when the status quo frustrates.

Yes, Virgil, Men and Women Can Be Friends

Friday, March 19th, 2010

The Person of Honor at my wedding was my male friend, PE. PE in have been close friends for a long time now. At no point in our long friendship; a friendship that has included sleeping over at one another’s house, sharing hotel beds, walking around in the moonlight and getting really drunk, has there been anything that could be construed as sexual or romantic. Not a kiss, not a hug that wasn’t platonic, not a lingering look that has set either of our hearts beating. Yes, my friend PE is straight.*

So, when people write articles describing a gender-neutral housing policy for dorm rooms, all I can think is “about damn time”. I know it would have been easier for me to find a male roommate that I knew in college rather than a female one**, not to mention a lot easier for Hubby and I get to get an apartment together earlier. But, of course, an article like this has to bring out the people who apparently think the relationships I have with my male friends are fictitious, whom the only reason that a male and a female would room together would be because they wanted to have sex with each other.

Where does this belief come from, exactly? Nobody I know my age lacks for mix-gendered friends. Heck, as near as I can tell, even my parents and my in-laws have mixed-gendered friends. We are not leopards, whom only come in contact with each other for sex. We are social creatures that mingle all the time. If you don’t have that urge before you move in together, I’m telling you snoring, bad breath, bed-head and uncapped toothpaste tubes are not going to generate a deep and abiding lust.

Will some boyfriends/ girlfriends room together? Absolutely***. Will there be relationships where there is underlying sexual tension that will be released? Again, absolutely, but not near as much as the comments seem to think. The dire predictions of uncontrollable fucking, destroyed grades, et cetera are based in fairy tale land****. I also think that the number of romantic couples that will want to move into together are actually much smaller than people think. Most college students are not ready to live with their significant other, and the ones that are already do.

College students are adults. I realize that people seem to dispute this all the time, but they are. If they want to have a roommate who’s of the opposite gender- let them. In one’s life, we have to navigate all sorts of different relationships. Fear-mongering about how “men can’t help it” and “women are helpless” are wrong, stupid, and damaging cliches.

*I’ve also had former boyfriends whom I’m good friends with and our contact is now non-sexual. I have also had friends where there WAS sexual tension, and for a variety of reasons, we never acted on it and still stay good friends. I also have had friends where we do occasionally fuck on top of the things that make us friends. There are a wide variety of relationships that I have, and have had, that forcing me to room with females did not get rid of. Heck, one of the sexual tension ones was because my female roommate was straight and I really liked her body.
**Though playing roommate-roulette actually worked with me. I had studious, neat, and mostly gone female roommates.
*** And good for them. This would definitely cut-out all of the negotiation and scheduling with roommates that having sex on college takes right now.
****The same place where the ’50s was a golden era filled with upright, moral people.

Uh-oh…

Wednesday, July 1st, 2009

…I was hoping this wouldn’t happen for a LOT longer…

…yes, it’s true. I actually feel the faintest of desires to have sex.

(Warning: TMI)

(more…)

Sorry–I Refuse To Hate Men, And None Of You Can Make Me Do It No Matter How Hard You Try

Sunday, June 28th, 2009

“Men are dogs,” said my previous ex-husband to me, as we were driving out together to meet my current ex-husband at the bank to close our joint account.

“No, they’re not,” I said.

“Yes they are,” he said, very firmly, staring straight ahead at the road. “You need to stop thinking everyone’s like you, you know. You always do that. You did that with me, too.”

“You wouldn’t have done something like this.”

“No,” he agreed. “But I take marriage very seriously. Clearly he doesn’t.”

Obviously true and inarguable, so I let it go. But I didn’t forget that conversation, nor could I erase something my current ex-husband said to me since our parting of ways:

Him: I think your feminism may have been part of the problem.
Me: How so?
Him: When you said your divorce lawyer told you that you must have a problem with self-respect to have allowed yourself to be treated this way. That really bothered you.
Me: Don’t you want me to have self-respect?
Him: (pause) In some ways. Sometimes.

The above theme had cropped up earlier as well, in the month or two before we separated–of course, I wasn’t aware at the time what was triggering it, that his ex-wife had moved up here and they were conspiring together to get rid of me (maritally, not literally, of course!). In short, he mentioned on several occasions that what he really wanted was someone who would do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted without interference from such concepts as her own self-respect or personal desires–my efforts to please and placate were clearly underwhelming, and he just as clearly believed that such a woman was indeed out there just waiting for him. (Again, since I didn’t know about the eager availability of his ex-wife–who I should probably point out, didn’t actually consistently perform to that standard while they were married, which is why they separated repeatedly and finally divorced–I found his assurance on the subject bewildering. Not anymore, obviously.)

But the thing that troubles me is that both men do think that this sort of behavior is simply something that’s endemic to men, to the gender male of H. sapiens. Now, you’ll never find me arguing that there aren’t a large crop of asshats running around the planet at any given point in time–but I just can’t really bring myself to believe that all or even most men are secretly (or not so secretly) this particular brand of asshat. Some, sure. But so are some women–I’ve met them. And I would definitely agree that society and culture (pretty much all of ‘em, even worse in other cultures than in ours) set men up to be more likely to be this sort of entitled, domineering, sexually uncontrolled brand of asshat.

But I still can’t really believe that menarejustlikethat! I especially reject that they are like that as an inborn trait–I have no patience for that brand of evo-psych. But I also reject that they are all like that as an acquired trait, too. I reject that most of them are like that…men are people, not badly programmed sexbots. (Well, okay, except for Dennis Prager.)

But my first ex-husband and my current ex-husband aren’t the only men who’ve made these statements to me. Over the years, many many other men have made similar statements to me–about the inherent selfishness, sexual obsessiveness, immaturity, etc. that is the essence of malekind. I’ve always rejected them as blanket statements or even as reliable generalities.

So am I being stupid, to assume I know better what men are than all these other men who’ve argued with me about it? Many men have treated me with respect and consideration during the course of my life–am I to believe, as all these other men always insist, that it’s because I’m desirable and it is done solely to enhance the possibility that I might someday accidentally trip and fall on top of their waiting dicks? That it’s all an act to get me where they want me (emotionally and often, legally bound to them) so then they can reveal what they’ve really wanted all this time..? Gad, it’s all such a stereotype–must I buy into it?

Sorry–I still don’t. I still think it’s more likely that I just haven’t been careful…though I’ve gotten more and more careful with each spouse, and put up with the subsequently revealed repellent post-marriage-ceremony bullshit for shorter and shorter durations each time, clearly, I simply haven’t been careful enough in my choices.

On a kind of funny side note, I now have an saved email archive full of ex-husbands declaring (post-divorce!) what a wonderful, special woman I am, and how sweet and kind and beautiful and caring and intelligent and strong and–! I do have a good, positive relationship with the first ex, and I may well have one with this one, too, if he chooses that. It’s very peculiar; I’ve never really witnessed the like. Either I’m really something spectacular, or they want to keep the hope alive that I might put out again someday when they’re desperate and alone–I just can’t decide which. :)

Let’s Talk About Porn

Sunday, May 17th, 2009

No doubt in a disjointed fashion–frankly, porn is not a big part of my life. If I look at porn four times in a month, that’s unusual. Now, that isn’t because I don’t like sex–I like sex, lots. Nor is that because I don’t have a high sex drive–I do have a high sex drive, one that has not infrequently exceeded that of my partners in the past few decades. Mostly, I don’t use much porn because it’s just more trouble than it’s worth as a sexual aid.

(more…)

Sex 2.0! Part Two: Constructive Dialoguing

Monday, May 11th, 2009

(Part One is here.)

Of the three Sex 2.0 lectures the ex-spouse and I attended, he liked the second one best. The session description:

Internet Advocacy for Sexual Freedom
Do we need a new national sexual freedom discourse? Does the transparency of the internet or its opportunity for anonymity help answer this question? Can we use our blogs, elists and online groups to shape the national sexual freedom discourse? For this workshop we will explore how we can use the internet to transform sexual issue debates into dialogues and then broad conversations creating new allies. We will use the issues of trafficking and decriminalization of consensual sex as examples.

In the beginning of the session, one of the speakers used the example of this as an ideal situation where people who are supporters of sexual freedom (defined as being supportive of polyamory, swinging, homosexuality in general and marriage equality in particular, etc.) could dialogue with people who are not supporters of sexual freedom (defined as thinking that doing any of those things will result both in you personally burning in Hell and the collapse of civilization as we know it generally). It’s a nice idea, and I actually remember reading about that whole pro-choice/pro-life lovefest several years ago when it was happening and thinking then that it was a nice idea. The speaker at the session emphasized that the great thing about this was that neither side is expected to change his or her opinion–compromise can and often does leave a sour taste in the mouths of both compromisers–this was all about building consensus.

But…there does have to be a but, I’m afraid…

(more…)

Sex 2.0! Part One: Let’s Talk About Objectification

Sunday, May 10th, 2009

What is Sex 2.0, you may ask? (If you already know, feel free to skip over this next part.) From the website:

Sex 2.0 will focus on the intersection of social media, feminism, and sexuality. How is social media enabling people to learn, grow, and connect sexually? How is sexual expression tied to social activism? Does the concept of transparency online offer new opportunities or present new roadblocks — or both? These questions, and many more, will be addressed within a safe, welcoming, sex-positive space.

Now, the above isn’t a completely accurate description of what Sex 2.0 turned out to be–at least, not the three lectures I attended. Feminism barely came up at all, though all the attendees around me save for two, when asked by one of the lecturers, indicated that they self-identified as feminists. You notice the phrase “sex work” is entirely absent from the official description–I don’t know if that was on purpose or not, but sex work was the theme in two of the three sessions I attended, and many of the attendees were associated with or involved in sex work in some fashion.

I enjoyed it–it was different in many ways even from the few non-mainstream-type events I’ve attended in the past, and I do really like that. I was inspired to blog on a few of the observations I made and the thoughts that arose from those observations, both during the conference and later on in the evening when I discussed them with the spouse (who attended with me). Observation #1 below the fold!

(more…)

Anal Sex, Rape and What They Mean to Your Average Straight Man

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009

(No, Lisa’s preferences in regards to anal sex or lack thereof are not a theme that is going to be explored in this blog post. If harassed about it, I will briefly state my preference, but hopefully nobody will so far miss the whole point of this post that they will be motivated to ask.)

I got to thinking on this topic today after a brief hop over to Feminsting’s community blogsite where I saw an article entitled “Feminist Critique of Hetero Male Culture Causes Mass MRA Hysteria.” I wasn’t too intrigued by the header there, I’ll admit, because most feminist critiques of anything to do with men and sexuality send most MRAs over the edge of rationality–in other words, well okay but so..? but I was also waiting for about 5 million work emails to finish printing out on my feeble home printer and I had time to kill. So I read it, and followed the embedded link to the original blog post by the author on her own website and read that too.

It wasn’t a bad article, even if the author had to start out with the tired old refrain of “when I was a little girl I was really more like a little boy! because 99% of little girls, unlike me, were all about Barbies and gossip and hated physical activity of any sort–!” I do get tired of that one. It certainly does incline me to agree that the female writers who regularly prop up this stereotype did, indeed, have zero little girlfriends growing up or they’d know better than that. But then, if they acknowledged that to be true, they might have to reconsider why they didn’t actually have more little girlfriends, eh..? I’m sure it’s much more pleasant to imagine that one didn’t because one was simply too guyishly cool for all those little pink rainbow wussies! rather than it being, perhaps, for some other less self-congratulatory reason.

But moving on to the actual point she was trying to make–she certainly got it right about the prevalence of men using being on the receiving end of anal sex as a euphemism for a miserable situation. However, I think she rather missed the boat on why. Men also, just as frequently if not more so, use being raped in the same euphemistic fashion. So, when men are talking about being fucked up the ass by their boss, or the government, or their ex-wife’s lawyer, they’re not actually referring to the mechanics of anal sex–they’re referring to being raped. Since women don’t rape men (yes, I know they do, but bear with me), men are simply using the phrase “fucked up the ass” synonymously with “getting raped.”

That whole idea did strike me as interesting, though–because men also use “rape” euphemistically, with themselves as the main actor, to describe how they absolutely defeated some other person or persons in competition (the competition can be either formal, as in a softball game, or informal, as in getting the best parking space at Wal-Mart). However, they do not ever (that I’ve witnessed) describe themselves as “fucking someone else up the ass” in that way. So the distinction is made, and the distinction seems pretty clear-cut in cause to me. It is homophobic, specifically male-homophobic, and all of a piece with how the most common thing I hear out of pre-pubescent and pubescent boys’ mouths as an insult exchanged with other boys (and since I have a twelve-year-old son and a seventeen-year-old son, I get to hear a lot of this kind of exchange) is, “You’re gay.”

Men, therefore, who use all these euphemisms, have a clear grasp of the essentials–only women and faggots, ie, persons with status less than the standard issue heterosexual man, get fucked up the ass. To be fucked up the ass is to have your human status reduced. If something happens to you that reduces your status in the eyes of others, you have been fucked up the ass. If you soundly defeat another man, you have reduced his status to that of a woman–you have raped him–but you don’t quite want to say that you fucked him up the ass, as he is male like you, because that would make you a faggot and reduce your status too.

This is why we have the seeming paradox of these men fearing rape more than any other crime that could be committed against them, with the possible exception of castration, yet having no issues at all regularly blowing off and otherwise dismissing the rape of women by men, with the sometimes-exception of the rape of a prepubescent woman or a virgin. For them, rape is psychologically devastating because it makes you a homo, and physically painful because while pussies are clearly designed for dicks, assholes aren’t. They accept that rape might also be psychologically damaging because a girl child’s brain probably hasn’t fully accepted adult concepts yet and a virgin is probably saving herself for some special man, and physically damaging because a child’s vagina isn’t quite done developing to full readiness for a man’s penis and because they can imagine that the rupture of the physical membrane that is the hymen could be painful. However, once a female has begun to menstruate and no longer possesses a hymen, her getting fucked in the vagina is totally natural both physically and psychologically–it’s how we were all designed, right?–so it really can’t be considered anything nearly as psychologically or physically devastating as a man getting raped anally by another man. And it doesn’t reduce a pubescent, non-virgin female’s status–she’s already not a virgin, which is the only status boost she could possibly stack onto her pre-existing undeniable femaleness, and once that’s gone, she has no more to lose.

An interesting conundrum that this can present for men who find that they really enjoy receiving anal stimulation–I was in a long-term, monogamous relationship with one (I won’t say which one). He asked me, very hesitantly and shame-faced, after the first time we really made a point of trying it out, if I thought that that meant he had homosexual urges. I said, I don’t think so–who do you want to be doing this to you? Me, or a man? You! he said, very definitely, and I said, Well, I think that’s what defines you as homosexual or not–who you’re doing whatever you’re doing with, not what exactly you happen to be doing. But men who want to perform anal sex on women don’t have this agonizing conflict–because, again, it is getting fucked that reduces your status and puts you in your place, not doing the fucking.

I used to wonder why men seemed to have so much trouble empathizing with most types of rapes, when a woman was the victim, or even why they en masse never seemed to take it seriously when a man was raped by a woman, yet clearly had no trouble at all wildly overempathizing with the horror that was a man getting raped by another man. This is the answer, and it’s a pretty sad one.

On an end note, though, I can’t help but preemptively sympathize with the author of the original Feministing community blog post–one of the very first responses to her article was the following, by a self-described “MRAman:”

If you don’t like butt sex you should just say so. Nobody would be surprised anyway, since everyone knows feminists are always opposed to things men like.

Sigh. Yes, that must be it…well, if I’m lucky, our periodic trollers won’t be around to read this particular blog post and visit me with such sage perceptions as well. Fingers crossed. :)

Not Really

Friday, February 6th, 2009

No, I’m not making this up.

It’s been over fifteen years since I was a teenager; maybe teenagers have changed. A lot. A whole lot. Unrecognizably! Then again, I have a teenager of my own at home, and much as I myself wouldn’t have been at his same age, he would not be caught dead in one of the above t-shirts under any circumstances whatsoever. Unless he is very unrepresentative of teens everywhere, no kid noplace nohow is ever gonna wear this t-shirt. It’s bewildering that anybody would invest any money in thinking that they would.

Sometimes it’s nearly impossible to believe something is for real, isn’t it? But I trust Pam! From The Passion For Christ Movement, the folks who are bringing us the above fashion craze that is about to sweep the nation’s youth:

Most people who have engaged in masturbation know that the culmination of this sexual act ends in shame. I don’t have to share with you the thousands of emails of the admittance of this shame because you know all too well since you have experienced it yourself. Curled up in a fetal position, crying, because your bed is even more empty and you’re lonelier than you did before you violated yourself…

I don’t even know what to say about this, other than that I don’t think I’ve ever had this experience, and if I did, I would immediately check myself into the nearest mental institution.

Delighting little girls with hours of enchanting entertainment.

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

1.

So, Ann and I are poking about, looking for lunchboxes suitable to house her new computer. We came across a mind-blowing amount of Disney merchandise, some miscellaneous transformers paraphernalia, some cute retro designs… and this.

One of the greatest adventures on–(sic) or under–the seven seas, this charming, lively tale based on Hans Christian Anderson’s beloved children’s story comes to splendid life ini an enchanting animated film. The beautiful and adventurous mermaid, Princess Lena, lives with her family in a watery castle and has everything she could ever need, but she longs for only one thing; to explore the world of humans. Determined to marry Prince Stefan, whom she sees when a whirlpool takes her to the surface, Princess Lena must turn to the evil sea witch Cassandra and pay a heavy price for her promise of help.Description of The Little Mermaid

I’m sure I’ve seen that movie. I just… can’t quite place it.

(more…)

William Saletan makes me sick.

Thursday, November 13th, 2008

I’m not kidding. Every week, day in and day out, I see his articles on Slate; I usually manage to restrain myself from clicking on them—on the rare occasions I fail to do so, I’m almost always sorry. Past failures of cognition on his part have included this fine series on how black people are genetically stupider than white people and how wrong it is to pillory scientists who take this as their conclusion and then creatively deconstruct as much data as possible to support that, for instance. Or this one, where he pooh-poohs the notion that it might be humiliating or even detrimental to your health to have your contraceptive prescription refused and praises “crisis pregnancy centers,” which have a well-known history of tricking women inside by pretending to be Planned Parenthood and offering both medically unnecessary ultrasounds and no trained medical advice whatsoever.

What I’m saying is, I knew better but I clicked on the link to his latest masterpiece (entitled “Rethinking the age of sexual consent”) anyway. And yep, barely got into the thing before I happened across this gem:

The original age of consent, codified in English common law and later adopted by the American colonies, ranged from 10 to 12. In 1885, Britain and the states began raising the age to 16, ostensibly to protect girls’ natural innocence.

Let me be blunt, Mr. Saletan: It’s not only a shame that a dumbass like you actually gets paid to write articles, it’s unbelievable. Do you ever conduct any research outside of the confines of your tiny brain? Here, let me do your work for you–and oh, my God, I have to say, as a working journalist (which I am not! yet I knew about it) you really, really ought to have heard about this at least one time in the whole course of your professional life.

(more…)

Cheating cheaters who cheat.

Monday, August 11th, 2008

I didn’t have any desire to write about the Edwards thing, but, I suppose, this isn’t just about what I want.

In that post, Lisa takes issue with Rielle Hunter’s sister trying to “defend her honor” against a flurry of vicious attacks.

Lisa does not come to her rescue,

Excuse me. What honor? This woman had a blatant affair with a married man, whom she obviously knew was married, for at least a year. She’s a “good and honest” person? What on earth is your definition of good or honest?

Which is, I think, a rather severe character judgment to make when you know exactly one thing about a woman, and it’s presumably the worst thing she’s ever done.

(more…)

Infidelity, sex work and “She is a good and honest person, the sweetest and most caring woman one could ever hope to meet.”

Saturday, August 9th, 2008

I hate infidelity.

My hatred does come in degrees. For instance, if your marriage is essentially over and you both know it, then my hatred is practically nonexistent. Moving up on the scale, if your marriage is essentially over but you’re the only one who “knows” it and as far as your spouse knows you are both slaving away like fiends to save it when in actuality you are porking someone else while waiting for some more opportune time to bail, I start to feel some genuine negativity towards you. Progressing on, if you have a plan to end your marriage someday (say, when the kids are grown or you’re just waiting for a terminal spouse to die) and in the meantime you feel like you’re owed some fun and games in the name of whatever your supposedly self-sacrificing reason for delay is, I call bullshit. You’re not owed anything, my friend. If you need the strange pussy or cock THAT bad, get a divorce. Nobody has to get married–if the desire to fuck more than one person is that necessary to your happiness, stay single. It’s that easy. At the farthest end of the scale is, of course, the person who does not plan on divorcing at all, ever, and (when found out) sits and cries of their own “weakness” and “stupidity” and blah, blah, blah. Yep. That, I absolutely hate.

To clarify my stance from a personal standpoint, to the best of my knowledge my ex-husban never cheated on me (and needless to say given the tone of this post, I didn’t cheat on him). This is not the bitter voice of a woman scorned speaking–I can’t say I’ve had no experience with anything like infidelity, as I did once have a chronically cheating boyfriend–but it isn’t something I’ve ever had to deal with in the context of marriage.

What brings this blog post on is two other blog posts I’ve read in the past week. The first was on Feministe, about and by a self-described sex worker blogging there called “Lessons from the Magic Carpet.” I’ve read other articles by sex workers that touch on feminism and this one was fairly typical of the genre. What always interests me, though, is the one aspect of sex work that these folks absolutely never touch on, and that’s the fact that they know full well that a lot (I suspect the majority) of their customers are married. If you are a stripper, and that’s all that you do–no lap dancing or prostitution on the side–or if you act in pornographic movies or pose for pornographic pictures, that genuinely doesn’t matter. Looking at persons not your spouse is not now and never has been infidelity. However, touching them sexually or having them touch you sexually most certainly is. It is immoral to do so with someone who you know is married. I believe that we all know this. Now, you the sex worker are not the gatekeeper of anyone else’s morality–that they are committing infidelity at all is not YOUR responsibility–however, once you become the person enabling them to do so, you are now condoning and approving infidelity as a way of life. And when sex workers start talking about how it’s really very feminist of them to be taking money from married men to cheat on their wives–talk about enabling the patriarchy far more so than that paying customer ever has alone. He wouldn’t be able to be commoditizing both you AND his wife without your eager cooperation. They are certainly aware that it is cheating, and they wouldn’t themselves tolerate that behavior in a man with whom they were having a committed relationship…and yet, this utter silence on their own complete immorality in making it so available and their defense of its feminism.

The second blog post was about John Edwards–of course I’ve heard the Edwards’ “love child” gossip, but honestly hadn’t been paying it much attention–I was never an Edwards follower and he’s not my state’s Senator so he’s rarely been at the forefront of my thoughts at any given time. However, it does turn out that at the minimum, he had an affair in the recent past (whether or not the child the woman involved recently produced is his appears to still be up in the air). I perused the article, had my usual thoughts in that situation of Fucking loser and the corollary for this specific one of Thank God he didn’t get the Democratic presidential nomination (not that there was ever a real chance he was going to) and started to move on, til a related article caught my eye: Mistress’ Family Challenges Edwards to Take DNA Test. And under the title, in bold: “Sister of Other Woman in Edwards Affair: ‘Stop Bad-Mouthing My Sister’

Excuse me?

Upon further reading, I gathered that this broad’s objection is that her sainted sister is being painted as some kind of ho who has doubtless fucked so many men that the father of her child could be ANYBODY, not necessarily Edwards–I must agree, that’s completely wrong–frankly, there’s nothing wrong with fucking as many men as you like (with just one caveat). This is much like the character shredding of rape victims on the stand–if you have sex with ONE man that must mean you’ll willingly have sex with ANY! Such bullshit. However, the rant unfortunately continues:

“She is a good and honest person, the sweetest and most caring woman one could ever hope to meet,” the sister said. “Do you think it’s easy for us to just sit back and let everyone rip her to shreds and not defend her honor?”

Excuse me. What honor? This woman had a blatant affair with a married man, whom she obviously knew was married, for at least a year. She’s a “good and honest” person? What on earth is your definition of good or honest? “Sweet and caring?” What, towards the married man she was regularly fucking? Or when she decided to start talking about it, unless she was absolutely dumb as a stump knowing that his terminally ill wife was eventually going to find out?

Frankly, I’m completely sick of so-called feminists maintaining a tomblike silence on the females who engage in this behavior and the damage it does all those female spouses. So I’m speaking up. Until a lot of us start to do so, it’ll continue without a hiccup on its merry way. Of course, maybe I’m the only one who cares if it does or not anyway.