sex

You are currently browsing articles tagged sex.

Gift wrapped sex?

Sunday 26th April, 2009 in Media, Popular Culture, gender, sex by andieberry | No comments

Reading this article today, I sometimes find it hard to believe I live in the 21st century. Yet again, it’s an example of the commodification of sex, in the boundaries of a sexual relationship. This time as a ‘gift’,  rather than a bargaining chip orrevenge tactic .

“Hmm, what can I get my partner for their birthday?  Oh!  I know-  sex everyday for the next year !” When sex is gift wrapped, it is implied that it is paid for, made attractive and, ultimately,  only for the enjoyment of the recipient. Any comparisons between prostitution and the gift of sex is obvious. We all know that sex is important, but it is in fact,  a physical and emotional exchange between consenting adults and not something on a ‘to do’  list.

We all lead busy lives- there’s work , mundane day to day stuff to do and so on.  Should sex be seen as a item on a list to tick off ? I say no. On hearing experinces of couples trying to concieve they often say having sex to order, made sex just an act, a means to an end. Men and women often say they’d like more sex,  but is it because that is what the media portrays to us ?  If we aren’t having great sex and lots of it we are obvious inadequate and unattractive.  Is this why this woman decided to give her husband the gift of sex?

The Bondage Argument

Friday 13th February, 2009 in Politics, feminism, gender, sex by Suzi | No comments

The Blogsphere is ringing this week with the sound of debating feminists/ pro feminists/other women identifying  peoples discussing BDSM and the agency and roles of women within BDSM sexual relationships.  I’m not going to link to the debates because a) I’m exhausted after attending double lectures and a talk on socialist feminism and b) I really don’t want to take a side in the existing debate, especially not at 10.30 at night, when I’m exhausted.

Mostly I just want a chance to open up a debate about Teh Kinky Sexzors without piggy backing off of someone else’s.

My opinions about sex pretty much run too – if it’s consenting, non- coerced, and involves people doing whatever they want to do to get each other off, providing no children, animals, dead people or unwilling participants etc involved, then people should do what they like. Essentially- do what you want with who you want providing there’s consent, sense, and equality in the room.

I can see, however, how and why there is a debate about how or not BDSM does or doesn’t hold up Patriarchy and existing, dominant ideas about sexuality, women’s sexuality and the kinds of sex we should all be having.

What disturbs me about some of these debates is, the perceived removal of women’s agency. One of the argument I’ve heard is that women don’t involve themselves in BDSM based sexual encounters because they really want too, they do it because patriarchy, porn, dominant cultural narratives and their (male) partners tell them they should.

This kind of thinking, in my opinion,  removes the agency of women who ARE engaging in BDSM because they want too, because they get off on it and so do their partners. I’m not for a second about to naively suggest that no woman has ever been co-erced into abusive situations involving BDSM- but I would argue that it they are co-erced then it’s not sex it’s rape, and that is a different ball game all together.

From the BDSM communities I’ve known of, safety and consent have been two of the most holy, cardinal rules ever. You don’t do a damn thing, if they or you aren’t fully aware and consenting. You don’t do a damn thing if they or you do not feel totally safe, and you have adequate safety measures in place- for some people that’s using condoms for others it’s safety words, reliable easily reached cutting equipment and first aid kits at the ready, just in case.

I’m confused by arguments that suggest we, as a movement, are fighting for women’s autonomy and agency to be recognized, whilst simultaneously denying women the right to have sex however they please. I CAN understand arguments focusing on women’s co-ercion into sexual behaviours, or women’s socialization into particular sexual roles.  What I can’t understand is why women, who are plainly choosing to engage in sex where they experiment in a number of ways with roles, identities, toys and boundaries are criticized and told they can’t possibly enjoy it, they’ve just been brainwashed.

How does dialogue like this help the movement? How does dialogue like this enable women from a variety of ideological positions to share experiences, beliefs and discussion about sex and women’s sexuality openly and honestly?

To me this standpoint of  agency denial, can be perceived as women hating, as much as, standpoints that suggests that women who freely enjoy sex are worthless or standpoints that suggest women shouldn’t have access to reproductive healthcare becuase they shouldn’t be having sex in the first place.

I would also like to question whether these arguments apply to lesbian/gay relationships. So far all the arguments I’ve read, have been about  heterosexual Dom/sub relationships and BDSM in heterosexual relationships. If a woman is the Dom in her lesbian Dom/sub relationship is that still upholding the Patriarchy? Does women dominating women, or tying women up count as internalized mysogyny? Answers in the comments section please!

I’m hoping this post will mean a discussion springs up. So far I’ve never deleted or modded a genuine comment anyone has made- I’m hoping this can continue. If you do comment (and please do- all viewpoints welcome) then please be mindful of your language and tolerant of the views of others.

Rise of the golddigger in the credit crunch

Monday 19th January, 2009 in Uncategorized, gender, sex by andieberry | No comments

Reading through the Sunday papers today two articles caught my eye.  The first one is an idiotic article regurgitating the same old nonsense about hetero women being attracted to rich men because its part of our genetic code. It was  “backed up” by a quote from a female Lawyer – well she’s a professional so it must be true! Apparently being a rich man gives you the capacity to deliver top notch orgasms which of course next to money are the only things we women require.

But wait… further on it stated that men can pick up how fertile a woman is , and this observation was concluded from watching men tip Lap Dancers. Apparently the more fertile you are the more you get tipped.

My question is do lesbians, transgender, infertile and women with poor partners therefore have really crap sex all the time? That’s what this *ahem* ’scientific’ led piece suggests.

An excellent article over at  The Guardian points out that employers are more likely to dismiss women first because of the belief that there will be a man around to financially support her. Surely this a massive sign of sexism given that most households need two wages in order to survive? An adjoining article pointed out that just being financially secure does not eliminate the feeling of redundancy and social isolation. In short you can’t buy fulfillment.

The link in my mind is this – according to The Times article we hetero women can take the rough with smooth as long as we get a good orgasm out of it. According to The Guardian we can take the rough with the smooth as long as the goal of personal fulfillment is in sight. Sorry to be a spoilt brat but……….. I want both.

Freely selling sex.

Thursday 8th January, 2009 in Education, feminism, gender, sex by Suzi | No comments

I have to say I’m a pro porn feminist- well by that I mean , I’m a pro porn-that-is-made-by-consenting-adults- who-are-appropriately-re-numerated-for-their-time-and-who-have-working-conditions-that-are-as-safe-as-possible feminist. I’m anti trafficking, and I’m against a society that forces women into sex work, because they feel they have no other options or skills with which to generate much needed income. I’m not against women (or men for that matter) going into sex work because they enjoy it, or because they truly and freely want too. Before you tell me no woman could ever possibly be like that and all sex workers are forced, are suffering from deprivation or have drug/alcohol/psychological problems I suggest you go and read the blog of Renegade Evolution (NSFW), who is quite frankly damned awesome and was one of the first people ever to comment on my blog,  and then read Diablo Cody’s book Candy Girl about her experiences of stripping and the reasons why she did it.

If you don’t want to go and do that, then do go and read this awesome post by Renee at Womanist Musings. I’m particularly fond of this section :

This is not a profession that I would choose for myself but because I ultimately believe in the right of a woman to have control over her body and her sexuality I cannot sit in judgement of the result of where that decision leads.  My concerns are for the ones that are being prostituted without their consent.  My concerns are for those that are addicted, abused and raped.

That’s sums it up pretty well I think!



And for my first trick….

Thursday 8th January, 2009 in Parenting, Uncategorized, feminism, gender, magazines, sex by andieberry | 1 comment

This post is my response to a part of Suzi`s post  `The Mummy Myth`and also  expresses my thoughts on female competitiveness.

To begin with lets look at the two -sided coin which is the mainstream media…..

Can anyone remember any obviously pregnant women presenting the weather, reading the news or presenting breakfast T.V in the eighties? The only woman I can remember is Janet Ellis who presented Blue Peter and was subjected to complaints from outraged viewers because she was a)pregnant and b) shock horror, also unmarried.

Fast forward to the here and now, and pregnant TV presenters are  commonplace,a good thing wouldn`t you say? Pregnant women can be seen, heard and are generally considered capable  enough to carrying on working in their high profile jobs. Of course, the maternity leave ,pay and birthing plan are all held in the public eye, and  maybe the expectant mother will do an interview with various magazines saying how wonderful she feels and how she now, inexplicably  likes eating raw marrow with ice-cream.

After she’s had the baby, done the OK photo shoot and obligingly shown off said precious bundle it all goes downhill and becomes  a media free-for-all.Why hasn`t she lost that baby weight yet? Why’s she depressed when she`s got lots of money and round the clock nannies? Should she be going back to work so soon? Does she breast feed?

All these questions in some shape or another have been asked for millenia at the water well,over washing lines and in recent times, at the coffee shop. The only thing is, now these questions are amplified through the media, and so the stereotype of the Yummy Mummy in upper/middle class circles or MILF in working class circles has appeared, demonstrating that women’s only true commodity is to be fuckable. Crude but more to the point.
These stereotypes trickle down into society, and,  in my experience the ‘Yummy Mummies’ at my kid`s school (by the by, I live in social housing in a very desirable area and professional families frequently relocate from London to get into the schools catchment area)always look fantastic have the latest bicycle and trailer sets,talk play dates, eat organic food and about the marvelous kids boutique in town.There is one middle class mum there who talks to her child, doesn’t give a crap about her appearance and seems to do lots of volunteer work for the school ,but it doesn’t matter how marvelous she is, the nasty whispers are still there `Why doesn`t she lose some weight/Get some new clothes ? / Put some make-up on?’ (n.b I`m a semi goth skinny person who can look slightly scary to the untrained eye).
Of course this happens at school gates throughout the land and in also media land,  but why does it happen? Consider the facts -the media is controlled and bankrolled by men and what do men do when the empowerment of women is seeped into the national consciouness? Give us what we want thats, what,the gossip. How else do the media get away with giving meek reports about women sacked for being pregnant, or for asserting their right to extended maternity leave which in short costs money, money that most important commodity of all.  This all  shortly followed by hiring an attractive younger woman to read the news, in order to attract male viewers.
It seems now (sadly) that even after we`ve competed with each other in order to secure said Mr Wonderful (I realise this statement is heteronormative, but lesbian motherhood does tend to be ignored by the media at large unless it’s being reported in a negative way and I have no experience of being a lesbian mother and so am basing this on my  personal experience of motherhood and competition) that competition is  nothing compared to pursuing the crown of `perfect woman`- it’s the perfect housewife amplified with new and improved features .Marvel at her organizational skills! She`s still fuckable after four kids! She makes her own organic baby food and brings home the bacon too!

The point is is that the media amplified and commodified women’s competitiveness, packaged it,sold it back to us in glossy form and we’ve brought it in every sense

On general other blog reading..

Wednesday 24th September, 2008 in Parenting, Politics, sex by Suzi | No comments

Go read this piece about single teen parenting. It is very good and as someone who had her kids at 18 and 19 respectively – I agree with every damn thing Lauren said. I had to deal with the stigma against teenage mums. To my shame I got round it – I was married at 19, so those disapproving old ladies who made comments about ‘those girls getting themselves pregnant to get houses and money’ got a ‘Yes, my HUSBAND and I totally agree there’ from me.

Now at 25, and divorced I’m a little more secure in myself and couldn’t give a monkeys bum what anyone thinks of my state of motherhood or my marital state, but at 19 with two infants and painfully insecure, in a situation I wasn’t grown up enough to handle and with Internet message boards as pretty much my only support , I cared. For my part in agreeing with those people and their misogynistic, classist and just plain old mean statements, I feel a level of shame.

Teenagers, and here readers is a fact, will ALWAYS HAVE SEX!! It will always happen. Becuase of this, and becuase of the bizzare attitudes we as a society have towards sex, contraception, abortion, and teenagers having sex, there will also always be teenagers getting pregnant and having babies.

So rather than blaming teens for doing what their bodies are telling them, rather than blaming them for ending up in a situation, that could quite feasibly have an awful lot to do with how we as grown ups conduct ourselves, and teach them to be grown ups, shouldn’t we be supporting our teen parents, and helping them continue growing as people , helping them into futures of independence and helping them become the excellent parents they like everyone else have the potential to be?

On Gender, Transgender and Cisgender Feminist fighting.

Tuesday 5th August, 2008 in feminism, gender, sex by Suzi | No comments

So I’ve noticed that there is a resurgence in the good ole theme of trans v cis feminist fighting. Radical cisgendered feminists are often  accused of discriminating against transgender feminists and the whole “are trans issues women’s issues?” questioning starts again.

So before I get to the bit where I express my opinions here are some links. First of all, go and read this. Then go and check out the links in this post over at Renegade Evolution. Remember when reading these – check your privilege. There are levels of privilege and cisgendered women have privilege in comparison to transgendered women. Key part of that sentence is WOMEN.

As (cisgendered) feminists we fight against being judged, discriminated against or categorised according to our biological sex. We argue that womanhood is more than biology, that we are more than our genitalia, that we should not be constrained by our ability to or not become pregnant or judged and valued solely by the fact we have vagina’s.We argue that GENDER is a social construct, and that we are socialised into a certain gender according to the gender binary which may or may not be at odds with our biological SEX which is another thing all together. We argue against the binary, pointing out that gender like sexuality is not a ‘pure’ static thing, but fluid and changeable throughout life.

So why in the face of these arguments then, do some groups of feminists insist that trans women are not women and seek to exclude them from women only spaces? I can understand there being some issues about trans men in women only spaces, and Kit over at Today I am a Boy has a great post up about her feelings on transitioning and gendered spaces. What I don’t get is excluding trans women from women only spaces. They too are women and face the same discrimination as cis women and then some more for being trans. That isn’t to mention other discrimination against trans WOC or queer trans women.

To me this discrimination makes those who perpetrate it no better than the system we fight against and seek to change. Maybe because I am a bi/queer woman whose own gender identity is not strictly conforming to my biology, I am more sympathetic to those whose biological sex is totally at odds with their gender. Maybe I’m just a very nondiscriminatory person. I don’t know.

What I do know is that in my not-at-all-humble opinion, trans women are every bit as female, as women identified cis females. I also know that gender is a social construct and is far more fluid than the binary allows socially acceptable gender identification. And I also know that trampling over other underprivileged groups in our fight for equality is the wrong damn way to be fighting.

Sticks and Stones may break my bones…

Thursday 24th July, 2008 in sex by Suzi | 8 comments

And names are just downright mean, immature and divisive.

I’ve always had issues with body image and fat. Not other peoples necessarily, just my own. Mother with a weird obsession with your waistline and calorie intake and ten years of bulimia and yo-yo dieting in an attempt to be as attractive as well other people who are thin and attractive will do that to you. But these issues have always been my own, and in a self centred way, been about me. When I first started to realise there was a name for that pissed off feeling I got when people treated me like shit due to my genitalia and more the point, that other women got that pissed off feeling too, and some wrote books about it I was relieved. Women like Susie Orbach who wrote ‘Fat is a Feminist Issue’ said stuff that made sense to me about how I perceived my body, how other people perceived my body and why it was just a big ‘Fuck You’ to those people who instantly deem those of us who are too fat/too thin/too short/too hairy etc to be non people.

So when I see stuff like this it really pisses me off. Yes, debate and discussion about pornography, stripping, sex work, burlesque and its place in feminism and feminist thought is important. But a straight up blanket dismissal of women who ARE ‘empowered’ and who do feel good about their bodies doing what they want to do with them? I’m sorry but I can’t agree with that sort of thing.

I have mixed feelings on porn. I’m mostly pro porn, but I can see the point of the argument that says that over sexualisation of women, and the notion that women’s bodies are the property of men, and any body not owned by a man is therefore available, and subject too constant public interrogation, attention and so forth. I get that, I really do.

I just don’t think that banning porn and sex work and effectively demonizing sex and sexuality is the way forward. I think it’s important to remember that actually there are lots of sex workers who aren’t trafficked and didn’t have horrific lives of abuse leading to their sex work, and aren’t drug users and are there because they want to be, because they choose to be, whilst also working to help those who are there and don’t want to be. I think it is important to remember to that these are people that we oh so sanctimoniously blog about. These are women, and men, cis and transgendered living their lives the way they choose. And who the fuck am I or you to come along, tell them they are wrong, remove their humanity by using terms like ‘funfeminist’ in a derogatory fashion.

Yes trafficking is a problem, rape is huge problem, sex workers who are there because they feel they have no other choice is a problem, over sexualisation is a problem. These are issues that as a feminist movement we need to work on, and I don’t want to trivialise any of them. Slut shaming people who are there through their own decisions, who are not in those vulnerable positions however is not the way to do it. Policing the sexuality and sexual behaviour of women who are using their agency to act is not the way to do it, condemning women on the grounds of their conventional attractiveness is not the way to damn well do it.

This behaviour, this condemnation of women who are happy to be seen in a convetionally attractive light, who are happy with their sexuality, their sexual behaviour, their pro porn positions is not Feminism. It is a repeat of the Blondes are Bimbos, Redheads are sluts and all women are mens shag toys  way of thinking. It is not liberating or empowering to condemn the sexual behaviour of other women, just as it is not liberating or empowering to condemn and criticise the bodies and looks of other women, or their personal grooming habits. It’s just plain bitchy.

I don’t have a solution to rape, or VAW, or over sexualisation. I do think that gender dialogue is important, and I do think and truly, truly believe that until we stop tearing each other apart over how we look, or how we have sex, or how we choose to express our sexuality that Feminism as a movement will be stuck in a    rut chasing in circles.