one power that the patriarchs fear most, for it tends to 'normalize' males and negate any gender-based behavioral characteristics. It works by developing new cerebral networks.
As Gopher correctly pointed out above, our brains are NOT hardwired, contrary to what the patriarchal 'scientists' would have you believe. To claim that you are hardwired (genetically mandated) to behave in certain ways is just another method of controlling woman's sexuality. In truth, our brains are in the constant state of flux, known as neuroplasticity. We are each individually products of our basic biologic plan plus our experiential history (see the many comments above alluding to the individuality). It is the phenomenon of neuroplasticity that enables learning and that allows for transformation.
I could go on for hours discussing this, as I do on our seminars and workshops. It is a deep seated passion of mine, but space limits our discussion.
So you mean that when men and women are having equally satisfying sex, it should negate their gender differences?
If that's the case, does women having unsatisfying sex create gender differences? I've long had this thought that a lot of the things we label as "feminine" are just characteristics of a suppressed and unhappy people, like shallowness and frivolity.
The short answer to equally satisfying sex (and it depends greatly on your definition of "sex") is Yes, but with a caveat, the man has to be sexually receptive, an energy attribute that woman detects and processes subconsciously. You all have it, but seldom use it, mostly because you're not aware that you possess it. Without this receptivity, an unconscious willingness to 'learn' from her, it will not work and that's its greatest weakness. Moreover, she must be sexual agreeable, that is willing to not only have sex but to use her energy (her mental attributes) to combine with his to cause neuroplasticity to work. I realize it sounds nuts, off-the-wall, and as katemoore puts it 'deeply creepy', but it works. It worked with me and it has worked with many others, but it's a complicated process that takes two dedicated persons.
And, yes to your second observation: unsatisfying sex centers primarily on the woman's unconscious perception of a lack of receptivity (discounting technique, lack of expertise,the physicality of the moment, etc)and may create in both persons gender-ascribed attributes. Think stereotypically.
Your thought about the 'feminine' label is insightful. The patriarchs didn't just think stereotype out of the blue, the attributes were there, they just took advantage of them and pasted on a genetic label, then inculcated you with it. It this, as I indicated above, the dichotomy present in women caused by the Inversion and it is one that will remain to create problems for her until she realizes she really has a choice, but first she must be aware of that choice. This is yet another method of controlling woman's sexuality...keep her ignorant, suppressed, and subconsciously chronically disenchanted.
Woman embodies so much more than we are taught and it is because of her innate endowments, that the patriarchs had to usurp her abilities if a male-dominated society was to have any chance of succeeding. And, we have to admit, even the most ardent feminists among us, that they have succeeded in spades.
Oh nuts, I'm on my soapbox and wandering far off your topic. Sorry. If you have any more questions or concerns, just ask or e-mail me via the web site.
k so the feminist philosophy- woman have been molded by society ex: they put baby boys is blue and baby girls in pink. k, i agree to an extent. however aren't we (if you believe in evolution) related to others animals and we have instincts and genes. i know there is a lot of science out there that says woman and men are this way because off evolution and you guys immediately disregard this as fringe science. which it may be. well i'm at uni and my major is wildlife biology and personally i don't like it when people on blogs use science in their argument one because it could be fringe science or they are taking research from scientists and making a claim or fact when the scientists never did this. so in my blog i will recommend a book. not written by scientists, feminists or those rascally PUAs. it was written by salesman i think a salesman actually, i dunno. so i think that's a pretty unbiased source. any who the book is on body language and was first intended to teach salesman/saleswoman how to sell stuff better. k and in the book there is a chapter on body language that men and woman do to attract the opposite sex. 2 things woman do is expose there wrist and tilt their heads to expose their neck. both of these gestures are signs of submissions (supposedly). now are woman doing this because they want to submit? i dunno it could be they do this because subconsciously or consciously they know it attracts men. and do men now why they find it attractive? no we just know that we like it. i don't think this means that woman want to submit or that men want to dominate them it's just that this could be instinct and genes and all that other crap. or it could very well be social construction or whatever you guys call it.