Friday, April 08, 2005
Who Owns Sexuality Now?
Speaker ponders if women own their sexuality - From the Orion (CSUC), where a professor discusses the issue and asks questions such as:
Although she asked several questions a good number of people who have a "Sex and the City" mindset are completely incapable of questioning, what struck me as I read the whole article was that she is obsessed with comparing women's behavior with men's, and, if she finds a difference, it means women should change to be just like men. Equality = Progress! She is preaching a very idiotic version of equality. What we need to do instead is to stop and reflect if whatever male model she is striving after has any problems. And we know full well that it does. The article further states:
If this study is really representative of a good number of women, it does raise many questions, the first one in my mind, "Why so much faking?"
That in itself already reveals several problems regarding relationship dynamics. I noticed too what I would deem a certain obsession with orgasm, when sexual experience needs much more breadth of focus. If a man has orgasms 99% of the time, but he is not emotionally involved with his partner, this is something good? One trash of a relationship. So what if a woman has tons of orgasms and is also not involved with her partner? What kind of a measure is this? It's a boys locker-room mentality applied to human relationships and sexuality.
And the "fake to make him happy or end it quickly?" Hello, is any real communication possible in such a relationship? Sex becomes a programmed ritual, a theatrical performance along a prescribed plot, but with no room for more "human" ways to experience sex. There's nothing wrong with helping people have more orgasms, as long as you don't fall into a trap of thinking that a satisfying sexual experience amounts only to this, and forget to look at more complicated relationship issues.
The article ends with,
Great sex is a result of great values, attitudes, and relationships, in my definition of "great." And that usually doesn´t just fall on your lap on a silver platter, nor can it be reduced to putting a cabbagehead orgasm counter on your bedside table.
p.s. And the "should" above bothers me on so many levels, as in, we should be having great jobs, great lives, great professors, great weather, great families, great food, great clothes, great everything... always, 24/7.
.
[...]
While the women on "Sex and the City" are sexually explicit, their conversations revolve around non-threatening topics such as men and shoes, Ellingson said. [This if you don't count just how stupid and problematic so many of the views and attitudes of the 4 characters are]
"We're thinking we've come a long way," she said. "But have we really?"
Women today can wear whatever they want. While Ellingson believes it is a positive sign that women are no longer labeled as "sluts" for risqué clothing, she questions the reasons behind the behavior.
"Is it a sign of liberation that we can wear what we want, or is it just another round of objectification?" she asked the audience.
Ellingson, along with Chico State professor Diana Flannery, used overheads listing differences between the "old model" of sexuality and "new model" to see how things have progressed over the years.
In the old model sex was for procreation, and women had a passive role in the act. Today women can be sexual, but more restrictions apply to them in comparison to men.
Although she asked several questions a good number of people who have a "Sex and the City" mindset are completely incapable of questioning, what struck me as I read the whole article was that she is obsessed with comparing women's behavior with men's, and, if she finds a difference, it means women should change to be just like men. Equality = Progress! She is preaching a very idiotic version of equality. What we need to do instead is to stop and reflect if whatever male model she is striving after has any problems. And we know full well that it does. The article further states:
A study was read that showed that only 25 percent of women regularly achieve orgasm from intercourse, 66 percent had faked orgasms and 10 percent were what Flannery called "routine fakers."
In half of these cases, women faked to make the man happy, she said. The other half did it to get the act of sex over with.
If this study is really representative of a good number of women, it does raise many questions, the first one in my mind, "Why so much faking?"
That in itself already reveals several problems regarding relationship dynamics. I noticed too what I would deem a certain obsession with orgasm, when sexual experience needs much more breadth of focus. If a man has orgasms 99% of the time, but he is not emotionally involved with his partner, this is something good? One trash of a relationship. So what if a woman has tons of orgasms and is also not involved with her partner? What kind of a measure is this? It's a boys locker-room mentality applied to human relationships and sexuality.
And the "fake to make him happy or end it quickly?" Hello, is any real communication possible in such a relationship? Sex becomes a programmed ritual, a theatrical performance along a prescribed plot, but with no room for more "human" ways to experience sex. There's nothing wrong with helping people have more orgasms, as long as you don't fall into a trap of thinking that a satisfying sexual experience amounts only to this, and forget to look at more complicated relationship issues.
The article ends with,
"We're all adults," she said. "We should be having great sex." [emphasis mine]
Great sex is a result of great values, attitudes, and relationships, in my definition of "great." And that usually doesn´t just fall on your lap on a silver platter, nor can it be reduced to putting a cabbagehead orgasm counter on your bedside table.
p.s. And the "should" above bothers me on so many levels, as in, we should be having great jobs, great lives, great professors, great weather, great families, great food, great clothes, great everything... always, 24/7.
.
