Gender polka

[textualdeviance]

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.

Comments

[textualdeviance.livejournal.com]

Addenda:

I do think it's worth noting how confusing and frustrating it must be for guys to be surrounded by women wearing sexualized clothing and behaving in sexualized ways, and then being told that they're not allowed to approach those women (or indeed, according to some, even ogle them.) And that, I think is where the madonna/whore training really pickles women. We're taught to base our self-esteem on whether straight guys find us attractive, and so drss in a way that gets the attention that confirms that. Yet, we're also taught that actually giving it up means we're filthy sluts. The ideal state for a woman is one in which she's wanted by everyone, but had by none or just one.

That honestly makes no sense to me. Women who actually do want to get laid by strangers should be able to tart up, head for a bar and get some. But women who don't want that, but dress and act like they do? What the hell?

I spose some of this may be related to the false sense of power some women feel they have when men want them (and additionally, knowing they have the power to say no.) If you've been taught that you're at your most powerful when some guy has a stiffie for you, then yeah, that's what you're gonna court.

Only thing is: that "power" is a lie. Men do not, contrary to what the media may have told you, become babbling babies when they have boners. Some, in fact, become even more aggressive. So no, you don't actually have them on a pussy leash.