News flash to all women, and men too. Penetration is not the Gold Standard (to use a much overused and overvalued phrase). It is not the sine qua of human sexuality, whether it is female sexuality, male sexuality or same-sex sexuality.
...
We rarely hear or read about men who are comfortable with sexuality and intimacy which does not rely on the erect penis. Men who are not particularly interested in sex, women who are very interested in sex and actively purse casual sexual encounters, couples who choose to include vaginal penetration sparingly or not at all. These beliefs and practices all can and often do incur personal risk of censure and punishment for those women and men. But such representations of different ways of enacting gendered sexuality are rarely given positive media space. Instead we continue to read about heterosexuality and particularly female sexuality as one which must always accommodate the penis.
(but read the whole thing, it puts its argument far better and more succinctly than i'd be capable of...)
As a "man" (tho i question that label, but more on that in a subsequent post) who actually doesn't particularly enjoy penetration, i love to come across [no pun intended] articles like this, because they basically affirm my existence (or at least, in one aspect of my life)...
Despite fitting (at the crudest, most simplistic possible level) into the category "heterosexual man", my sexuality is actually very, very far from the presumed norm for het male sexuality - in particular, it isn't centred around my penis. (What it is most probably centred around is the vulva of a hypothetical partner, which makes involuntary celibacy particularly frustrating for me, because there isn't really any workable "substitute" when sexuality is "other-centred" rather than "me-centred"...)
I can take or leave penetration (well, to be honest, with the one partner i have had, it didn't really "work" for either of us, although that probably had something to do with the impairment-related particularities of her body and the fact that we only tried the "standard" missionary-position penetration - looking back, i can think of other positions that might have worked better for us), i really don't like having my dick sucked, and i was (and still am) too disgusted by the idea of putting any part of my body into an anus to ever try it, but i really, really enjoy(ed) finger/vulva play and (especially) cunnilingus.
Of course, in mainstream culture that isn't really recognised as a possible, let alone desirable, male sexuality - talking about it leads only to jokey labels such as "lesbian in a man's body" (which, actually, might have some truth - but again more on that in a subsequent post) or to accusations about "being in denial", self-hatred, "needing to find the right woman", etc. Many men (in particular, tho also some women) seemingly don't want to believe in, or even feel threatened by the possible existence of, a man whose sexuality isn't penis-centred - it almost seems like some people's whole worlds would collapse if i told them that i would, in all likelihood, be completely happy with a relationship consisting (in sex-act terms) purely of fingering and cunnilingus, and with no penetration whatsoever. Such "abnormality", according to some, needs to be pathologised, given an "origin story" of sexual abuse or some other kind of trauma (the ever-awesome Trinity recently posted about similar assumptions being commonly made about BDSM here - it's really annoying that commenting on her blog is limited to people with Livejournals).
Of course, as Trinity seems to agree with me in thinking, IMO it actually doesn't matter whether any aspect of sexuality originates from trauma or not, as i argued in a previous post. But in my case, there really isn't any serious sexual trauma that i could possibly pinpoint as the cause of my deviation from "normal" het-male preferences, so i have to conclude that, well, that's just the way my brain's wired up. Not surprisingly, finding out about and getting diagnosed with AS helped me accept this, as well as several other gender/sexuality aspects of me, much more easily as part of my overall neurodiversity...
I think there is a possible link to BDSM (this bit's a bit hard to explain, so apologies if it doesn't make sense). I kind of identify with the term "submissive" (in its sexual context), but i'm not sure if what it means for me is quite the same as what it means in typical BDSM terms. For me what it means is that my sexuality is not centred around seeking pleasure, but around wanting to give another person pleasure (hence why seeing a prostitute or "escort" really wouldn't work for me to relieve sexual frustration - i would be on completely the "wrong end" of the transaction) - my biggest possible turn-on is getting someone else turned on. Mixed up with this is a strong, even if not completely intellectually justified, belief on an ethical level that the only ethically acceptable het sex is female-initiated, and an absolute horror of "being served" by anyone (in any context, not just a sexual one) - if there is to be a dichotomy of master/servant, i don't mind being the servant, but definitely don't want to be, or even think about being, the "master".
(image is a Hindu icon of Kali dancing triumphantly on the prostrate body of Shiva, which represents the tantric ideal of hetero relationships (ie F/m) believed in by Kali devotees)
I also kind of like the idea of being penetrated by a woman - using a dildo/strap-on/whatever - which some consider to be a kind of BDSM-ish idea, altho again i've never had the chance to try it...
A female friend once told me that she was embarrassed about "being a virgin" - despite the fact that she had had 2 serious sexual relationships with men, both involving plenty of tongue and finger action, just not penetration. (One was, in fact, with a man who had an actual "phobia" of pentration, at least according to the pathologising way his doctor viewed it - another example of a male who is/was "heterosexual", but not conforming to presumed norms of het-male sexuality.) I told her that, in my opinion, she wasn't a virgin - she had had sex, just not that one particular type of sex, and by that logic all lesbians (who had never "experimented" with men) would be virgins.
Following the link from the above article, i found Scarleteen - an utterly awesome "feminist sex education" website, which deconstructs precisely that idea of "virginity" here (as well as in many other great articles), and read through a huge chunk of it. I'm always really grateful, somehow, to find such websites, because they really seem to somehow affirm my existence as someone with a more "subtly" non-normative sexuality, and reassure me that there are other people in the world who see through the all-too-prevalent patriarchal/heteronormative view of sex and sexuality as the bullshit it is. Then, just as i was thinking that, i decided to search the site for "disability", and found this article - which reveals that at least one of the authors of the site is an Aspie! Awesomeness level going right off the scale...
I would desperately like to change the "mainstream" (at least here in the UK) attitude that sex = penetration. Britain has one of the worst rates in the developed world for unplanned pregnancies and for STDs, for which the state of sex education is (IMO, to at least some degree rightly) blamed, but the debate about all seems to be between the abstinence-is-best position and the proponents of various different forms of contraception (and all rooted in a pretty much exclusively heterosexual framework - ie, one which assumes, or seems to assume, heterosexuality is the only kind of sexuality that exists). I am absolutely convinced that the best possible tactic against unplanned pregnancies and (many, if not all) STDs is active promotion of non-penetrative forms of sex - but that is somehow unthinkable for most educators, because that would be teaching young people that sex is not just about reproduction, but about pleasure...
There also desperately needs to be something (tho i'm at a loss as to precisely what) done to change the prevailing ideology among young people in the Uk that penis-centred sex is the only valid kind of sex. Young men see fellatio as desirable, and describe it in terms which are, if not explicitly then very heavily implicitly, about making women submit to them, but see cunnilingus as disgusting, even "immoral". Dancehall and hip-hop artists call men who go down on women "bowcats" and call for their beating, shooting and burning alongside homosexuals. I would really, really love to see a youth culture in which penetration is disparaged as "uncool" and going down on a woman (which i see as probably the greatest privilege a man can be given), or, better yet, making a woman come is the thing young men brag about. In this patriarchal culture i don't have much hope for that to happen, tho...
Dammit, once again i've tried to blog on one topic and ended up touching on, and wanting to branch out into, a load of others... Posts on gender identity and autism, "queerness" (and whether it's possible to be simultaneously "hetero" and "queer"), and where i stand (if there is one place where i stand, which i'm not sure) on the radfem/sex-pos debate... possibly soon come...
14 comments:
I realy do hope those posts come soon. I love to read your writing. In fact, I love all good writing. Unfortunatly I find the medium of words completly useless as a form of expressing myself. However, I will never cease to be glad that others do not have this problem and write words which I can learn from and interact with. Esther
Bugger, i just realised i left out a couple of key paragraphs i'd meant to put in there, because i got distracted and went in a different direction instead... i'll try to edit them in...
Esther - thanks for the compliment. I find my own writing style really clunky and awkward, actually - part of the reason for starting this blog was trying to improve it, tho...
Hi Shiva,
The "What is sex?" question is and old one for me because being raised super-duper old school Christian and yet kicked out of Christianity on the idea or the presumption (which obviously the churchmembers never observed) that I was having "sex" with a woman. But of course, everything they classified as "Sex" (including right down to handholdind and a kiss) was done with regular and increasing intensity by hetero Christian couples who would go so far as to satisfy each other orally but still stand up before all as "virgins" (those who had not participated in sex). The hypocracy was not lost on me.
I am very familiar with the concept of what I knew as "butch in the sheets" - meaning the partner who is primarily satisfied by ensuring the sexual pleasure of the other partner. Which shaped itself through sexual play including oral genital stimulation, fingering, vibrators, etc. So for me such a concept is not considered odd at all, indeed I consider it rather "normal" (If such a word has any meaning -- vanilla?).
My take is two fold: most sexologists have demonstrated that sex is a mental as much (or more) than a physical sensation (so what turns you on mentally...turns you on - though not always as reality is sometimes counterproductive that way) and second, there are plenty of nerve ending in the body, so I would think, if the ones in your penis are counteracting your mental sex, there are many alternatives.
As for penetration, as you might have seen in a link I had earlier on my blog, strapping on a didlo happens to be the number 2 fantasy of straight women (or at least those interview for that magazine).
I am curious on your statement about the only ethical het sex being female initiated as my experience is that in my cultural experience, men are by far the initiators, indeed, many/most het female "fantasies" accept this premise. re: female initiated; I am curious if this is something you feel society reflects or is just a personal sexual standard?
Unless I am missing something; I would think that many women would be interested in a male who is interested PRIMARILY in their sexual satisfaction and may be interested in didlo play. I guess the question I have is; is there a desire (sexual) element to seeing a man who is interested primarily in sexually satifying a woman without penile penetration as "submissive"? Or is that just a belief that has been picked up from cultural ideas of het "male sexuality." (I really don't think a guy dancing on a prone female is typical of het relationships.....is it?)
Oops, I mixed up which gender was which on Shiva/Kali - hmmmmm....that makes het relationships even more mysterious to me now.
My perception of "mainstream" society is that the presumed-normative version of het sex is exclusively or near-exclusively M/f - male initiates, woman pretends she doesn't like it at first, man gets pushier, sex is then all about the man's pleasure and the woman just as a "vessel" for that, etc.
This is in direct opposition to my own feelings about het sex (both personally and politically), and to what i understand of the Hindu Shiva/Kali tantric approach.
In fact, the above M/f paradigm squicks me out to the point of me almost semi-instinctively associating anything M/f in my head with rape - thus my identification with the works of Dworkin etc, and a lot of my self-hatred about being male (compounded by being not sure whether my political/ethical beliefs actually do say that being a het male actually is intrinsically oppressive or not) - basically it's the feminist critiques of patriarchy and heteronormativity that i have internalised which lead to me feeling that the only kind of het r/ship which isn't oppressive is one which is female-initiated and female-centred or in dominance terms F/m...
(i dunno if i've made it more or less clear with that...)
The post has now been edited to add the 2 "missing" paragraphs...
Re-reading your post Elizabeth, i'm actually not sure i understand your question "is there a desire (sexual) element to seeing a man who is interested primarily in sexually satifying a woman without penile penetration as "submissive"?" - i suppose i see it as "submissive" in that it's, well, the man giving the woman what she wants rather than taking what he wants from her, so the woman is the one "in charge" of the act and/or relationship... thus the desire to satisfy the woman is a desire to submit to *her* desire - not quite sure if that's the answer to your question tho?
I can see from your post how being associated with traditional het male seuxality would be uncomfortable, particularly with the history of patriarchal assumptive aspects of sexual pleasure as it talks about it the article.
I also think that your viewpoint while equally valid, is probably not one often represented in much media. So this post has helped me understand your position and viewpoint better.
I guess the question about "submissive" is because while to me, wanting to please your partner within your own limitations is something that for instance, people with OCD struggle with - so I don't see it as a power thing so much as "This is me and my limitations and let's find out how we can be intimate together"
However there is a different type of sexual play or sexuality in which being dominated or being submissive is important to the people involved. There is, for example guys who like really tall women to loom over them and tell them what to do and threaten to punish them (just as an *ahem* random example). Now while that is fine and fun and there are places for people who enjoy that to meet, it is different than the situation I described in the previous paragraph. And I guess anytime someone uses the word "submissive" I am unclear whether the mean the "alternative sexuality" meaning or another meaning.
Was that clear? Now I am not sure if I am clear enough?
I think part of my point (or at least the "background" beliefs to my point, which i might not have fully articulated) is that IMO there isn't really a meaningful distinction between "alternative" and "vanilla" where sexuality's concerned - in fact, i basically think the mainstream paradigm of het sexuality is a (very BDSM, if you look at it from an "outside" viewpoint) roleplay of male dominance and female submission, just one in which the actual dom/sub nature of the relationship isn't really fully consented to or acknowledged.
I really want Zephyr and Trinity to comment on this...
People are with the impression that rocking sex is one that lasts for a substantial length of time. Sadly, due to this misconception, even when they are having proper sex they feel unsatisfied. Please note that no ED drug can either prolong the duration of sex and or enhance the sexual pleasure. It is only meant to assist towards having a proper sexual intercourse between a couple. It is also advisable that you avoid wine and whiskey in an attempt to make your night more romantic as drugs like http://www.levitrabliss.com/ are not that compatible together.
So if no penetration is made, is it still considered sex? If the guys penis goes in just a little but no all the way, not to the point of hurting, what is that? And if that happened, am I still a virgin?!?
Anonymous: if you're not a spammer, then you're missing the point. Did you actually read the post?
Erectile Dysfunction - ED Erectile dysfunction (ED) is the inability of a man to achieve or maintain an erection
sufficient for his or his partner's sexual needs. Most men experience this at some point in their lives, usually
by age 40. Incidence of the disorder generally increases with age. ED affects about 5% of men in their 40s and
15-25% of men by the age of 65. 50% of men over the age of 40 may experience transient ED and inadequate erection.
Some perfect resources for ed medicine. Top Ed medicine Viagra and Levitraand the most powerfull medicine Cialis
Viagra is an oral treatment drug that has been developed to combat erectile dysfunction. The fundamental ingredient within the product is sildenafil, which essentially serves to work within the body, through the improvement of the blood supply into the penis, thus along for firmer, longer lasting erections.
Propecia comes in tablet form and should be taken only by men without liver problems. It should be taken regularly and needs to be taken with water - food is optional.
Post a Comment