Recently in Sex Category

Hello, everybody. Before we get into this post, I would first like to say that I am very interested in everyone's opinions. I know this is a sensitive topic but I don't think it's been brought up before. I wish this wouldn't offend anyone, but I'm not going to get my hopes up. I worry that I will be attacked for what I'm about to bring up. This subject may cause triggers, so I urge you to read with discretion.

One of the foremost causes of the feminist movement deals with female sexuality and its place in society. It's not uncommon for females in Western society to be sexualized in ways that leave them victimized or brutalized. Women in this society are encouraged to be the "chased" instead of "chasing". They're objectified and suffer horrendous violent acts - particularly rape.

The issue I would like to address ties in closely with victimized sexuality. I would like to discuss the "rape fantasy".

Rape fantasy is fairly popular. It can be seen in milder forms in romance novels and movies, for instance, but is usually portrayed as when a woman previously unwilling is grabbed and kissed, etc, until she gives in and even enjoys the intercourse.

A very important thing to note is that rape and rape fantasy are significantly different in that a woman engaging in a rape fantasy is consenting. She has agreed to act out a scenario that simulates rape but is not actually being forced. She has a safeword or a hand gesture that immediately guarantees the end of the sexual role play, but if it is not obeyed, it is rape. Ideally, her partner and she have discussed all aspects of the scenario, including do's and don'ts and are both aware of the terms.

But the issue lies in the inherent violence of such an interaction. It is essentially a subset of BDSM (bondage/discipline, sadism/masochism), which means that it is about an exchange of power, and it makes me wonder:

Is BDSM naturally misogynistic? Does it only serve to reinforce gender roles? (Even in the cases of dominatrixes?) Are couples that engage in BDSM and rape fantasies violent or unhealthy, even if they don't hit or verbally abuse each other outside of their designated BDSM scenarios?

And what does this mean for the female's sexuality? Is she backtracking, so to speak, by reverting to archaic ideas of violent, sexual, male dominance? Can she actually enjoy and want to engage in such a role or does the context of her society make that an impossibility?

In defense of women who enjoy rape fantasies, I would like to quote (rather than discuss because I would rather not turn this into an essay) an article by Sharon Lamb entitled "The "right" sexuality for girls". In it, she discusses female sexuality and desire, and there are a few points that I feel relate to this subject. The first is:

"In the useful essay "Objectification," the philosopher Martha C. Nussbaum describes several forms of objectification. She notes that it is possible in an equitable relationship for one person to sexually objectify another without being exploitative or demeaning. She suggests that longing to be admired, wanted, and looked at as an object of desire is part of human nature, and it is possible to admire, want, and look fairly. In a just society, all people -- male and female; heterosexual, gay, bisexual, transgender -- should be able to have a sexual life in which they are both subjects and objects of desire, without exploitation."

The key idea here is that it is possible to be objectified without being exploited.

That sex is supposed to be sacred is something we've all heard - and in some ways, we all have accepted, somehow. It's supposed to be special. It's only supposed to be with someone we're emotionally connected with - that it's making love.

In the end, it's not - and it only prevents us all, especially women, from truly loving ourselves and enjoying the biological pleasures nature was so kind to have bestowed on us.

What bothers me most about making sex out to be more than what it really is - just an act (although just like walking, eating dinner or any other biological things we enjoy, it can be special if it's with someone special) - is that there is a double standard - not just gender wise, but also age wise.

Boys and men are supposed to seek out sex. We're supposed to have it as much as we can, however we can. This not only leads to men and boys thinking of sex as just a tool to further their masculinities and to rise on the social ladder, it also leads to things like date rape.

For women and girls, however, nice girls don't - and thus, women are supposed to only have sex with someone special, someone who "sweeps [them] off [their] feet," rather than just enjoying it. Further, my making sex special, a heterosexist society also indicates that sex is only to be enjoyed, of course, between a man and a woman - and penis in vagina. Nevermind the throves of people who enjoy sex with people who have the same equipments as they do!

While a lot has been said about the double standard of sex when it comes to gender, I want to also focus on the double standard when it comes to age. By no means am I advocating that adults should be having sex with young teenagers, but can we please stop treating sexual desires as something that gets turned on by a switch at someone's 18th birthday?

I like sex. You like sex. Sixteen-year-olds like sex, 13-year-olds like sex, everyone likes sex - or at least the physical feelings brought forth by sex. Yet, we treat those under 18 as though they are asexual, that they have no feelings "no there." Worst yet, boys are encouraged to explore and have sex, whereas girls, while sexualized and dressed up as adult women, are not supposed to enjoy it - but rather, simply serve as eye candy for men desiring sex with them. What sense does that make, really?

The whole notion of innocence and virginity, too, works to the disadvantage of young women. Apparently, losing a piece of tissue is more traumatic than losing out on enjoying the pleasures your body gives you. Innocence and virginity at something women are supposed to be the gatekeepers of, yet a man, who is a virgin, is considered a loser.

I am a liberal feminist who focuses more on the political movement than I am on the sexual liberation movement, but does it bother me that, because boys are taught to explore, that the majority of boys and young men will learn to enjoy their bodies - through masturbation or otherwise, than the majority of women will? That is to say, women, overwhelmingly, will have their first orgasm at a much later age than will men.

Lastly, it seems the issue of making sex into something special only done in marriage, and the issue of innocence, is also hurting young people in that they are not getting the information they need to keep them safe - and to save their lives. I was horny at 13, so were you, and it hasn't changed within the last decade or so. Thirteen-year-olds, nowadays, also get horny. I was lucky enough to have grown up in the Unitarian Church, and sexuality was dealt with and talked about openly. Imagine if you were 13, horny, ignorant of what you can do to protect yourself, and are still having sex ...your life would be ruined.

My point in all this is that to reduce the numbers of abortions, to ensure everyone can enjoy the pleasures of sex, whether with a partner or with themselves, and to make sure that women's sexuality and pleasures are taken as seriously as men, we need to do away with trying to "protect" young women from the "evils" of sex.

After all, if a 13-year-old can decide to take a walk and be safe, she can also decide to have sex and be safe.

This is something I wrote because it's been stewing in my mind for the past...who knows how long.  I finally decided to get all the thoughts flying around in my head down on paper.

One of the things that always gets me upset is when I see tv shows and movies depicting men spouting these stupid lies in order to get a girl in bed with him on the first date, or the first time they’ve met.  Afterward, if the woman finds out about the lies she always get pissed and yells at him for deceiving her.  Surprisingly, I don’t get mad at the men who are lying.  I get mad at the women who sleep with these men and then get mad.  See the thing that I never understand is why these women choose to sleep with men based on what they say.  On a first date, or when you’ve first met a man, what he says is virtually irrelevant.  You have no way of knowing whether he actually is a doctor or likes opera or writes poetry or whatever bullshit he might say.  And quite frankly, when it comes to the decision of whether or not to have sex with him after that date, why on earth would these things matter?  Does the fact that he might be a doctor mean that he’s more worthy of having sex with you on the first date?  That’s ludicrous. 
   
The truth is, the only thing that should affect a woman’s choice of whether to have sex with a man she just met is what she wants and how she feels.  If you’re at dinner and just can't stop thinking about being in bed with the guy, then you should sleep with him if the opportunity presents itself.  Whether he says he’s a doctor, a lawyer, or anything else shouldn’t matter in the slightest. 

As I was reading this NYT Op-Ed about this craze known as "The Hookup Culture", I was worried at first, and then almost relieved, b/c Mr. Blow seemed to be handling it rather fairly, until he consulted his "expert".  His facts from the CDCaP and the JoAR show positive  effects of "hooking up" over dating.  He could have dug a little deeper there.  He could have stopped there.  There showed a decrease in the amount of sex that teens were having, as well as no increase in diseases.  There was even some indication that self esteem was on the rise.  I am a fan of building up the self esteem of teenagers, especially teenage girls (having been one myself, once).

My Fuck You of the Day goes to Mr. Blow, and to Kathleen Bogle, a professor at LaSalle University, and author of the book Hooking Up: Sex, Dating and Relationships on Campus, for this little gem of information:

The cons center on the issues of gender inequity. Girls get tired of hooking up because they want it to lead to a relationship (the guys don’t), and, as they get older, they start to realize that it’s not a good way to find a spouse.

Yeah.  Girls get tired of sex b/c they would rather be in a relationship than be able to make grown up decisions about their own lives, and guys don't want yucky strings attached.  Girls are crazed trying to find a husband before all their eggs dry up.  We are just ticking wombs on legs.

She also adds that it used to be that we were trained our whole lives to date.  I am so sorry to disappoint her, but I wasn't "trained" my whole life to do anything but be a grown up.  One who knows how to make decisions about what she wants from life, and then figure out how to achieve it.  I don't know about you, Ms. Bogle, but I am so much more than my ability to find and catch a husband, and The Guy is so much more than some Prize Catch to be mounted on my wall.

BTW, Mr. Blow, it's not sad that I wasn't trained to date.  It's my life.  One lived by a woman who is in charge of her sexual freedom and autonomy.

Sky Bully forbid that I enjoy sex.

BTW, I fuck on the first date if it suits me.  And it did.

I wound up w/ a pretty good life.  It's what I wanted.  And it isn't for Ms. Bogle nor Mr. Blow to judge.

(cross posted)

This Salon article is so interwoven with stereotypes is seems less like a personal memoir and more like bad chick lit fiction.

All single men are gay, the ones who aren't want younger women, married couples don't have sex, she wants meaningful sex and to change the men she's with, she likes cats and despises football and appreciates having the toilet seat down.  And, also, my least favorite part: "I adore men -- they are so different from women -- and I'm intrigued by the way they think."

There are a whole range of men out there, just like there are a whole of women out there.  While you can always point to a beer guzzling Neanderthal and a primadonna to make the case that men and women are worlds apart, I strongly resist the idea that men and women are like two different species.  We overstate and focuse on the evidence that confirms this idea rather than acknowledging that we have more in common than we don't.

I am currently enrolled in an online psychology class about human sexuality.  Since it is an online course there are message board discussions for class participation grades.  The questions given are opinion based and meant to be controversial.  I have been increasingly agitated by the responses by the class to some of these questions.  The most recent question is as follows:

Does oral sex qualify as “sex?” Bill Clinton didn’t seem to think so, and a number of teens today see oral sex as a “loophole” of sorts—a safe alternative to intercourse. What is your opinion? Does the definition of sex differ in different contexts or situations to include or exclude oral sex?

I had to chuckle when I first read the question because, for me, if it has sex as part of it’s name, then yes, oral sex is sex.  It’s like asking “is the hot tea, tea?”

I soon discovered that a majority of board posters personally defined sex as penetrative, favouring penis in vagina penetration with a specific bent on virginity.  I pointed out that such a definition of sex is heterocentric and phallocentric and that it excludes individuals, such as lesbians. I also thought that it was a dangerous definition that in the past has been used to define what actions are and are not rape, therefore disregarding and devaluing experiences of sexual assault.

It turns out the class wasn’t having any of my explanation.  Even when one individual who agreed with me went to Webster’s Dictionary to find an “official” definitions which read as follows:

SEX - 3 a: sexually motivated phenomena or behavior b: sexual intercourse

SEXUAL INTERCOURSE - 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus
2 : intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis

Individuals still held to claims of sex only meaning that which includes a penis penetrating something.  People have flat out written that they do not think lesbians are having or can have sex.  I am most disturbed with the fact that these individuals do not see what is wrong with their argument.

The bottom line is that it is heterocentric and phallocentric to define sex around the “all mighty” penis.  These arguments logically lead to understandings of sexual behaviour that centre around men and their pleasure.  If the penis is the tool that defines when sex is occuring, that this means that men alone are “having sex” while women “have sex done” to them.   This definition ignores any number of sexual experiences and behaviours that include sexual orientation, preference, and physical ability and it is harmful to devalue these experiences of others.

I don’t know why I am so surprised that a majority of people posting define and want adherence to a definition that is heterosexual and sexist… All I have to do is glance at the front cover of a Cosmo magazine and remember how our society defines sex and who is favoured within that definition.

A little while back there was a thread here on feministing there was a post about Max Hardcore's conviction (here ). Someone mentioned a new film called "The Price of Pleasure ", just recently I discovered that it was viewable online. I discovered a site run by the Media Education Foundation , which I hadn't heard of until just now, Bell Hooks, Susan Fauldi (and others) are on the advisory board (awesome! ) anyway, the full-length documentary can be viewed there if anyone is interested.

The link to the film is HERE (click on "view full length program")

I'd be interested to hear what other think if anyone happens to watch the film and wants to share thier opinion. I'll probably post some comments in the thread a little later, but right now, without providing any commentary from me, I just wanted to simply let people know this film is there if interested.

"The Price of Pleasure" (Summary ):

Once relegated to the margins of society, pornography has emerged as one of the most visible and profitable sectors of the cultural industries, assuming an unprecedented role in the mainstream of our popular culture at the same time that its content has become more extreme and harsh, more overtly sexist and racist. This eye-opening and disturbing film tackles the complexity behind this seeming paradox, placing the voices of critics, producers, and performers alongside the observations of men and women as they candidly discuss the role pornography has played in shaping their sexual imaginations and relationships. Honest and non-judgmental, The Price of Pleasure moves beyond the liberal versus conservative debates so common in the culture to paint a myth-busting and nuanced portrait of how pleasure and pain, commerce and power, liberty and responsibility have become intertwined in the most intimate area of our lives. An ideal tool for initiating classroom discussion about this notoriously difficult subject. 

[Directed by Chyng Sun & Miguel Picker]

Note : (From the site): "Viewer discretion advised: contains violence, nudity, and sexual imagery."

People who aren't interested in seeing "The Price of Pleasure", however, might be interested in viewing some of the other films on the site, which include documentaries under the categories of race, gender, health, politics, consumerism, etc.

Her is the actual URL for "The Price of Pleasure" is here just in case you can't link from the above links.

This essay has been floating around the internet since 2001, and I'm sure I read it a couple years back. I rediscovered it the other day and it's still very powerful. It's the best take on the sexual double-standard I've ever read.

Go read it.

Here's an excerpt:

"Slut" is for kissing boys with tongue. "Slut" is for kissing lots of different boys with tongue. "Slut" is for craving kissing lots of different boys with tongue. That's not right, you know. It says so in the Bible, and in social hygiene films. "Slut" is for loving sex. "Slut" is for needing sex. "Slut" is for thinking sex isn't shameful. Sex is for married people, for diamond owners, for nice girls in twin sets whose mothers hid the Erica Jong, for people totally and completely, like, in total and complete love, and it takes place behind closed doors, with the lights out. Sex isn't fun. Sex isn't casual. Sex is a deadly serious, disgusting, dirty, degrading business. Just lie there. Don't move around. Don't use your fingernails or moan or anything; that's slutty. Don't get on top. Don't go down. Going down is really slutty, especially if you like it as much as he does. Ew. That's so gross. Only a slut would like that. That's so sickening. I bet you masturbate, too. Ew, I can't even think about that. That's so foul — touching yourself down there like that? That's — well, it's dirty and sticky and gross, dude! Nobody does that. Well, boys do, but that's different.

Enjoy.

The room was Pepto-Bismol bright pink with books and clothes strewn about in a messy, cant see the floor way. From the various nick-knacks you could tell that the inhabitant was a science-fiction fan, a writer, a believer in unicorns, and lastly a virgin.

Normally, one’s sexual encounters are not obvious in their everyday decorations, but Natalie Holden’s room yells it out from just one wall.

Above the 20-year-old, NYU sophomore’s headboard hangs a hand drawn poster that is almost an exact copy of the poster for the Steve Carrell movie “The 40-Year-Old Virgin.” It is almost exact in that where Steve’s face should be appears Holden’s face and where 40 should be there is a bolder, underlined 20.

After allegedly contracting the herpes virus from a woman who he had sex with, Oregon man Cyrus Sullivan created a website which essentially, "outs," those who have STDs.

"If we know you will," reads the poorly edited home page of Sullivan's site, a disorganized mess of red, white, and blue. Clicking upon the, "STD Carriers," link takes you to a relatively short list of alleged carriers of a variety of STDs, organized by name, city, state, gender, ethnicity, and type of STD. You may obtain additional details about the alleged, "STD Carriers," including full names and ages, as well as height, weight, hair and eye color, MySpace links, even photographs.