In this post, you will find: some incendiary thoughts to promote discussion. i do believe in these ideas, but i’m open to changing my opinions if compelling arguments are offered. and a bunch of personal revelations. for me, it is about time to come out with it!
- Patriarchy is everywhere. Example follows in #2.
- Men have the incentive to promote sex-positivism, as they have a lot to gain from the idea that women who exercise sex and sex appeal are using them as tools for empowerment. When in fact, these women are tricked into assuming a very specific kind of power, while forgoing many other avenues of expression and empowerment. Of course men would want to promote the idea that women having sex and being sexy and doing sex-work is a good thing for the women themselves. When in fact, I believe that it hurts women, while helping men to get what they want, i.e. sex. This kind of empowerment is dependent upon male response, and is therefore, not empowerment at all.
- Heterosexual penetrative vaginal intercourse is inherently unequal. The man in this situation can orgasm so he has less incentive to stop, while the woman will rarely find it as pleasurable. Most women cannot climax through this kind of sex. Why, then, are they even having it? I know it must feel good for many women. But it doesn’t feel as good as so many other things, for many women. Why do women settle for an action that only feels kind of good sometimes? I have some ideas for why. It is because women feel culturally pressured into having sex, into feeling that they are not complete people if they have not had sex. I know why I sometimes have sex. It is to please the man. Coincidentally, it may sometimes feel pleasurable for me. But even if it didn’t, I would probably have this kind of sex. I have been tricked into attaching some of my self-worth to whether a man wants to, and will, have sex with me. (To my bejai-baby: I love you and we’ve talked about this and you are amazing and it’s awesome that you are willing to not have sex with me, though I won’t thank you for it, as it’s not exactly a favor that you are granting me so much as not prohibiting me from exercising my right that I already have to not have sex.)
- It seems unnatural to think of not having sex. But power structures survive from generation to generation by the illusion of naturalness. The oppressor will make the victim think that SEX is how it has always been, that SEX is natural, that SEX cannot change. And the victim will believe him. And it will go on and on and on. The idea that women should reconsider having sex is met with great opposition, even from my like-minded feminist peers!
Thoughts please.
Thanks Ork!
I might write a more elaborate response to your post later but for now I offer this question:
In your opinion, is there a difference between doing something to please men and doing something to please your partner who happens to be a man?
Though vaginal sex is a good example to illustrate this point (as it does almost invariably give the man more pleasure than the woman) I think the better example is a woman giving a man oral sex. absolutely no tangible pleasure for the woman and it could even leave her jaw feeling a little sore.
Now whether the woman is performing oral sex on a stranger (random bar fuck, costumer, etc) or on her loved one, there is always an inherent element of self-sacrifice. But does the latter form of self-sacrifice necessarily perpetuate the female oppression?
I think the answer is no, it does not necessarily reinforce the patriarchy. You need only to think of lesbians and mothers who run into burning buildings to save their sons. In the case of the lesbian woman, performing oral sex on her partner gives her just as little (physical) pleasure as the woman performing oral sex on her male partner, but it would be weird to say that this lesbian woman was doing what she did in an unconscious effort to please men. That is, unless you think sex is an entirely male-invented concept, which I would find very hard to believe. In the case of the woman risking her life to save her son (admittedly a more stretched analogy), I would not say her selfless action is evidence of her victimization, as she is probably just doing what any parent would do.
There a lot more to cover here. I only tackled intimate sexual relationships, maybe because I’m not completely sure of how I feel about sexual relationships that aren’t intimate. Anywho, i hope this starts something rolling.
“In your opinion, is there a difference between doing something to please men and doing something to please your partner who happens to be a man?”
Yep. Huge difference. One is oppressive, the other is just a part of relationships.
I still think men try less with women. From my own experience, as well as that of so many other women, I have discovered that both men and women, whether in relationships or not, consider penetrative vaginal sex as the be-all and end-all of their sexual experience. So much is lost in that thought. Oral sex is a different matter–I think it can be a good part of sexual experience if it is done equally, giving as well as taking.
You always bring up things I’m not talking about. I specified vaginal sex. You seem to dodge around the issue of how having vaginal sex, with nothing in return, is an oppressive act done to women by men.
Don’t mean to shut you down (obviously), and I hope I’m not. Just being straight-forward, as is my favorite thing to do 🙂
Oh and also, what do you think about the idea of men being proponents of sex-positivism? Doesn’t the idea disgust you? It disgusts me, for sure.
“have discovered that both men and women, whether in relationships or not, consider penetrative vaginal sex as the be-all and end-all of their sexual experience.”
Yes! i totallly agree that that’s fucked up.
I’m sorry, I thought you were using vaginal sex as an example of sex that pleases the man more than the woman and I thought a better example of that kind of sex was female-on-male oral sex, since its more definitive that women don’t get pleasure from that. I didn’t know that your main point was about the idea of vaginal sex being this super important step in a relationship. yeah, that I totally agree that this is terrible for women, and also heteronormative. But I think give-and-take also applies to vaginal sex. if a woman wants to give her male partner vaginal sex because it’s his favorite kind, I don’t think that’s bad (again, as long as there is reciprocation.)
so basically, I was responding to this:
“Most women cannot climax through this kind of sex. Why, then, are they even having it?”
not this:
“women feel culturally pressured into having sex, into feeling that they are not complete people if they have not had sex.”
When you say sex-positive, are you still just talking about vaginal sex? I think men and women being sex-positive is a good thing. Or at least, I think its better than being sex-negative. I think that (don’t kill me) sexual urges do come naturally to a lot of people, male and female, and trying to fight them is kind of useless and potentially harmful. I don’t think it’s bad for men to like sex, and I don’t think a man just wanting sex in necessarily indicative of a patriarchal attitude. I really don’t see much evidence at all for this claim. In fact, you say men like the sex-positive attitude because they have something to gain from it, and that what they gain is sex, which is basically saying that men are sex-positive because they like sex, so you still haven’t really said what’s wrong with it.
what is wrong is that men, when promoting sex-positivism, rarely say “i think sex is great because i love it.” ben made a post a while back addressing issues of sex-positivism in relation to feminism. what he was trying to say, and im paraphrasing here, is “sex-positivism is a positive thing for women, and feminism.” i just think that it is hard for a man to say something like that and be taken seriously by women, because he may be motivated by a much baser instinct than the desire to promote feminism. and maybe it is true that having sex is good for women, good for feminism. but coming from a man, all i can think is “well of course *you* would say that.” i dont have a reason to trust the hidden motivations that men may or may not have. men have been unkind to me, and many women i know, all my life.
if men were more direct about it, it would be a different story.
okay ill write more later i have to get out of the library we’re closing for dinner
Great post, Orkinson. I definitely have had trouble with figuring out where sex belongs in my life, at my hands or those of another person. I’m started to wish I was just asexual and didn’t have to rationalize so much. So many social implications are intertwined in sex and it’s hard for me not to feel as though I have to re-invent the wheel each time I consider it. I’m glad you’re opening up discussion.
“i just think that it is hard for a man to say something like that and be taken seriously by women, because he may be motivated by a much baser instinct than the desire to promote feminism. and maybe it is true that having sex is good for women, good for feminism. but coming from a man, all i can think is ‘well of course *you* would say that.'”
I think this is a concern inherent to all topics of discussion, and especially discussions on sensitive topics like race and gender, which relate so much to an individual’s interpretation of their personal experiences. I think it’s good for men, (whites, rich people, etc), to be mindful that they are (almost) always speaking from a position of privilege and that they might, subconsciously, be rationalizing to retain that privilege. On the other hand, if in the process of rationalizing, a man makes a really good case for sex-positivism, should I reject that case because of his motivations (or in this case, what may have been his motivations), or should I accept sex-positivism because he made good points? I don’t know, what do you think?
Which one of ben’s post went into this? was it the one about stripping? I want to look it over again so I can get a better sense of where you’re coming from.
“On the other hand, if in the process of rationalizing, a man makes a really good case for sex-positivism, should I reject that case because of his motivations (or in this case, what may have been his motivations), or should I accept sex-positivism because he made good points? I don’t know, what do you think?”
I think you should be wary of accepting it. Like, you personally should be. because you already lean towards sex positivism as an ideological and practical preference, which i imagine makes you likely to accept lower-standard arguments for it. that being said, you are brilliantly smart, as i know from being friends with you for years, so i trust you more than i recommend you trust yourself. it’s always better to be your own worst critic.
yeah it was the post about stripping, and about how feminists were being rude to a sex-worker, online through back and forth comments or blogging or whatever. i think it’s mean to be rude to victims. but i think that we should also assume the courage to realize that they may really be victimized, rather than empowered, by their trade.
“I think that (don’t kill me) sexual urges do come naturally to a lot of people, male and female, and trying to fight them is kind of useless and potentially harmful.” earlier comment of yours that i want to respond to: i think the “naturalness” of sexual urges has been yet to be verified. it could be socialized into people, as a way to perpetuate the species. i understand that you strongly feel the drive to satisfy yourself sexually, but i dont find a compelling reason to believe that this is you feeling strongly “naturally” or because of how you were raised (with the media telling you every single moment that sex is what you have to work up to when you’re older and a woman. they make padded bras for 5 year olds these days!!!!!). it’s radical, but consider it.
and thanks, irene. what a troublesome issue.
Hey Ork,
In terms of a socialized sexual urge, I think in the case of women its the exact opposite. While we might be socialized to look sexy (padded bra for 5 year olds), we’re not supposed to actually enjoy sex. We’re told over and over again that pleasure is not important, or at least not as important as that of the man’s. Women are not supposed to masturbate, they’re not suppose to enjoy sex, it’s just for the man, man, man. The break from that kind of thinking is what sex-positivism is about. It’s about finally realizing that sex is supposed to be a POSITIVE experience for both men and women. In terms of vaginal sex, I think there is an unhealthy focus on it which is both heteronormative (in it’s obsession with baby-making) as well as possibly as you point out maybe inherently violent. But if considered just one of many parts of sex, and not the-end-all-be-all I think it’s fine, assuming of course that both partners are okay with it. Some women can only find pleasure in vaginal sex, other women can never find any. I think sex is something which varies greatly and each couple should do what feels best for them. Sex is a give and take. What’s most important I think is that this is an equitable exchange, which historically speaking it hasn’t been. If vaginal sex doesn’t fit into that schematic, I say ditch it, but I think for a lot of people it does.
munzi i fully agree with everything you said.
yeah me too
lucie and i have known each other for many, many years. we have a way of talking to each other. i dont blame you for not knowing this, but i am telling you now so that you dont have to feel “put off” in the future.
as for me being straightforward: i have no obligation to tone down my anger towards the patriarchy, and towards people i feel are apologizing for it. so im not going to change. i know youre not okay with that. but im also not okay with your expectation of having to be polite, or throw in some sort of conciliatory joke. im not joking around. i dont need to dilute my message. not when shit’s as fucked up as it is for women. as a woman, i feel oppressed by men, and oppressed by how they have brainwashed women into making assumptions about sexuality and power. and so im angry. and i will voice this anger.
“I’m sure Lucierohan was just focusing on a certain aspect of your post, and not intending to twist your words, or put words in your mouth (so to speak).”
lucie can speak for herself, ben. you dont have to defend her. it makes me feel upset that you think you can speak for her. if she was mad, she could have said so, and clarified what she had “actually” meant by what she said. i also dont like that you’re telling me how to interpret what lucie said. sometimes, it *is* easy to put words in people’s mouths, i know i do it. i can interpret things just fine on my own. and though i appreciate criticism on my thoughts, id rather leave for clarification a misunderstanding of interpretation to the two people that actually had it.
on the blog, nasty and scary things are discussed. it’s not reasonable to expect a conciliatory and gentle tone at all times. it’s great that you can do it. but it should be considered a bonus, not a bare minimum. the world is fucking fucked up and i will not be silenced. i refuse to prioritize friendliness over direct conversation about very important things.
Just a few more thoughts on the question of whether or not sexual desire is natural:
1) do we have a working definition of “natural”? are we using it to mean “biological” or “irreversible” or something else?
2) The only reason the naturalness of sexual urges should be debated is if we are accepting natural to mean irreversible. Whether sexual urges are biological or not is irrelevant. It does not help my argument to say that they are biological and it does not help your argument to say that they aren’t biological. Neither answer says anything about whether or not these urges can exist within an egalitarian society.
3) I am inclined to think that sexual urges are irreversible and that trying to undo them can lead to suffering. For example, many closeted gay men end up having sex with strangers in rest stops. So really, I’m very wary about telling women that their sexual urges are wrong, even if I am doing it to uphold feminism, because I think ultimately it just results in another kind of oppression. I don’t believe that we have to choose between Girls Gone Wild and celibacy. In fact, believe that what you call “raunch” culture is a direct result of the sex-negative society that preceded it. I am afraid that by preaching sex-negativism you are perpetuating this awful cycle of reactionary sexual attitudes, both of which confine the individual instead of liberating them.
“I’m very wary about telling women that their sexual urges are wrong, even if I am doing it to uphold feminism, because I think ultimately it just results in another kind of oppression.”
With whom do you have sex? I think that’s my problem. I’m all for sexual liberation. But I will not pleasure or be pleasured by someone who hasn’t thought about sex as much as I have. It rubs me the wrong way.
Good question. I think you’ve just answered it for yourself. As for me, I’d have sex with anyone I desire sexually. Not the most rational response, but for the most part, this requirement rules out men who are intimidated or “annoyed” by feminism and men who exert a sense of male entitlement to my body or my attention.
Yeah, that’s all I got.
1) do we have a working definition of “natural”? are we using it to mean “biological” or “irreversible” or something else?
i guess irreversible and insurmountable, as a result of being programmed that way. like the drive to eat and sleep. those are not socialized. the drive to have sex, im more conflicted on. it makes sense for human beings to “naturally” as in “inevitably” want to have sex. but are we sure that this doesnt just include men? men would have more incentive to have sex than women, because they are the ones who can impregnate? not sure about all this. very gray area. i guess im just rebelling against the idea that so many things are just “biological” or “natural” to us. that kind of propaganda is used by too many dominant powers in society to rationalize and subjugate their victims.
2) “It does not help my argument to say that they are biological and it does not help your argument to say that they aren’t biological.” true. but i never said that they aren’t biological. im merely questioning that they are, with the assumption that i will never find out, as it is impossible to find out what can or cannot exist in an egalitarian society with respect to this. how are we supposed to even *imagine* an egalitarian society, in this mess? every night i have nightmares about my dad beating the shit out of my mom, and sometimes me. and of men i have loved betraying me and trying to control me, as they do in real life too. it’s hard not to say “the men are all wrong and everything that they are saying is a lie” though i realize the implications of that sentiment. and i dont actually believe in that sentiment, though i often understandably feel it.
3) “I’m very wary about telling women that their sexual urges are wrong” but what if they are? it sucks that closeted gay men have to have this kind of horrible secretive oppressive lifestyle. but i think the analogy doesnt hold. for gay men, society tells them that they are dirty, shameful, immoral, and contrary to nature. for women, they are told that their ultimate goal should be to get married and settle down with a man, and if they arent having regular sex with the man (eg. what happens in sex and the city), then there is some horrible problem that they have to correct to make it so that they have a “healthy” sex life again filled with hot penetrative vaginal intercourse, with a few other this and thats on the side to help with the ultimate goal of penetrative vaginal intercourse.
i am not preaching sex negativism. i am considering it. it scares me that you are really opposed to considering stopping having sex for a while and thinking about it before either giving up forever, or starting up again.
Of course I’m considering it, Ork. I wouldn’t be having this conversation if I wasn’t considering it. I don’t happen to be sexually active at this point, though I don’t think that if I was sexually active I would have to stop to appreciate the theory of sex negativism. I really have been thinking about it (I’ve been working ideas from both sides into sex conversations I’ve had since we started corresponding on the subject) and we’re in complete agreement about the problems with the culture. I just don’t see how sex negativism offers a solution. To me it seems like a retreat. You have yet to tell me how removing ourselves from the sexual world advances our cause within it.
oh okay. im glad youre considering it. i just thought you were because of an earlier series of posts in which we talked about sex negativism, and you and/or emili said that we don’t have to think about sex too deeply, like something about how the reconsideration doesnt have to happen harshly? i wish i could remember what it said, but im not going to try to find it right now because it sounds like too much effort.
“I don’t think that if I was sexually active I would have to stop to appreciate the theory of sex negativism.” this makes sense. one doesnt necessarily have to stop doing something while being able to see criticisms of it. i guess i was being self-centered when i said that you did, because i know i personally wouldnt be able to be enlightened by sex-negativism without trying it too, but not everyone is exactly like me.
“I just don’t see how sex negativism offers a solution.” if sex hurts men and women, then sex negativism offers a solution by taking sex out of the equation. just because sexual urges exist doesnt mean we all have the right to satisfy them. the argument that sexual urges are “natural” and therefore must not be suppressed, is not enough of an argument. because people have tons of different urges, a lot of which must be suppressed, in order to have a society and civilization. for example, people have the “natural” urge to hurt people they hate. but that has to be suppressed, doesnt it?
i think perhaps a better argument could be made for sex-positivism than “people feel it so they must do it.” maybe i missed you making a better argument for it, as im super biased against sex-having. (btw im sexually active even though i think being sexually active might be wrong, so im totally not acting in the same line of my preaching. but ideologically, i feel that i shouldnt be sexually active.)
“You have yet to tell me how removing ourselves from the sexual world advances our cause within it.” it doesnt. it advances our cause outside of the sexual world, not having sex, that is. a lot of women use sex as empowerment. but it is a very limited, and limiting, kind of empowerment, in my opinion. sexual power is only one kind of power. when people build their lives around sexual power, or are unhappy living a life that doesnt include the power to have sex, it takes away from all the other feminist stuff that we need to think about too.
im not totally convinced of even my own argument. but im certainly more convinced by it than by anyone else’s, it seems more logically sound to me.
i understand the fear of women not being able to exercise sexual power, after so long of being deprived of it, and only recently being able to exercise it after fighting for it really hard. but im not sure that just because men do it means that women must do it too. what is it’s just bad? then neither men nor women should do it. it is this idea that bothers me the most, that women should have sex and do sexy things. what if doing those things is a regression, rather than progress? i dont see anyone else asking that question.
and btw lucie thanks for talking to me about this. i totally see where youre coming from, though i do disagree with it. i hope youre not pissed at talking about this for so long. or at me.
no problem, ork. I’m not angry at all. Like you said earlier, we talk about nasty things on this blog. It would be strange and suspicious if these conversations didn’t get a little heated.
I think your question (“what if doing those things is a regression, rather than progress?”) is a valid one, albeit a little mind blowing. I think the idea of sexual empowerment has been perverted somewhat. I feel like it used to be about women seeking their own sexual gratification and not acting as blow-up dolls for their husbands or hiding their body parts for the sake of “decency.” Now women walk around in uncomfortable clothes, get boob jobs, and perform fake masturbation to please men and falsely defend their actions by calling it sexual empowerment or defying the double standard.
That said, I would take care to separate sex as an action from the mutated, socialized form of sex we’re accustomed to. I know it’s hard to do this because advertisements for the latter are everywhere we look. Remember, in matriarchal societies, sex takes place (although admittedly upon closer examination, we might see that sex in these societies is negative in some other way.) I guess I’m just not ready to give up on sex, is what it comes down to. I see potential in the act, and sometimes, in intimate settings, with a loved one, that potential gets fulfilled and power on either side isn’t even a factor. This is my ideal for all sexual relationships and I think this is at the root of why I’m dubious of sex negativism. “no sex” is not a sufficient end for me. just like “no work,” for me, wouldn’t be a sufficient solution to sexist job conditions.
““no sex” is not a sufficient end for me. just like “no work,” for me, wouldn’t be a sufficient solution to sexist job conditions.” that is a really interesting idea. imma think about it some. it’s a great analogy. i just hope that sex is actually as productive as work, instead of just being totally wrong (again, sex here is penetrative vaginal sex, with nothing else added in to equalize the mixture for women. i dont even think you practice that kind of really stunted sex, but a LOT of women do).
“I guess I’m just not ready to give up on sex, is what it comes down to.” yeah, i understand that. it makes sense that something that came after a lot of struggling on the part of women, you (and i suppose even i, which explains my sexually active state, and many other women) would be hesitant to give up. im just worried that we’re supporting a step back for both men and women, for the sake of democracy, instead of advancement. but you’ve already said that youve acknowledged that point, so i think we’re at a point of conclusion here, though of course anything else you want to say on this topic i will obviously be willing to hear.
oh and btw “i just thought you were because of an earlier series of posts in which we talked about sex negativism, and you and/or emili said that we don’t have to think about sex too deeply, like something about how the reconsideration doesnt have to happen harshly?”
typo. i meant “i just thought you WERENT”
ugh and by “democracy” i meant “equality”. im not carefully re-reading my comments as i should, sry.
“sex here is penetrative vaginal sex, with nothing else added in to equalize the mixture for women.”
ok so, just to clarify (for the millionth time), is sex negativism, in your calculation, just avoiding sex as it is defined above? or is it avoiding all kinds of sex in response to sex as it is defined above?
lolol that cracked me up, the millionth time part. “is sex negativism, in your calculation, just avoiding sex as it is defined above?” yes, for the most part. but i think people need to think about all the different kinds of sex they are having too.
idk. maybe all sex is bad. i dont have an argument for why all sex could be bad. but i want to question everything. EVERYTHING! in recent history, sex has a tradition of being used against women, so im ever the skeptic.
Good post, I agree that hetero men talking about sex positivity can be a bit creepy (though I like the potential shift of thinking that good sex is something they do with their partner rather than something they get from their partner)
I think your assertion that women “rarely” find penetrative sex pleasurable is a bit of a broad assertion. Of course, people have different desires, and I totally agree that the way our culture sees penetrative sex as the *only* form of sex is messed up (even going so far as to say that lesbians don’t really have sex! I know pleanty who would disagree). However, from my own experiance, I don’t agree with the idea that penetrative sex is *always* (or even usually) a chore done soley to please the man and something that women get no pleasure from and would rather not do.
If it was true that *most* women didn’t enjoy penetration, how would you explain the sale of dildos, and the use of them by lesbian couples? I also have a lesbian friend who’s faivorite thing is to be fisted, and I know that, while not in the majority, she’s certainly not alone.
Just because a women doesn’t orgasm through penetrative sex that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t feel good (and I think alot of the time, if it doesn’t it’s because the guy is rushing to the “real sex” and not taking time to warm her up). Also there’s the intimacy that comes with having your genetals interlocked.
I think using oral sex as an example of something that’s done soley for the benifit of one’s partner is untrue too. Pleanty of people love giving oral sex, and also get off on how much their partner enjoys it
As for me, I’m a female to male transexual, mostly atracted to men, and I love recieveing penetrative sex, for all the reasons I said above. (the main reason why I’d never have genetal surgery, I like using what I’ve got far too much!). Though I generally envision it as me engulfing them than them penetrating me, take back the power 🙂
Obviously, noone should be made to do anything they don’t want to, especially not sexually, but it’s also important not to take your own experiance and assume that everyone else’s is the same.
There’s a good article by Bell Hooks that might be of interest here: http://stevenstanley.tripod.com/docs/bellhooks/penis.html