This may sound strange at first but the reason these phrases piss me off is that:
1) They always imply that what a woman/girl does with her sexuality is the primary (or one of the primary) indications of how she feels about herself as a whole. Which may not seem so insidious except that what the speaker normally means is that a woman/girl can't really respect herself if she's having sex under certain circumstances or having sex in general (or maybe even doing or THINKING things that are too sexual). It seems ludicrous to many to think that a woman may be respecting herself by exploring a basic part of her humanity in a way that she finds enjoyable.
2) The woman/girl is always considered the object, never the subject. This always seems to go hand in hand with the idea that women are receptacles for male sperm as opposed to sexual beings who may also get pleasure from engaging in sexual activity. This also reflects the common notion that men [expletive] women (do something TO them) instead of having sex WITH women (engaging in a mutual activity).
I know there are many mixed messages out there about sex. And for young men and women it must be particularly hard to muddle through without resorting to worn out sexual stereotypes. But we should try countering those played out messages with some more positive ones that don't slut shame women or paint all men as feelingless sex robots. And one small step to get that going is by eliminating phrases like this that imply so much that is so wrong.
Any other phrases that are similar and should be discarded?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Sexist Terminology: 'Respect Yourself' and 'He's Using You'.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13848
The use of language in modern times is one of the(if not the greatest ) major obsticles in achieving equal EVERYTHING for minorities(i dont mean race only). So, with that being said you have pretty much hit the nail on the head with this rant b/c simple and very common phrases are perpetuating all the negative stereotypes and supporting social constructs of the last 100 years!
s
i totally agree. another saying that pisses me off:
'why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free'
if i even try to explain all the things wrong with that stupid stupid phrase, my head explodes.
ahhhhhhhhhhhhh my mum says that line to me all the time. Everytime she says it, the expression of pure joy on her face really weirds me out.
Another fun variation:
If you give away all the bread slices, all thats left is the bag and nobody wants to buy that.
'Respect yourself' is the best advice in the world, but I hate how so many people just mean it as 'keep your legs shut, slut.'
To address your second point: I will not deny that the common sexual diction and phrasing of sexual acts absolutely has a sexist connection (men fuck women). However, I think it might also have arisen from the fact that women are quite literally the receivers of sex in the act itself. Is it possible that the stereotype of women as a sex object is, to a very small extent, perpetuated by the functions of the genitalia itself? Or do you think it is because society has attributed the stereotype to that genitalia?
Just stirring conversation...
I don't agree that "women are quite literally the receivers of sex in the act itself"?
You can say that a vagina is being penetrated by a penis, but you can also say a penis is being enveloped by a vagina. When a woman is on top, she is likely the one doing all (or most) of the movement, and the man is literally lying there receiving pleasure from her vagina.
So yes, I think society has attributed the stereotypes about men and women to their genitalia. Women do not have to be passive receivers during PIV sex. There are many positions in which a woman can be completely in control while the man is in a more passive position. And it goes the other way too.
Also just so you know women fuck men too. And women fuck women. And men fuck men.
literally the receivers of sex in the act itself.
I want to unpack this:
the act itself
The act, or just one act? Must sex always be intercourse? Must it always be penis-vagina intercourse? Of course not. Why is it we privilege this one act as the act when it is so limited, but as to who it applies to and in terms of the options for sexual intimacy between partners?
receivers of sex
I don't like constructing sex as a commodity. I don't like constructing it as something that gets given, taken, or bought. I prefer to see sex as something that people do. If two consenting adults are sexual with each other, is one person the "receiver?" Not of the sex, by my reckoning. Maybe of the dick, if the kind of sex that have involves one ... but then why is one partner receiving the cock instead of enveloping it? Why do we construct one set of genitals as active and the other as passive?
Also, if women are "receivers of the sex," why is it that men "get some"? There's an inconsistency to the language here.
I'm with Marie. This way of speaking about sex is penetro- and hetero-normative. It takes a side in favor of privileging certain acts, certain pairings of partners as "normal" and legitimizing them, and delegitimizing others. It posits a dynamic of male control and power as normal and legitimizes it. It's a political way of talking aobut sex, and ought to be called out as such.
Thank you both for your opinions, and I understand where you are both coming from. I did not mean to imply at all that women cannot fuck men, only that it is represented that way in our culture. I was searching for other reasons that this might be so. I also did not mean to imply that there is no other kind of sex besides heterosexual PIV intercourse; that happened to be the sex that was up for debate in that moment.
Also, thank you both for the comment about the vagina "enveloping" the penis. Enlightening. I agree that stereotypes have been attributed to the genitalia rather than vice versa.