...and today's diatribe is on SEX, boys and girls.

[kaigou]

I'm more than a little frustrated with what I see as some pretty ass-backwards, bogged-down, body-obsessed bullshit about virginity. Look at how we talk about it, like it's a tangible thing: I want to lose my virginity or I'm going to give so-and-so my virginity. It's embedded in the language but it makes you sound like you missed the clue-bus, because virginity is not something you can wrap up in a box and give someone. Nor is it a favorite hat that you wear until you come to some arbitrary decision that you've grown out of it and it's time to graduate to a new hat. Puhleese.

Granted, part of what stymies a conversation like this is the awareness that you must actually have had sex to comprehend what I mean. Otherwise your input, bluntly, is about as valuable/valid as me trying to hold forth on the values of natural childbirth. Having never been through labor, nor having ever attempted to pass a bowling ball, nor having ever taken my lower lip and pulled it up over my head, I can't speak with any knowledge on natural childbirth other than to quote people who have, and to state my one-step-removed opinion about those other people's experiences. Clearly if the only people I know to quote are people who found natural childbirth utterly excruciating, then this will color my one-step-removed opinion.

But back to virginity. See, this ties into sex throughout our lives, especially for women. When you add up all the cultural crap we get -- from school, classmates, parents, relatives, babysitters, movies, television, Disney, books -- it's amazing we can even function, sometimes. I want to lose my virginity -- what exactly is such a phrase saying? It's as though, hidden in our language, we're saying that our state of vulnerability and uncertainty and essentially ignorance is somehow a blessed thing, that once gone, oh, woe, we can't get it back.

And I don't say it's innocence, because first, all too often we experience some kind of heartbreak long before we "lose" our virginity, and if that don't take away innocence, not much else will. And I do think that if you look back with some kind of rose-colored glasses at the early adolescent years (oi), then yes, it's innocence, but I wouldn't go back there if you paid me damn good money. We were ignorant of life, and ignorant of our ignorance, and frankly, I'd rather be on this side than that side.

This is one of the biggest issues I've ever had with the notion that 'original sin' and 'being cast from Eden' is a bad thing. To be perfectly blunt, while I intellectually get the notion that being thrown out of some paradise is a horrible punishment, I'd much rather have the knowledge of good and evil, and I think the whole thing was a jade's trick, but I won't go into that theological bullshit at this point. Maybe some other time.

But that "the body is a sacred vessel" should have its limits. Putting some kind of sacred fence around our sexuality turns it, and its state of ignorance, and everything else between our hips, into some kind of no-man's-land (or at least until one marries, and then it suddenly becomes one-man's-land, and when the fuck does it start becoming my land, anyway?)

See, sex is not a sacred act. It can't be, or we're begging so many horrendous questions. Drinking wine at communion is a sacred act. Having a glass of Merlot while I chat in the sacristy during a church party...not a sacred act. Yes, it's a glass of wine while in a church, but it's not a sacred act. Drinking red wine (or port, if you're Anglican) is not, in and of itself, sacred, even if done in a church.

Sex is not, in and of itself, sacred, and the minute such a label gets slapped on it, one must ask: what about rape? Is date rape somehow still sacred, even though it was against the woman's (or man's) consent? What about child molestation? Still sex. That sacred, too?

[The current attempt to block any use or even PR of a vaccine that could potentially save thousands of lives, on the grounds that such a vaccine might actually, horrors, convince more young women to run out and have sex -- this logic boggles my mind. People are willing to let young women die because they're convinced that anything that makes sex safer will somehow make it more likely. Look, it's going to happen. And the longer we wrap up these notions of love and giving-away-intangibles and sacredness and whatnot, the easier it is to retain this ignorance that sex is somehow not just an exchange, but one that having given it, can't come back, and that using our own bodies is somehow demeaning... I'd think dying of a disease that could've been easily prevented with a simple vaccination would be demeaning, but whatever.]

I think part of what makes me most annoyed about the way some people talk about sex -- and curiously, it's both in people who've never had it, and some people who've had a fair amount -- is that it comes across like this act between two people means you've cut out a piece of yourself and handed it over. And it seems most often to be women talking like this; when was the last time you heard a guy blathering on worriedly about giving his virginity away and whether he'd be respected in the morning? (Who was it on my flist who commented that most teenage guys would be more than happy to ditch their virginity to the highest bidder and get on with the fun of adulthood? Whomever it was had a witty turn of phrase I can't recall now, damn it.) And I certainly can name on one hand the number of men I've ever heard say anything remotely like a fear/anxiety about having exchanged something intangible with another person just on the basis of having had sex.

I'm not saying -- don't get me wrong -- that nameless, faceless sex is a door/eye-opener for anyone. That's about as far from sacred as one can get, right up there with non-consensual sex. Not to mention damn risky behavior, in this age of AIDS and various other diseases. But I do think the obsession with seeing sex itself as the sacred thing -- yes, the actual act of someone putting his dick in your cunt, damn it -- just strikes me as mistaking the goddamned cake for the entire frickin' birthday party. A cake does NOT make a birthday, people. A wedding does NOT make a marriage. Sex does NOT make a connection. It's just sex.

Perhaps it's easier to be flippant about this (on some level) because I've had sex. And perhaps it's because I've had friends who were virgins when they married, and while they were overjoyed to be having sex, there's still, I've noted with some sadness, a bit of fear. I mean, when someone's only had sex nine times, it's probably going to make them damned uncomfortable when anyone around them gets into woman-talk-mode and comments with some bliss that her new lover had her zoned out after twenty-seven orgasms in the space of a half-hour.

It doesn't do much good to point out that being able to do that is a skill, a physical skill, that requires effort and practice. Lots of practice. (Woe, the practice, so many hours, let us all bemoan the hours of Teh Gud Sexx it took to be able to have so many orgasms in one hour that we end up unable to even lift the cigarette to our lips, but must have our lover lift it for us. Woe is us.) But that fear is in there, because the last thing you want, when you're convinced that Sex Is Sacred, is to find out that your sacredness just ain't quite as much toe-curling fun as the next person's.

I'm not saying either that everyone should run out and have sex with every person they meet, even if it's not faceless. But I think it's the perceptions our society tries to inculturate in its women: that sex isn't really ours, and we're just hosting it for a little while until we give away or somehow, like an absent-minded professor, "lose" it. And then it's some man's, and that every man we "give" ourselves to now has a piece of us, as if he can hold it hostage. If this were so, then it'd be absolutely true that the more people you have sex with, the more you're reducing yourself, making yourself into a little heap of nothing because you gave all the good stuff away.

Fortunately, this is bullshit. I for one disagree strongly that my sexuality -- and what resides between my legs -- is the extent of "my good stuff." You can take that lie and shove it, because what's between my legs is mine. I might let you see it if you please me, but when I'm done letting you see it, I can take it back and you don't get to see it again if I say so. It's not something sacred that we shared that means you now have claim on me. I didn't give you any of my good stuff, nor of my better stuff -- at most, I let you take it out and play with it a little while -- and I mean that figuratively and literally.

But you don't have it, you don't get to keep it, it was never yours, and it never will be, and it's always mine. Presenting sex as somehow inherently sacred, as limited, and as the 'good stuff' a woman has to offer in a relationship, turns it all into some kind of commodity where you only get so many shots and then you're a Horrid Slut. And you're even more a Horrid Slut if you deign to say, look, I had sex with him but that doesn't mean I consented to having sex with him again, it doesn't mean he owns a piece of my soul, and furthermore, it doesn't mean he's somehow sharing something sacred with me -- and you're a Horrid Slut even faster if you're honest and say that it didn't help that the guy sucked in bed.

Something that really made an impact on me, in an oh-that's-sad way, was Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Yo. Anyone remember the point where Ferris is talking about his friend Cameron, near the end of the movie? He says something along the lines that Cameron's waiting for the perfect girl, saving it all for one person, and some girl is going to come along and bone him and he's going to think This Is It and she's going to take him for all he's worth.

It was a nice twist, because you know what? 99% of the time, that Cameron is a girl, and I went to high school with that girl, and college, and I've worked with her, and they're all nice girls, but they've been taught that you get to "give" your virginity once, and it's something speshul that's Your Big Contribution, and that you should save it all up, and not explore nor consider nor educate yourself, because eventually it'll be some man's. And all those girls needed was the right man to come along and take them for all they're worth.

Not that this is much of an issue, anyway, because I've found the majority of women who honestly think like that...aren't worth much. They could be. But they don't let themselves be. They're too busy locking away their sexuality in some little gift-wrapped box, because oh-my-god, what if you go shopping in Georgetown and you set down your packages and pick them up again but find you lost your virginity? You just look the other way, and it trots off on its own!

I say, good riddance. Did you really want to live in ignorance all your life? Why do we raise our children to continue this indoctrination, that as women our sex is only good for limited use. It's there, in our language. "When it comes time you've decided to lose your virginity..." Why not, "when you decide to grow up and explore your body to its fullest" or "when you decide to become a full adult"...?

We look at our state of ignorance, as women, and this is seen as desirable; the women who have left that behind -- and moreso, those without regret of such -- are Horrid Sluts. Or, perhaps, just slightly jaded. Or they're women who have found That One Person with whom they'll have sex, as though their sexuality is something turned off and on, and it's turned on now they're with someone and the rest of the time it's off-limits, don't touch, that's my sexuality and my One Person keeps it safe.

Uh, yeah. "Giving away" your sexuality to one person is a huge tie-down to that one person (if you leave, does he get to keep your sexuality along with your virginity and the new sofa?); it's a pretty nice job for that one person, if he can get it. But I don't see the average man traipsing about with long faces parroting the idea that because they had sex now they're tied to that one woman for the rest of their lives, because they don't have anything to offer anyone else. It's been given away! Nope. They're far more likely to bitch about how boring it is to fuck their wives. To be blunt.

Want to know why? Because if you're convinced that your sexuality exists only to be given away, it's probably a good chance that you're not going to put a lot of effort into asserting what you want, because it's not yours to control now. Oh, people do explore, yes, and my friends who married as virgins are quite randy, catching up for lost time. But those friends, with few exceptions, also took a bit to come to grips with the notion that sometimes it's okay to say, "look, I want to get off. Get me off, damn it." Or that if you're fucking your spouse and you're not getting off, that you can do it yourself. While he's there! In the room!

It's not his body, it's yours, and if you want something, you don't have to ask permission -- but if your sexuality is something you've given away, shared in some kind of a twisted this-is-sacred belief, then you don't make demands, you don't take back, you certainly don't take over the reins and do it yourself. You wouldn't take back an offering to a god, would you? Well, I think the attitude is sometimes the same when it comes to seeing Sex As Sacred Commodity. Bought and sold on the altar of our frickin' culture.

It's the same old thing. Guys can love 'em and leave 'em; a woman does that, and she's a Horrid Slut. I'm not saying that a person -- of either gender -- should love & leave, nor am I saying that true equality comes when a woman can do it just as much as a man. That's not necessarily equality, so much as lip service because a woman can, sometimes, get up and leave. Not always, but sometimes. True equality comes when women get up and leave and the rest of us just shrug and go, "well, girls will be girls," just like we've said for centuries, "boys will be boys." Or maybe better, "adults will be adults."

That is, equality isn't just in what we do; it's also in whether the rest of society condemns us. When neither gender is condemned, then we'll have sexual equality.

And sometimes having a sexuality means you let someone take out your pretty things, play with them a little while, and then you take them back, you put them back between your legs, and you say, this was a mistake and I'm moving along now. You don't own me or got any kind of a hold on me, because what we had is a shared experience, and nothing more, nothing less. Not sacred except as we make it so, and it's certainly not only my sexuality that got shared, but both of us, and you kept yours and I've got mine, don't call me, I won't call you.

Comments

[merith.livejournal.com]

i'm going to have to come back to read this in its entirety later - i completed about half of it and my brain took a header (long week, different reasons). and this kind of discussion i do enjoy. i found myself nodding at quite a few of your points, but do want to see some back up to a couple of what you allude to in vague statements.

but, as i said, i've only gotten through half of the post, so it could be clarified later.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Yeah, vague statements are a good starting point when the objective is more to throw out a series of food-for-thought statements and see what my delightful flist can throw back at me. At least, that's what seems to work for me -- but then, you know how much I enjoy chewing on things. *leer*

[christeos-pir.livejournal.com]

So...

What are you doing later?

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Want to play with the shiny, handsome?

[mikkeneko.livejournal.com]

I do think the obsession with seeing sex itself as the sacred thing -- yes, the actual act of someone putting his dick in your cunt, damn it -- just strikes me as mistaking the goddamned cake for the entire frickin' birthday party.

This reminds me somehow of my AP English teacher. He believed that sex was sacred. So sacred, in fact, that it was the sacred heart behind all literature, anywhere, ever. Doesn't matter whether it was about ice cream or gardens or astrophysics, it was all about Dick --> Cunt = Sacred.

God, I hated him. =D

[christeos-pir.livejournal.com]

Freud had... um, issues.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

God, I hated him. =D

And pitied his wife, too.

[mikkeneko.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure he was married. Probably he was. But I never heard about her.

[ex-saraswath377.livejournal.com]

*cheers*

I've had so much trouble with this even with my liberal friends...I'm glad someone agrees with me.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Thing is, I really dislike it when someone assumes that because I have strong opinions now that I'm inflexible or unwilling to question my position. I only got here by questioning, damn it, because I was fed the same line as everyone else (with the possible exception being from my mother and grandmother, who were both pretty much like, "it's your body, do what you want, be safe, and if you don't like what's happening, tell the guy to stop, and then walk away.") But the rest of the world? Ohhh, losing your virginity is this Massive Step and So Important and You'll Always Treasure The Moment.

Bullshit. I can barely remember when I lost my virginity, and what I do remember was that it was both unremarkable and some pretty pathetic sex. Making it into a huge production, and then finding out it was, well, just sex, was part of what made me question so much of what I'd been taught.

The pity is how many women I've known over the years who had mediocre sex their first time, figured that having Teh Sex = Being In Wuv, and wrote off "really amazing sex" as something only Wicked Women could get, or that would only happen if they ever had an affair.

Or maybe that's just the woman's version of the man's wish for slut in the bedroom and virgin in the kitchen -- that sex with the husband can be mediocre, and you just get to spend your life making annoyed sideways glances at your friends who rattle the windows when they have sex.

[ex-saraswath377.livejournal.com]

I only got here by questioning, damn it, because I was fed the same line as everyone else (with the possible exception being from my mother and grandmother, who were both pretty much like, "it's your body, do what you want, be safe, and if you don't like what's happening, tell the guy to stop, and then walk away.")

My parents have been remarkably quiet, probably because I went to schools with progressive sex ed programs (now my mother's a little louder and will tease my sisters because they're so shy about it), but I also read way too many books up until high school and read fanfic starting at the end of junior high or so (including yaoi, which was a shocker at first). So I guess I've always been in a more open environment, and so people who were exposed to the more mainstream, conservative accepted ideals on sex confused me.

So here with the ideals most Japanese girls have about gender, let alone sex, I get frustrated pretty quickly. It is changing, but slowly.

Ohhh, losing your virginity is this Massive Step and So Important and You'll Always Treasure The Moment.

I was criticized by one of my better friends, even, because I didn't exactly remember when my first time was - hell, I was with the same guy for three years and we had sex a lot and I have a bad memory anyway, so it all blurred together and it didn't/doesn't bother me, so I'm not sure why it bothered her. (And I had no pain/blood, so I guess certain groups of people could argue I had no virginity to begin with. *chuckle*)

And earlier than that, friends acting upset because the guy dumped me not because he dumped me in a horrible way, which was why I was upset, but because we had had sex. *sigh*

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

I remember my best friend in high school mentioning she'd had sex with her boyfriend when we were sophomores. I'd done my share of messing around but hadn't actually done the dick+cunt routine yet, and I recall staring at her, agape. Not because she'd had sex, but because she hadn't told me (we were juniors when she did), but also, for some bizarre reason, because I couldn't tell that she'd had sex. I believe I said as much, and her response was, "what did you think, I'd sprout an extra arm or something? It's just sex, for crying out loud. What's important is what happens the rest of the time."

And to think, she was devoutly Catholic, but she was still one of the most practical people I've ever met. (And in the end, she married the same high school sweetheart, but only after she'd finished her bachelor's and her master's. Not exactly par for the "married one's sweetheart" routine. She made him wait good and long before she decided he could have her shiny parts permanently, and she told me as much. Heh.)

I can only imagine with such an upbringing how much head-desk action you must be inclined to have, given what I've heard of Japanese women's notions of gender relationships, sex, and the lot. You have my sympathy, but don't stop being your wonderful wicked self!

[pixiepilot.livejournal.com]

I really dislike it when someone assumes... that I'm inflexible or unwilling to question my position.


PFAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA-hee-hee... *restrains further giggling and says seriously* You know, that thought never crossed my mind. I'm sure you're very flexible and interested in all sorts of positions. *nod-nod, snerk, dodge*

[midnytanonymous.livejournal.com]

Hello! I'm one of many lurkers who enjoy reading what you write, and (for once) I'm actually going to comment.

And sometimes that means you let someone take out your pretty things, play with them a little while, and then you take them back, you put them back between your legs, and you say, this was a mistake and I'm moving along now

I love the points you made throughout this piece. A woman's body is her own, and she is the one who should decide what, where, when and how things get done to it. Women, nowadays, seem to idolize their virginity until it becomes the central turning point in their lives when, seriously, there are a lot of other things that are just as "special". A woman should not define herself by what's between her legs, or demean herself because her "gift" has been taken and she can never get it back again. Like you said, it's not something you give away, but something you take out every once in a while, and put back when it's done, all the while remaining in complete control of your body.

*gets off her soapbox* There were other points I wanted to mention, but I can't seem to remember them now *sheepish grin* Thanks for writing this, I really enjoyed reading it!

Midnight Anonymous

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

A woman should not define herself by what's between her legs, or demean herself because her "gift" has been taken and she can never get it back again.

Which in itself reveals the extent of the mindset, because even in talking about it I find, and quoting you, looks like you do, too, that it's really easy to slip into the notion that it's a "gift" and/or that it could be "taken". I mean, if you've never had sex, and you're convinced Losing One's Virginity Is The Big Thing, then it might miss you completely that every single time you're with someone new, you might as well be a virgin all over again. Just because I know how to drive this car doesn't mean I know all roads, and every road is something uncertain.

As for the women who insist they're "saving" their virginity...alright, I can get behind the notion that you don't want just any Tom, Dick...or, well, any dick to play with your shiny things. But when you couple that (err) with the fact that most of these women won't even masturbate, I'd say that puts the lie to the notion that they're owning their sex/sexuality. Getting back to the car analogy: this is like saying you're saving your convertible only for the sunny days, but you can't actually drive a stick shift, so when those sunny days come, you'll be asking a friend to drive you.

But then, that's a tangent to what I posted here: that little boys can play with themselves, and that teenage boys jacking off in the shower is seen as, well, more of the "boys will be boys" -- but girls doing such? Cripes. Only whisper that behind closed doors, in hushed voices. Annoying!

[touch-of-ink.livejournal.com]

Hm. I come from it from a totally different angle, so I'm not sure what I have to say can be meaningful about what you're talking about. But here's how it is for me.

Sex can be sacred. (In fact, in my religion it is.) Rape (whether it's done to women, children, or men) is not sex. (And yes, I realize that's a whole 'nuther discussion). But to me, rape is about violence and power over, and not about overwhelming desire to put cock in cunt.

Sex (for me, and most of my friends) is about love, and sharing, and power within.

However, in my world (and I mean in the social circles I travel in), words like "slut" and "whore" are compliments. (Though I admit, "whore" is usually phrased as "sacred whore".) Being good at sex is prized and praised.

I've had sex with love, and I've had sex without love, and I prefer to have sex and love together. It feels better (to me) and makes for better memories. On top of all that, just because I'm married doesn't mean that my sexual life begins and ends with my husband. We're poly, so sex is not something that either of us owns with the other, any more than laughter is. (Can you even imagine wedding vows that ask you to forsake laughing with all others, and only laughing with this one person for the rest of your life? Weird.)

I've had fun sex and sacred sex. I enjoy both, but sacred sex is a lot more exhausting than fun sex, while fun sex is more, well, fun.

[touch-of-ink.livejournal.com]

My parents, I will point out, don't have the same paradigm that I do. I remember telling my family at dinner (when I was in second or third grade) that when I grew up, I wanted to be a prostitute, because you got to have sex and you got paid for it, what could be a better job? hehehehe

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

I don't think we're in conflict at all. Sex can be sacred. My point is that in and of itself, it's an act -- an inimate one that requires a certain level of vulnerability to really go bonkers -- but it is not an act that carries an inherent sacredness. Those who argue that it does, I say, are not only missing the boat but putting rape and child molestation victims in a tough position of asking whether their horrible experience is a perverted sacred act. Rape is about power. It's also about sex, too; if it weren't, rapists would just beat their victims into a pulp.

So it seems like we're in agreement, since you mention 'sacred sex' and 'fun sex'; those who conflate the sex-act with 'an entire sacred event that begins before we take our clothes off and ends way after we've stopped panting' wouldn't get this notion that there can be sacred sex and sex that's just, well, for toe-curling fun. (Kinda like the contrast between 'sex for procreation' -- would that be 'sex for business'? versus 'sex for fun'?)

Sex for business. Okay, that raises some chilling tangents.

[christeos-pir.livejournal.com]

> I've had fun sex and sacred sex. I enjoy both, but sacred sex is a lot more exhausting than fun sex, while fun sex is more, well, fun.

Aumgn to that!

[siriusjazz.livejournal.com]

Well, as a disclaimer, I might as well admit it first-off that I'm still a virgin. It's not something I'm happy or unhappy with - I'm actually rather indifferent. Sure, there have been times when the opportunity was there for me to go off and "lose" it, but for me...it's more about standards. I want whatever guy who decides he wants to get his rocks off with me deserve it and earn it. It shouldn't be something expected. So yeah, I don't feel I've met a guy yet who is deserving of myself. Might sound a bit snotty, but I'm not gonna go around sleeping with just anybody - it's my body, and dammit, I dictate who gets to play with it.

I think a lot of the stigma regarding girls and virginity is the whole trying-to-avoid-being-called-a-slut thing. That whole unfortunate double standard. So, to avoid getting a negative label, girls get the fear of god put into them about their sexuality. It gets pumped up as some big religious and sacred thing, when really it's not sex that's sacred; religion regards conception as sacred. Yes, sex is private, personal, and can get messy where emotions are involved. Some of my friends had sex for this first time when they were in their mid-teens, and I know that back then, I wasn't mature enough to deal with everything sex entails. For me, at least, it's showing a vulnerability...I don't know exactly why I view it as such, but I do... I suppose it's because (to me) sex is private - not everyone gets to see you in that manner.

A lot of my friends want to wait until marriage. I think that's a load of crock, but to each his own, eh? But I've never really thought of virginity as a virtue or a vice.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Might sound a bit snotty, but I'm not gonna go around sleeping with just anybody - it's my body, and dammit, I dictate who gets to play with it.

And what I want (yeah, yeah, but we've got to start somewhere) is a world where a woman can say, "It's my body, damn it," and not feel pressured somehow into prefacing it with "might sound snotty" or any other quasi-defensive stance. "Sorry, but..." is another one. Why be sorry? Why worry about how it sounds?

I look forward to the day we can see daughters saying, unequivocably, "my body, my rules!" and being respected for that, instead of feeling like they need to justify it -- and doing it from a position of knowing their body, without the blinders of "losing their virginity" being their One Big Night and after that, it's all turned over to you, Bob. We're getting there. But not yet.

*headdesk*

Long night, major headache right now, but I bet you know what I mean. ;P

[siriusjazz.livejournal.com]

Why be sorry? Why worry about how it sounds?

I guess it's just me? Heh, I got humility drilled into my core at an early age, so it seems to me that in regards to how society is nowadays, having standards is almost like a bad thing. Like people should settle for mediocrity and be happy with what they get. So for me saying that I'm waiting for a guy deserving of me, I don't know... It just comes off as kinda arrogant, even though I know I shouldn't feel that way and it isn't like that. Kinda like that "who does she think she is" thing. x_x

Baaahhh. What is it with humanity and our obsession over virginity? Animals sure as hell never have any qualms about it.

[christeos-pir.livejournal.com]

I guess it's just me? Heh, I got humility drilled into my core at an early age, so it seems to me that in regards to how society is nowadays, having standards is almost like a bad thing. Like people should settle for mediocrity and be happy with what they get. So for me saying that I'm waiting for a guy deserving of me, I don't know... It just comes off as kinda arrogant, even though I know I shouldn't feel that way and it isn't like that. Kinda like that "who does she think she is" thing. x_x

IMO, it comes down to how you mean this. If you by this really do mean "I'm so special that no mortal is worthy," then, well, that's your right but yeah, people will think you're arrogant and be right. OTOH, if by this you mean "I have a healthy sense of self-worth and I'm not going to fall over the first time some guy notices me," then the hell with what others think.

OK, let me see if I can put that plainer. If you know you're not being arrogant, then who cares how it comes across. And if you really are arrogant, then you're probably still not going to care what other people think. };->

Joke 'em if they can't take a fuck.

[branchandroot]

Vast agreement. We're not going to get anywhere on the issues that have gotten attached to sex (like violence and self-image and exploitation and all that) until women can own their own bodies and sexuality.

Of course I have a very Marxist view of how we got to where we are now, so I look at this idea that should be simple and obvious, and then I look at the history of wealth and ownership and inheritance and bloodlines and marriage and, well, property... and then I have to go have a drink. Because there's a shitload of historical inertia behind the idea that sex=reproduction and reproduction=inheritance and inheritance must be dictatable by the owners and therefore the property owners own the entire chain of reproductive logic, including the sex.

And, now that property ownership can be shared by the women, the emphasis has shifted. The material underpinnings of the whole structure have been knocked out (thanks be) and the fogeys try to justify the top layer (virginity at marriage=insurance, and none of this belongs to the woman herself) in moral terms. Which is made quite feasible, doctrinally speaking, by the parallel history of religious rules proscribing sexual pleasure, written by a lot of sex-deprived monks.

So, yes. Women very much need to own their own sexuality and bodies and pleasure. And it's not gonna be easy.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Of course I have a very Marxist view of how we got to where we are now, so I look at this idea that should be simple and obvious, and then I look at the history of wealth and ownership and inheritance and bloodlines and marriage and, well, property... and then I have to go have a drink.

You and me both, babe, because sometimes, it just seems like if you don't sedate yourself at least mildly, you'll end up running down the streets screaming at what seems like such innate stupidity -- and I don't mean on the part of the patriarchy, who've had good reason all this time to keep pushing their agenda. (They're in power and they want to stay there, so, duh.) The stupidity is on the part of women who buy into it all. It's one thing to stay a virgin until you meet the guy you want playing with your shiny things for your entire life; it's another thing to insist that Some Big Day With A Wedding Dress is the first time he can play with them, as if your body is so precious it can't even handle a test-drive.

Cars are my favorite analogy. I would never buy a car without a test drive. Why the hell would I marry someone and/or choose someone over all others without knowing that s/he is capable of treating my happy parts with dignity, good humor, and a wicked little twist of the tongue right there at the end?

But the women who buy into not just "saving it all up for someone else" but also "not touching it on my own" -- they're keeping a significant chunk of themselves at arm's length as though it's not really their sexuality. And they're willing to do this, and they're even proud of the fact that they don't own their sexuality or their sex. I just find that both mystifying and so pathetically sad. It's right there! No leaving home required! No batteries required! But noooo, it can't be used. It's like the old joke about not letting your lover play with your boobs while pregnant: "that's for the baby." Can't play with myself, because that's for my husband.

Insert annoyed look here, but I bet you're singing along with this tune already, eh?

I also live within a mile or so of the city's biggest twenty-four hour sex shop. I think I know where I'll do my yule shopping this year, for all my female friends. Bwahahaha. What do you think the chances are that my sister would either recoil in horror at a 2' purple-neon dildo or shriek in excitement and attach a strap so she can wear it as a hat? Naw. She'll probably just use it as a model and incorporate it into her next painting...

[christeos-pir.livejournal.com]

And to run with the car analogy, the more you do it, the better your skills.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

AND that you should get an annual tune-up. This "I'm twenty-five and I've never had a pap smear" makes me want to track down the person's mother and frickin' slam her head against the wall for letting her daugther remain so ignorant, and so unprotected.

[achiasa.livejournal.com]

OK, actual jawdrop there. What the hecking heck.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Remember when I did that post several months back asking my female friends to please be up-to-date on their pap smears, for their own health? I got that reply -- from women aged 22 through 32 -- and I know at least one of them, shortly afterwards, did finally go get a pap smear for the first time (even if it was prompted by unrelated health issues, but the timing was odd). The rest of them? No idea; apparently this was an event marked in their heads as "something I'll do before I get married."

The fact that their mothers would let them go without a pap smear all this time remains something that will forever make me doubt their mothers truly have their daughter's health in mind, at least in a reasonable manner. I mean, really! Having a gynecologist doesn't mean you're having sex. It just means you're willing to make sure you're a healthy human being, and that everything is in working order. Wouldn't you want this for your daughter? Why would anyone assume that one's body is going to stay, untouched and therefore perfectly healthy, and only kick into gear upon getting married? What, does the body see the wedding and go, okay, NOW we can start contemplating cervical cancer!

And I really don't frickin' care if anyone on my flist is offended that I'm saying their mothers have failed them in this point. Their mothers have failed them. They let their daughters be raised ignorant of the importance of a full medical checkup, and in ignorance of their own bodies and the importance of keeping it healthy, and that it doesn't matter if one has no sexual contact or experience whatsoever. They let their daughters be raised believing that proper care of the body isn't important, and they let their daughters be raised believing that one's sexuality (and the repercussions of having sexual parts) only kicks in and becomes an issue upon marriage.

So, yes, those mothers failed their daughters, in that area.

[siriusjazz.livejournal.com]

Ahaha, that's exactly like my dad. When I turned 18, my mother set up the appointment, and my dad flipped. "WHY DOES SHE NEED IT? SHE'S NOT HAVING SEX, IS SHE?" XD;;;; Yeah, she just gave him a look, and that ended that.

My mom's all about the gynecologist. After having so many problems with her own reproductive system, she's made damn sure to drill the importance into mine and my sister's heads. XD And you betcha I'll be passing that knowledge on to any daughters I may have.

[branchandroot]

*snickers* I'm all for the purple neon.

[achiasa.livejournal.com]

it comes across like this act between two people means you've cut out a piece of yourself and handed it over

I think... part of the historical basis for that concept (and it's not even historical, really; it goes back past history, into the roots of society) is that rape is a violation. It takes something from you - your free will, your right to choose, your control over your own body, your dignity - and even if you regain that afterwards you're not going to forget; you'll never be unaware of the possibility again. So because nonconsensual sex can/can seem to take these intangible things away, in society it becomes confused with sexuality in general. Anything that can be taken by force can be given away as well.

Re the Eden mythology and Original Sin (and I must take a moment to go o.O that Winamp just started playing Original Sinsuality at me)... as far as Christianity's effect on society goes, the wires are seriously crossed on that one. The pure biblical version of the story is that God threw them out because he was afraid that they'd eat from the Tree of Life and live forever. Being denied paradise wasn't a punishment either, but a result of knowing good from evil; it's a commentary/parable on innocence and the rise of human consciousness. Sex didn't come into it at all until the Church put it there; there are even parts of the Judaic Apocrypha that suggest that there was plenty of sex going on in Eden before anyone started getting ideas about apple pie.

It was only much later that sexuality came into the equation, and it would be fascinating to know how and why the Church worked that one. Eve became the evil temptress, and sex became the mechanism of the Fall, and they turned the whole thing into a lesson about women's sexuality being evil and leading virtuous men astray. And the impact of that on the entirety of Western culture is immeasurably huge.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Err, you've got your trees confused. There's three parts: God gives the warning, then there's the temptation story, and then God's reasoning for ditching the pair. In the warning, he tells them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (although they can eat of any other tree). The temptation story also only refers to this, but in God's reasoning as to why he's evicting, he says in verse 3:22 ...the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" (translation from the New Oxford Annotated Bible. Alternately, the phrase 'like god' may also be translated 'like gods,' possibly meaning the Septuagint, which are the divine beings of the heavenly court.

What I've always found fascinating is that it wasn't the tree of life that made humans like gods, but the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Often these two trees seem to be mixed into one big tree of everything, in the more popular tellings and worse translations, and in the modern pseudo-oral tradition.) So knowing the differences between right and wrong was the beginning of the end -- or perhaps the end of the beginning.

But I agree about its impact on Western civilizations when it comes to sexuality and women's roles. And I also think whatever I can do in my lifetime to tear it down is what I'm perfectly willing to do.

So because nonconsensual sex can/can seem to take these intangible things away, in society it becomes confused with sexuality in general. Anything that can be taken by force can be given away as well.

Good point. I hadn't thought of it that way, but I think you're right. And either way, it still reduces a woman's sexuality to some kind of commodity, as Branch mentions above. And that, IMO, is where things are going wrong, to see it as a limited use, easily damaged, one-time-only kind of commodity.

(Btw, in the notes on the translation -- my sole bible has copious notes in the bottom margins about translations -- I came across this bit on 2:18 in the notes: "To be fully human one needs to be in relation to others who correspond with oneself. Helper, not in a relationship of subordination but of mutuality and interdependence." and "24-25: Sex is not regarded as evil but as a God-given impulse that draws a man and woman together so that they become one flesh. The two were unashamedly naked, a symbol of their guiltless relation to God and to one another." (emphasis in original, quoting.)

What I've always found rather eye-rolling, for the most part, is that the story has a god who says, what you're doing is great! and then the little humans learn good and evil, realize what they're doing is not great, and are ashamed of it, and the god then tosses them out because now they can see things as clearly as him.

I never gave the snake much thought as a child, but when I studied theology, I really started to feel for the poor guy. He's the only one in genesis with his head screwed on straight; the god of genesis wouldn't know logic if you rammed it up his nose -- because if that is his logic, it's a damnned devil's deal, more than anything the snake ever did.

[christeos-pir.livejournal.com]

Well, it's not my myth, but there are some things here that have always given me a chuckle.

First of all, the God/s¹ say, "if you eat this, you'll die that day." And the serpent² says, "oh, rubbish, you won't die." And they don't. So who was helping them, and who was lying to them?³

Second, after they eat the fruit and learn morality, they then decide that being naked is bad. Why? These are the bodies that the God/s made in their own image, aren't they? So why is looking at your husband's/wife's naked body teh 3V1L?

Third, when the God/s come looking for them, s/he/they can't find them. What kind of God/s has to call, "Coo-ee! Where are you? Oh, I didn't see you behind that bush." Say what? I'll bet the Messiah Serpent knew where they were.

And lastly, we get to the crux of the biscuit, which is "hey, you're getting a little too much like us, we'd better slap you down." In slavery days, that was called getting uppity. Can't have no uppity humans, no sirreebob!

And what's the punishment for this? Kicked out of Eden (unless you're in Tahiti, in which case it seems like the expulsion was postponed until the missionaries arrived), made to get off your ass and learn to use your mind and your muscles, develop tools and medicines and science instead of sitting around fat and ignorant... and painful childbirth. Since I'm not capable of childbirth, I'll let others decide whether it was a good bargain or not. All I got to say is, if that's someone's idea of a benevolent, just, caring god, they can keep him.


1. Elohim, ALHIM, is a feminine plural ending on a masculine root, implying more than one god, of neutral or bisexual nature.

2. How can he be a serpent if he's got legs?

3. BTW, Snake, Nachash, has the same numerical value in Qabalah as Messiah, Messiach.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

Which is all great, but now you're going to have to rehash this when I finally get around to the diatribe on religion. Save this link, so you don't have to retype!

[christeos-pir.livejournal.com]

I reserve the right to stray from the subject at hand with no apparent logic whatsoever.

[trembling-aspen.livejournal.com]

I don't know if this is true, but the first thing that comes to my mind when asked why there's so much hoopla about girls having sex, my first thought comes as a parent, "Oh my God, I don't want my baby to have a baby too soon." Granted, my daughter is only five, but the thought of her having sex at sixteen terrifies me. Even if she knew how to be safe, I'd worry that those boys are going to hurt my baby, by heartbreak not the sex. I'd be less likely to worry when she's 18 or 20, because then I'd think she could handle herself. Things that are crushing in high school just aren't as heavy later.

Anyway, I agree with the things you've said. I think the culture does it because parents are afraid for their kids, mostly for their daughters (although I have the same worries for my ten year old son).

Delilah

[beautiful_dreams_25]

Wordage! :D Now, if only the society will start seeing that it's messed up to think that what's between my legs belongs to someone else and not me, even if it was taken by force...=_=

But, I really have to praise ya for this! *__* It's so right to say that sexuality belongs to ourselves. Having grown up in an environment where I was told that my body will belong to someone else, I now feel relieved that such isn't true. ^^;