textualdeviance: (Whole Lotta WTF)
There are a ton of thoughts swirling around in my brain right now about how powerlessness/passivity has become acceptable shorthand for female sexuality, and indeed womanhood itself. But I'd probably piss people off if I tried to write it all out right now while I'm tired.

Short version, though (frank talk ahoy--shy folks look away now):

A) Merely posessing a vagina does not mean your entire sexuality revolves around finding something to put in it. Conversely, merely posessing a penis doesn't mean your entire sexuality revolves around finding a hole to stick it in.

B) Merely enjoying being on the receiving end of penetrative sex does not constitute being sexually or socially passive. (And the converse.)

C) Merely identifying as female doesn't mean your sexuality revolves around penetration or passivity. (And the converse.)

D) Merely enjoying being sexually passive doesn't mean you want to be passive in the rest of your life.

E) Merely enjoying being sexually passive with certain people doesn't mean you want to be put on display for strangers like some prize heifer.

F) Therefore, any assumption that any given female-identified and/or vagina-posessing person should be open to sexual advances from strangers is inherently sexist. And bullshit.

There are, of course, millions of women who do harbor the fantasy of being taken by a dashing, muscle-bound rogue. Some even enjoy being actually submissive, when they're with a partner/in an environment they trust. But none of that means that a given woman should be assumed to want that, and approached thusly. Fantasy, or the exercise thereof in controlled environments, has fuckall to do with how people want to interact with strangers in the real world.

Also--this is the controversial part--women who do enjoy being sexually or socially passive shouldn't imply (or outright state; I've seen this) that the way they like to do sex and socialization is somehow the most authentic expression of female sexuality, or indeed of femaleness in itself. Just because we code sexual passivity or penetration-receptiveness as feminine doesn't mean that's what those things actually are.

In short: You are not your genitals, neither am I, and neither of us should be defining our sexuality, much less our gender identity or the rest of who we are, by how we like to put those bits to use.
textualdeviance: (Beardy Connor Not Amused)
(Inspired by some ongoing discussions about slutty Halloween costumes for little girls)

So tired of people assuming that being anti-objectified-sexuality means being anti-sex.

I wish there were an easier way to explain the fact that hardcore specialty porn is actually less damaging to women's sexual autonomy than dressing six-year-olds as sexy vampires.

90% of the women (and men) involved in niche porn are there because they enjoy the activities in question, have an exhibitionist streak, and like getting a bit of money to do something they'd be doing already.

90% of the women doing swimsuit calendars do them because they've been taught from birth that being a brainless, non-autonomous object is not just the primary thing they're good for and the only way they're going to make much money, but the ultimate expression of female sexuality.

And as someone who likes actual sex, and thinks every consenting adult ought to have as much of it as they'd like, that pisses me off.

I'm not against depicting women in sexual situations. I'm against a cultural definition of female sexuality that takes all the fun out of it for the women in question. If your primary experience of sex is laying there like a mindless mollusk while some guy uses your body as a sex toy with a heartbeat, you're missing out. And yet that's exactly what we keep training our girls to believe women's sexuality is all about.

I am not one of the conservative harpy brigade who wants to lock up girls in chastity belts until their wedding nights. I am not interested in "protecting" kids from the very idea of sex. I am interested in a model of sexuality that encourages autonomy, and a holistic sexual self-definition, because that's the only thing that allows for truly good sex.

Sue me, but I mourn for the millions of women who have had very little good sex in their lives because they've never known there was something else out there. I mourn for the millions of women who think the only way to get laid at all is to tart up, catch some drunk guy in a club, and get exactly 30 seconds of aimless humping before he rolls over and snores. Oh, ye woeful women. Stop dressing up in a way that only attracts such useless lackwits. And for the love of fuck (literally) stop dressing your daughters that way, too.

Side note: Really also tired of the people complaining about these slutty costumes only b/c of the idea that they're just attracting pedos. Um, hai? Sexual predators don't need their victims to be dressed like that. Burqas don't protect women from rape, and slutty costumes aren't putting your kid on a platter for the nearest creep in a van (or, more likely, "kindly" Uncle Charlie.) What BOTH do, however, is rob the women/girls in question of a chance to have a good sex life on their own terms, because such practices teach them that their sexuality exists for someone else's control and pleasure, rather than their own.
textualdeviance: (Bridal Illusions)
So, I wanted to write a followup about this post I did over here, but M just came home, and I'd rather go hang with him instead.

So, in place of my usual metacultural babble, just imagine that I've said something profound about how pop culture not only encourages asexuality or immature sexuality in girls and young women, but grossly underprepares them to deal with the hardcore sexuality it conversely instills in young men.

Or, in other words: There are legions of 16-year-old girls out there who really don't get that that 25-year-old idol they crush out on probably has three dozen favorite porn sites and is into stuff they've never even heard of.

(And, even sadder: When they do figure this out, said girls have a tendency to go way overboard in trying to adapt to this, and end up doing stuff they really don't want to do just to make these guys happy. Bleh. :( )
textualdeviance: (*headdesk*)
Sometimes, my weird gender stuff is really damned tiring. Most of the world is cisgender-oriented, and I'm just... not. Which can feel uncomfortably isolating sometimes.

Was just thinking about this WRT to fandom, since I had a slight epiphany that the reason I'm interested in a canon "het" OTP for the first time in basically ever is because it's gender-role reversed (yes, in canon. Yay!) I've seen a couple more of these here and there (would love to see more of the Claudia/Fargo crossover stuff, for instance, and I love Gwen/Rhys in Torchwood) but it's really quite rare.

IME, most adult (AKA: sex-friendly) fanthings are primarily attracted to traditionally masculine men, whereas the more-submissive guys I like tend to attract younger/more-delicate-minded fans who perceive their submissiveness as asexuality (which is pretty much never the case; they're just as horny as any other guy.*) Just not a lot of other fans out there who share my yes-quite-prurient interest in guys like that, which makes the squee-sharing adventures a little less than fruitful at times.

And finding other folks who appreciate a strong woman? Even harder. Some straight guys are into them, of course, but most of the ones who are are the creepy sorts who are primarily interested in the challenge of breaking her (see: Whedon, Joss.) There are, of course, many women who appreciate strong ones (as opposed to finding them threatening, as is most often the case) but that tends to be in the hero-worship/role model vein, rather than the "Daym! I can haz?" one I usually have in mind.

The other challenge? Most of the folks who fit my type are usually gay. Theoretically not an issue for the women, but IME, the married-bi-chica thing tends to act like dyke repellent. Dammit. :(

Ah, well. I spose my life would be a lot less interesting if I happened to be more mainstream. So maybe this is just how things are supposed to be for me. Always a little on the odd side where most folks are concerned.


*Side note: Must say I was very amused watching the first couple of Wilfred eps. In the back of my mind, I could hear Elijah's sexphobic fantwits going apoplectic at some of the stuff he was doing. Heh.
textualdeviance: (Sleeping Beauty)
So, it may be a hormonal thing, but whatever the reason, my subconscious has been on naughty overdrive this week. Way TMI )
textualdeviance: (bi slut)
My time was a few years before this; I was into Andrew McCarthy, Tommy Howell, Rob Lowe, Duran Duran, etc. But the point still stands: I was totally into those pretty, pretty boys.

And... I still am.

Prolly TMI )

So, if my attraction to pretty boys means I'm a lesbian, does my attraction to tomboys mean I'm actually straight?

Or, does it really mean that I just have a type, and it's the same basic gender expression, just without too much care about the actual physical configuration?

I'll go with door number three, Monty.


FTR, I do have more types than that. Curvy goddess sorts, for instance. Come to mama, darlings.
Jul. 20th, 2010 01:10 am

Naughty

textualdeviance: (bi slut)
American cultural messages about sex can be boiled down thusly:

1. Don't have sex, because it's evil, dirty and sinful.

2. If you absolutely must have sex, do it only to make babies.

3. If you absolutely must have sex that isn't strictly for making babies, then you must be straight, 22 and look like a swimsuit model.

4. If you're not straight, 22 and/or model-perfect and you insist on having sex anyway, for the love of all that's holy, keep it completely behind closed doors and never, ever speak of it in polite company, lest you horrify people with the mental image.

5. Actually, come to think of it, just don't have sex. It's easier to remember that rule, and you'll never be at risk of offending God or anyone else with the unfortunate fact that you have genitals.

6. Oh, and don't even think about it, you filthy pervert.
textualdeviance: (bi slut)
This broke my heart--even just the first page of it.

It's really sad how common this stupid dance is--for everyone: Male, female, straight or no.

Most of the reason that people (women, especially) are so subtle about such propositioning is because they're either a) afraid people are going to think they're a slutty sex maniac or b) don't want to risk a painful direct rejection.

Granted that very few people, except in very limited circumstances, really are going to respond favorably to a direct proposition, especially by a stranger or someone they don't know well. It is kind of rude to just walk up to someone and say, "Nice Boots. Wanna fuck?" But beyond that, it's a damned shame that so many people are so shy about this.

The problem, however, is that most people DO have a reason to be shy about it: Assholes who think that rejecting people in a cruel way is even remotely acceptable. All it takes is one or two of these harsh shutdowns and just about anyone is going to think twice the next time they want to either drop hints or pick some up.

Really, how hard is it to just say, "I'm flattered, but I don't see you that way?" (Or something to that effect.) Is it really necessary to be a total ass about it and make horribly disparaging comments about what gall someone must have to think you might want do the horizontal hula? Unless you really ARE being propositioned in a rude way in inappropriate circumstances, there's absolutely no call to be a dick about it.

Obviously, I'm speaking from personal experience, and as someone who knows very well that she's not attractive to most people and therefore doesn't bother even dropping hints unless she knows for sure they're welcome. But even people who are a hell of a lot more conventionally attractive than me have had these experiences, and therefore get insecure, and are terrified that the person they like is going to tell them that they're a horrible troll who shouldn't even be thinking about sex, much less asking other people if they're interested in having it.

So the endless dance continues. People are afraid of asking--even in a polite, non-creepy way--for what they want, so they try to be subtle about it. And then that subtlety makes the object of the request unsure of what they're being asked, and therefore afraid to pick up on it. End result: No one gets laid. Which is sad and pathetic and stupid.
textualdeviance: (WTF Tasty Bite)
Words cannot describe how angry this makes me. I'm angry at the doctor for doing this, the medical boards allowing him to do it, and the stupid parents who think that taking a scalpel to their kid's crotch is even remotely acceptable, much less necessary.

What makes me even angrier, though? Some of the comments there:

1. Asshat men who are hijacking this (as they hijack every discussion of FGM) with anti-circumcision ranting. Yes, circumcision is generally unnecessary*, and should be performed only when medically indicated, or as an adult if one so chooses. But removing the foreskin is not the same thing as hacking into a clitoris. STFU and stop complaining that the Poor Menz aren't getting enough attention.

2. A few people arguing that these surgeries are somehow medically necessary. Um. No. Even though the condition (CAH) that causes enlarged clitorises is itself a problem, those clits? Are not a problem. They function perfectly normally. At least until they're hacked at. The argument that they're "deformed" and that this is a deformity that needs cosmetic surgery is utter bullshit. What someone's bits look like when they're older and sexually active may be an issue of concern for them, but that's something for them to decide on when they're old enough to do so. Parents and doctors ought not to be making irreversible decisions on these things for little kids.

Some genital formation issues that result from CAH do need surgical correcting--separating fused labia, making sure the inside bits are on the inside, making sure that urethral function works correctly--but there's nothing about a large clit that is in any way whatsoever medically problematic. I really, really don't give a shit if you think your kid's crotch "looks weird." You shouldn't be looking at it in the first place, so STFU. The only people who should care about such things are the owner of said crotch and any partners she chooses to be with when she's older.**

3. Some people arguing that there's nothing wrong with the followup "testing" this guy is doing. Um. No. If the testing actually is necessary (which it wouldn't be if the guy didn't hack into them in the first place), the proper way to get that data would be self reporting from the patients themselves: Explain what they're supposed to do to test it, let them touch themselves and then get the data. There's absolutely no need for another person to be touching these girls (and especially not on a yearly followup! WTF?)

A personal note somewhat related to this )

* Yes, I'm aware of the studies about HIV transmission and circumcision. They're bollocks. 1. Because the samples involved didn't control for religion--most circumcised men in Africa are Muslim, and have less-risky sex lives for that reason. 2. Because they didn't control for hygiene. Uncircumcised men who don't wash properly are going to have skin irritation issues that yes, will allow the virus to get in easier. Circumcision won't correct poor washing habits.

**Also, some idjit went off about "well, would you sleep with a woman whose clit looked like a small dick?" Um... Yeah, I would. As would most people who are actually worth having sex with. People who give a shit about stupid things like that don't deserve to get anywhere near someone else's crotch, big clit or no. Same goes for people with ridiculous demands about penis or breast size.


ETA on the circumcision issue )
textualdeviance: (Le Connor Temple)
[livejournal.com profile] foxipher posted this, and I had to laugh a little.

Are geek boys still pining away about not being able to get laid?

With the caveat that I probably need to take my own advice at times, here's why the stereotype of the sexless nerd should be considered a mythical beast:

Nerds like sex. Nerds have sex. Nerds have the best sex with each other.

Nerds who pine away in endless lust for non-nerds and ignore the lovely fellow nerds standing right behind them in the autograph lines at the con? Aren't going to get laid. If you're ogling the professional model booth babes instead of the non-implanted-and-Botoxed chick in the cute glasses with a bag full of action figures, you're looking in the wrong damned place.

To wit: Connor Temple should be getting plenty of tail )

Now of course, Connor is a somewhat rare case, being as how he's played by a guy who is actually quite foxy and hawt IRL. Andrew is a bit on the short, scrawny and slightly spotty side, but really, most average, everyday nerds aren't going to have his Puppy Eyes and Dimples of Doom working in their favor. And I get that. But there are still a bunch of nerd boys who don't even have a tenth of his conventional hotness factor who are still merrily shagging away, and it's only because of one thing: They've chosen others like themselves, instead of feeling rejected just because a swimsuit model isn't interested in them.

Undoubtedly, there's some good advice in that article linked above. Even if you're focusing on the right pool of potential partners, standard advice for everyone trying to get some still applies: Don't be rude, pay attention to personal hygiene and try not to monopolize conversations by going on about your particular obsession of the moment.

You also need to make it clear to the object of your attentions that s/he is more than an object. There are definitely some folks out there who are into no-strings sportfucking, but generally speaking, most people want to know that they're wanted on a personal level as well as a physical one, and if you don't feel that way about a given person, then move on until you find one you do feel that way about. It's less painful for all involved.

Being a nerd shouldn't be a barrier in and of itself to having a healthy and active sex life, and being a nice guy isn't the problem. Limiting yourself to those people that mainstream culture have brainwashed you into believing are the only source of satisfying sex? That's the problem.

Profile

textualdeviance: (Default)
textualdeviance

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 08:00 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios