Usually, the search terms that get people to my site are random phrases, about sex, love, love letters, porn, law, or random phrases I've used. Today, I got one that used a real question. So.
Dear Chicago, Illinois reader,
Yes, women CAN masturbate while on medication.
Love,
Amanda
Tomorrow is the second half of the bar exam. I expect to be too busy partying/moving to write until around the fifth, but then expect a flood of more posts while we look for an apartment for next year, plan our wedding, and look for jobs.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Talking About Sex Without Talking About Myself.
One of the main topics of this blog is, clearly, sexuality. I think that sexuality is something people need to discuss more often and in more detail. I think our society focusses too much on overt depictions of sexiness and not enough on people actually examining their own desires. I think we are, strangely, overexposed to images of sex, and underexposed to discussion about sex. Talking about how much sex kids are having, or different sex posititions, or how many partners you've had doesn't really get into the issues of what sex is and means and can be-- it's all just skimming the surface of an issue that is central to most people's lives, but unexamined.
And one of the problems I have is that when I write, I want to be candid about my own experiences and desires, so that people can know my bias-- know where I come from and know how I've expereinced things, because I do think that an author's expereinces are relevant to his or her writing. I want to be as fun and candid as Mary Roach is in Bonk-- but I just can't bring myself to be a "sex blogger" instead of a "sexuality blogger".
Part of it is my own personal sense of privacy-- I don't really want my parents or employers reading about my sex life. It's strangely hypocritical in a way, because I think those sorts of things shouldn't matter to people, and because I think people should be open-- but my ideals are ideals, and the society I live in doesn't always mesh with them well. It's enough to have people judge me on my political opinions; I don't need them to think about what I do or do not do in the bedroom.
A second reason is that it's not just about me-- its also about JD, and if I go into my history, any previous partners. Even if JD doesn't care in general, there might be specific he'd care about-- or he might disagree with my characterizations of things. Regardless, it's his life too, and he should get an equal say in what gets discussed.
Talking about sex without talking about myself is limiting. It makes it harder to write about sexuality, but at the same time it forces me to go outside of my personal zone and consider a greater depth of experience. I think that's a good thing, really-- it's challenging to me as a writer, and also challenging to me as a person. I have to think about what I think society ought to accept, while disregarding my own personal limits-- something I think we should all do more often.
It does limit my posts though-- because I do want to talk about my own experiences, very much, but I feel that morally, I can't. Not with my name attached, and not in a public forum where anyone I personally know can easily read my writing. It's also egotistic, in a way-- why on earth would my sex life be important? Isn't it enough that I know other people to whom things apply, without it applying to myself? It should be-- it is-- but when writing, I'm driven to want to be more confessional than I let myself be. In part, I think it comes from the modern confessional style of writing- the New York Times modern love series, sex blogs, tell-alls, and reality tv (which sure, I don't watch, but I hear about it, and so it does affect me.
So, talking about sex without talking about myself. It's hard, but ultimately, it's worth doing. And I'm going to endeavor to keep it up.
And one of the problems I have is that when I write, I want to be candid about my own experiences and desires, so that people can know my bias-- know where I come from and know how I've expereinced things, because I do think that an author's expereinces are relevant to his or her writing. I want to be as fun and candid as Mary Roach is in Bonk-- but I just can't bring myself to be a "sex blogger" instead of a "sexuality blogger".
Part of it is my own personal sense of privacy-- I don't really want my parents or employers reading about my sex life. It's strangely hypocritical in a way, because I think those sorts of things shouldn't matter to people, and because I think people should be open-- but my ideals are ideals, and the society I live in doesn't always mesh with them well. It's enough to have people judge me on my political opinions; I don't need them to think about what I do or do not do in the bedroom.
A second reason is that it's not just about me-- its also about JD, and if I go into my history, any previous partners. Even if JD doesn't care in general, there might be specific he'd care about-- or he might disagree with my characterizations of things. Regardless, it's his life too, and he should get an equal say in what gets discussed.
Talking about sex without talking about myself is limiting. It makes it harder to write about sexuality, but at the same time it forces me to go outside of my personal zone and consider a greater depth of experience. I think that's a good thing, really-- it's challenging to me as a writer, and also challenging to me as a person. I have to think about what I think society ought to accept, while disregarding my own personal limits-- something I think we should all do more often.
It does limit my posts though-- because I do want to talk about my own experiences, very much, but I feel that morally, I can't. Not with my name attached, and not in a public forum where anyone I personally know can easily read my writing. It's also egotistic, in a way-- why on earth would my sex life be important? Isn't it enough that I know other people to whom things apply, without it applying to myself? It should be-- it is-- but when writing, I'm driven to want to be more confessional than I let myself be. In part, I think it comes from the modern confessional style of writing- the New York Times modern love series, sex blogs, tell-alls, and reality tv (which sure, I don't watch, but I hear about it, and so it does affect me.
So, talking about sex without talking about myself. It's hard, but ultimately, it's worth doing. And I'm going to endeavor to keep it up.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
On Dating Jerks
I am a woman who has dated jerks. I've also dated guys so nice you might mistake them for a puppy dog, but this entry? This is about the jerks*.
And in a way, it's a thank you to them.
Because I think everyone should, at some point in their life, date a guy or gal who is a huge jerk.
This is counter-intuitive. Relationships are supposed to be good, to make you happy, to lift you up. Yeah, that's what they're supposed to be, but anyone who has had multiple relationships often knows that that isn't always true-- and I think dating the jerks is a great learning tool. True, you can end up in a great marriage with your first serious partner (as my mother did, when she married my dad), but I still think there is a huge benefit to dating a lot, and a lot of different types of people, in your youth.
But there is especially a benefit to dating jerks.
Jerks teach you what you aren't willing to take, and what you aren't willing to compromise on. They teach you what issues you really care about, and sharpen your ability to argue and to stand up for yourself. they teach you patience and tolerance, and make you realize how awesome your eventual awesome partner really is. I would not, at this stage of life, want to date a jerk. JD is a great guy, truly kind and wonderful, caring and giving, and most definitely not a jerk-- but I think our relationship is actually better because I've dated jerks in the past.
See, JD occasionally does things that make me roll my eyes-- and he isn't afraid to point out when I do things that are also eye roll worthy. But we talk about those things, and really? None of them are huge. We haven't had any huge ideological clashes, and when we do disagree, we're both mature enough to talk it out and come to some sort of compromise. I am a person who likes to make others happy, so bringing things up can be... well, difficult for me. As can facing criticism. But after the personal insults, cutting descriptions, and unreasonable behavior of jerks in the past? Well, the thought of a small discussion is just not. that. scary. anymore-- really! Because I dated jerks, I learned that there is nothing someone can do with words that should, or can, stop me from expressing myself.
I also learned through the jerks what sort of things I like... and don't like. See, all the jerks had some of the traits I liked! Otherwise-- why would I have dated them? But the also had a lot of traits that I didn't like. Because I was an obsessive journaler up until, oh, after JD and I started dating, I managed to record a lot of self-analyzing thoughts on the good and bad points of relationships, and I've been able to learn from them and apply them to each successive relationship. This is the sort of learning that should, ideally, work for most people-- even the non obsessive, non overly analytical-- because we do learn from our past and our mistakes. I'm hesitant to call past relationships mistakes, because they have shaped who I am today-- but in some cases, staying in them as long as I did WAS a mistake. But you know, that long lasting annoyance with flaws and characteristics really taught me a lot about my tolerance levels.
I think one of the best parts about dating jerks is that when you do find someone who fits with you just right, you think to yourself wow... so THIS is what this is supposed to be like! and you get to experience a relationship of mutual care, love, and understanding without taking it for granted. Taking things for granted is, I think, one of the problems a lot of people have-- yes, your partner SHOULD be awesome to you, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be glad that your partner IS awesome, and it doesn't mean you shouldn't appreciate them and show them that. Memories of a jerk mean that you don't take that partner for granted.
In short: They'll teach you what you'll like, what you'll tolerate, how to argue, and you'll appreciate a great partner when you find one.
So thanks, jerks that I've dated. You've helped make me a better partner, and helped get me into a better relationship. It probably wasn't your intent, but it sure is a nice side effect.
*This entry also, as JD mused, applies to bitches, if it is ladies that you're dating.
And in a way, it's a thank you to them.
Because I think everyone should, at some point in their life, date a guy or gal who is a huge jerk.
This is counter-intuitive. Relationships are supposed to be good, to make you happy, to lift you up. Yeah, that's what they're supposed to be, but anyone who has had multiple relationships often knows that that isn't always true-- and I think dating the jerks is a great learning tool. True, you can end up in a great marriage with your first serious partner (as my mother did, when she married my dad), but I still think there is a huge benefit to dating a lot, and a lot of different types of people, in your youth.
But there is especially a benefit to dating jerks.
Jerks teach you what you aren't willing to take, and what you aren't willing to compromise on. They teach you what issues you really care about, and sharpen your ability to argue and to stand up for yourself. they teach you patience and tolerance, and make you realize how awesome your eventual awesome partner really is. I would not, at this stage of life, want to date a jerk. JD is a great guy, truly kind and wonderful, caring and giving, and most definitely not a jerk-- but I think our relationship is actually better because I've dated jerks in the past.
See, JD occasionally does things that make me roll my eyes-- and he isn't afraid to point out when I do things that are also eye roll worthy. But we talk about those things, and really? None of them are huge. We haven't had any huge ideological clashes, and when we do disagree, we're both mature enough to talk it out and come to some sort of compromise. I am a person who likes to make others happy, so bringing things up can be... well, difficult for me. As can facing criticism. But after the personal insults, cutting descriptions, and unreasonable behavior of jerks in the past? Well, the thought of a small discussion is just not. that. scary. anymore-- really! Because I dated jerks, I learned that there is nothing someone can do with words that should, or can, stop me from expressing myself.
I also learned through the jerks what sort of things I like... and don't like. See, all the jerks had some of the traits I liked! Otherwise-- why would I have dated them? But the also had a lot of traits that I didn't like. Because I was an obsessive journaler up until, oh, after JD and I started dating, I managed to record a lot of self-analyzing thoughts on the good and bad points of relationships, and I've been able to learn from them and apply them to each successive relationship. This is the sort of learning that should, ideally, work for most people-- even the non obsessive, non overly analytical-- because we do learn from our past and our mistakes. I'm hesitant to call past relationships mistakes, because they have shaped who I am today-- but in some cases, staying in them as long as I did WAS a mistake. But you know, that long lasting annoyance with flaws and characteristics really taught me a lot about my tolerance levels.
I think one of the best parts about dating jerks is that when you do find someone who fits with you just right, you think to yourself wow... so THIS is what this is supposed to be like! and you get to experience a relationship of mutual care, love, and understanding without taking it for granted. Taking things for granted is, I think, one of the problems a lot of people have-- yes, your partner SHOULD be awesome to you, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be glad that your partner IS awesome, and it doesn't mean you shouldn't appreciate them and show them that. Memories of a jerk mean that you don't take that partner for granted.
In short: They'll teach you what you'll like, what you'll tolerate, how to argue, and you'll appreciate a great partner when you find one.
So thanks, jerks that I've dated. You've helped make me a better partner, and helped get me into a better relationship. It probably wasn't your intent, but it sure is a nice side effect.
*This entry also, as JD mused, applies to bitches, if it is ladies that you're dating.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Women, Sexual Desire, and Medication
So! Hypoactive sexual desire disorder and Flibanserin! If you read other feministy blogs, you're probably already heard about it-- but if not, the FDA is currently considering the use of Flibanserin as a way to treat premenopausal women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder. This is a really interesting thing to discuss, and there are different angles to tackle it from-- the fact that science is paying attention to female sexuality and desire, to the fact that it's a further form of medicalizing sexuality, to a discussion of what normal or desirable or hypoactive even mean when we're talking about sex.
Miriam over at Feministing posted a really good question-- "Who decides what is hypoactive (aka not active enough or under active) sexual desire anyway?" It's a good question because the way we frame issues and discuss them is important-- so here, what is hypoactive sexual desire? How low does it have to be? How much of an effect does it have to have-- on the individual woman, or her partner, or the relationship? What is it being measured by-- her own perceptions, or a comparison to her partner's desire?
I think one of the most important questions to address is how it gets measured-- because I think it's really interesting that we're discussing the hypoactive sexual desire of women... as opposed to, say, hyperactive sexual desire of men. It's also interesting because a lot of the social messages that people my age got when we were young were that men were interested in sex-- but that to be a good girl, and later a good woman, you shouldn't be interested in those things. That's changed already, but instead of getting rid of problematic messages, their direction has just changed.
Still-- in most relationships, there will be some level of mismatch between the desires of the people involved. most of the people I've discussed this sort of thing with are straight cisgender women, and most of them do mention mismatches, however small, in the ways they want sex. Some women I know have been in relationships where they want more sex than their partners, but most do fit into the stereotype of wanting less sex. In most healthy relationships, people compromise-- maybe having less sex than partner A wants, but more than partner B wants-- but when the differences are extreme, a true compromise is less likely to leave either partner satisfied. I have, though, seen women agonizing over what's wrong with them when they don't want to have a lot of sex-- instead of thinking something is wrong with their partner, or acknowledging that really, nothing might be wrong with either of them. I think that any level of sexual desire is fine, and not something "wrong", but I do think it's interesting how many women tend to blame themselves for any problem in bed.
It's like a modern of application of treating male sexuality as the norm, and female sexuality as abnormal, or an application of how in science, the male body is treated as the default human, and women are-- exceptions. Hell, there are plenty of commentaries out there on how female biology was not studied, and as such, women were told to look for the same disease indicators as men, even when the illnesses manifested differently. And still, women are told "Good girls don't, good girls don't", and that men will want sex, and they have to not put out or he won't respect him, but then once they grow up, they have to magically switch their thoughts around and become sexually giving and good in bed, and really embody that virgin/whore dichotomy.
So, what is hypoactive sexual desire? The most obvious answer is any level of sexual desire that is lower than an individual's partner. That is clearly not nuanced enough. To be a disorder, things typically have to interfere with an individual's life, or cause great distress. I can easily see a much lower sex drive causing distress-- but the question then is, is it causing distress because the individual misses her previous sexual desire, or really wants to have the experience of sex-- or is it causing distress because she has to turn down her partner, and has been socialized to think that one of her main areas of value in a relationship is the sexual pleasure she can give to her partner? Doing things to please your partner is not wrong, of course-- it's something both people in a relationship should be doing anyway-- but putting an inordinate amount of your self-worth into your sex life is a problem, and one that should maybe be addressed with talk therapy if its part of the motivation in seeking treatment for hypoactive sexual desire.
However, even if there are a lot of troubling things in the way society views female sexuality, the fact remains that there are women who want a higher sex drive and a greater ability to desire and be aroused. Sure, it does matter why they want a higher sex drive-- but regardless of the reason, isn't treating something they view as a problem a positive? The medication doesn't seem like it's guaranteeing more orgasms-- but more desire. Most partnerships are based on a combination of elements, but sexual desire is usually an important part of them-- especially in younger couples. While I understand the resentment of at least one asexual woman, the point here is that there are people who are not asexual, but who are not feeling sexual desire. A lack of sexual desire can be truly troubling-- I've read stories before about women who want to want their partners, and how a growing gap of desire causes problems in relationships. If this drug does
Thoughts? Concerns?
Miriam over at Feministing posted a really good question-- "Who decides what is hypoactive (aka not active enough or under active) sexual desire anyway?" It's a good question because the way we frame issues and discuss them is important-- so here, what is hypoactive sexual desire? How low does it have to be? How much of an effect does it have to have-- on the individual woman, or her partner, or the relationship? What is it being measured by-- her own perceptions, or a comparison to her partner's desire?
I think one of the most important questions to address is how it gets measured-- because I think it's really interesting that we're discussing the hypoactive sexual desire of women... as opposed to, say, hyperactive sexual desire of men. It's also interesting because a lot of the social messages that people my age got when we were young were that men were interested in sex-- but that to be a good girl, and later a good woman, you shouldn't be interested in those things. That's changed already, but instead of getting rid of problematic messages, their direction has just changed.
Still-- in most relationships, there will be some level of mismatch between the desires of the people involved. most of the people I've discussed this sort of thing with are straight cisgender women, and most of them do mention mismatches, however small, in the ways they want sex. Some women I know have been in relationships where they want more sex than their partners, but most do fit into the stereotype of wanting less sex. In most healthy relationships, people compromise-- maybe having less sex than partner A wants, but more than partner B wants-- but when the differences are extreme, a true compromise is less likely to leave either partner satisfied. I have, though, seen women agonizing over what's wrong with them when they don't want to have a lot of sex-- instead of thinking something is wrong with their partner, or acknowledging that really, nothing might be wrong with either of them. I think that any level of sexual desire is fine, and not something "wrong", but I do think it's interesting how many women tend to blame themselves for any problem in bed.
It's like a modern of application of treating male sexuality as the norm, and female sexuality as abnormal, or an application of how in science, the male body is treated as the default human, and women are-- exceptions. Hell, there are plenty of commentaries out there on how female biology was not studied, and as such, women were told to look for the same disease indicators as men, even when the illnesses manifested differently. And still, women are told "Good girls don't, good girls don't", and that men will want sex, and they have to not put out or he won't respect him, but then once they grow up, they have to magically switch their thoughts around and become sexually giving and good in bed, and really embody that virgin/whore dichotomy.
So, what is hypoactive sexual desire? The most obvious answer is any level of sexual desire that is lower than an individual's partner. That is clearly not nuanced enough. To be a disorder, things typically have to interfere with an individual's life, or cause great distress. I can easily see a much lower sex drive causing distress-- but the question then is, is it causing distress because the individual misses her previous sexual desire, or really wants to have the experience of sex-- or is it causing distress because she has to turn down her partner, and has been socialized to think that one of her main areas of value in a relationship is the sexual pleasure she can give to her partner? Doing things to please your partner is not wrong, of course-- it's something both people in a relationship should be doing anyway-- but putting an inordinate amount of your self-worth into your sex life is a problem, and one that should maybe be addressed with talk therapy if its part of the motivation in seeking treatment for hypoactive sexual desire.
However, even if there are a lot of troubling things in the way society views female sexuality, the fact remains that there are women who want a higher sex drive and a greater ability to desire and be aroused. Sure, it does matter why they want a higher sex drive-- but regardless of the reason, isn't treating something they view as a problem a positive? The medication doesn't seem like it's guaranteeing more orgasms-- but more desire. Most partnerships are based on a combination of elements, but sexual desire is usually an important part of them-- especially in younger couples. While I understand the resentment of at least one asexual woman, the point here is that there are people who are not asexual, but who are not feeling sexual desire. A lack of sexual desire can be truly troubling-- I've read stories before about women who want to want their partners, and how a growing gap of desire causes problems in relationships. If this drug does
Thoughts? Concerns?
Saturday, May 22, 2010
The Wage Gap and Women's Choices
Some thoughts on the wage gap, women's chocies, and Clay Shirky's A Rant About Women, courtesy of my Feminist Jurisprudence class.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Sex Robots
Two days ago while browsing Reddit, I ran across a really looooong thread dealing with.... sex robots. Not Real Dolls, but robots that are actually.. active participants. And then a short while later on one of the women's interest subforums... another thread, asking what women think about sex robots.
You want to know what I think? I think they're creepy. Effing creepy. And I think they can't come soon enough. Seriously. Just because something creeps me out (in this case... it's like a person! But not! And it doesn't have emotions or feelings, but it pretends to! And it probably doesn't feel/look/act like a real person! And what happens when the robots take over, figure out how to make themselves look like YOU and then steal your identity? Huh, what then?) doesn't mean I don't think it is perfectly fine for other people.
Just think about it:
Guys/gals who can't get laid for whatever reason? Sex robot!
Guys/gals who really like variety? Sex robot!
Guys/gals who think women/men are only good for sex? Sex robot!
Come on now-- how awesome would it be? The people who really are good partners would most likely still keep dating and being good partners-- after all, a sex robot is a SEX robot. Not a love robot, not a cuddle robot, not a talk about your favorite fantasy series till 2AM then jump around making animal noises robot. It's a sex robot. But a lot of people on the thread seemed to think that it would be a terrible threat to women.
I get the threat, but I just don't agree. I don't think it's there. I also get the worry that sex robots will lead to more men thinking women are only good for sex, but I don't think that's true either. I do think it will reinforce the guys that are already misogynistic jerks but-- like porn-- I think it's only going to amplify what's already there, not make it from whole cloth.
I do get that sex toys that look just like women reinforce the idea that a woman's worth is in sex. I do. But I do think it's healthier to keep guys who think like that away from real women. There is the danger, of course, of how sex bots would be used by people in relationships-- if they'd be used by men as tools to make women jealous and control them, or ways to diminish a partner's sense of his or her own value. After all, sexual attraction isn't everything in a relationship, but it is pretty damn important to most people. A partner who says "I love you and you're attractive, but this robot is so much hotter and more fun to fuck" is going to be REALLY BAD for the other person's self esteem, and for the relationship itself. Sex robots would be completely different from vibrators in this way-- vibrators are generally not used as an alternative to sex, but a way to enhance sex, or a way to get off when sex isn't an option. Sure, there are likely a few people out there who prefer using a vibrator to doing their partner, but... for most, I think the real, actual, human contact wins out.
Another upside to sex bots? They can provide youths of all genders a way to explore sexuality without risk or STDs or pregnancy. They can allow individuals to explore kinks that their partner isn't into. They can allow someone who is in a long term relationship a more satisfying masturbatory experience. But the bottom line to me remains that they would give sexually frustrated jerks an outlet without harming any real people-- including prostitutes, who always face the risk that a client might decide to take things too far and leave her with lasting harm.
Just think about it:
Guys/gals who can't get laid for whatever reason? Sex robot!
Guys/gals who really like variety? Sex robot!
Guys/gals who think women/men are only good for sex? Sex robot!
Come on now-- how awesome would it be? The people who really are good partners would most likely still keep dating and being good partners-- after all, a sex robot is a SEX robot. Not a love robot, not a cuddle robot, not a talk about your favorite fantasy series till 2AM then jump around making animal noises robot. It's a sex robot. But a lot of people on the thread seemed to think that it would be a terrible threat to women.
I get the threat, but I just don't agree. I don't think it's there. I also get the worry that sex robots will lead to more men thinking women are only good for sex, but I don't think that's true either. I do think it will reinforce the guys that are already misogynistic jerks but-- like porn-- I think it's only going to amplify what's already there, not make it from whole cloth.
I do get that sex toys that look just like women reinforce the idea that a woman's worth is in sex. I do. But I do think it's healthier to keep guys who think like that away from real women. There is the danger, of course, of how sex bots would be used by people in relationships-- if they'd be used by men as tools to make women jealous and control them, or ways to diminish a partner's sense of his or her own value. After all, sexual attraction isn't everything in a relationship, but it is pretty damn important to most people. A partner who says "I love you and you're attractive, but this robot is so much hotter and more fun to fuck" is going to be REALLY BAD for the other person's self esteem, and for the relationship itself. Sex robots would be completely different from vibrators in this way-- vibrators are generally not used as an alternative to sex, but a way to enhance sex, or a way to get off when sex isn't an option. Sure, there are likely a few people out there who prefer using a vibrator to doing their partner, but... for most, I think the real, actual, human contact wins out.
Another upside to sex bots? They can provide youths of all genders a way to explore sexuality without risk or STDs or pregnancy. They can allow individuals to explore kinks that their partner isn't into. They can allow someone who is in a long term relationship a more satisfying masturbatory experience. But the bottom line to me remains that they would give sexually frustrated jerks an outlet without harming any real people-- including prostitutes, who always face the risk that a client might decide to take things too far and leave her with lasting harm.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Skirt Challenge!
So. There you go. Six more days of me wearing skirts. I did it! I wore skirts or dresses for a total of seven days straight! I couldn't manage to gt blogger to put them in the proper order, but you can get an idea of the shifts in weather by the shifts in clothing-- from stifling heat the day I wore the mini skirt, to fifty degree weather the days I wore the sweaters. I do like wearing skirts and dresses. I used to wear them more often than pants, but jeans are more durable, and I somehow have just ended up with less skirts, and less shirts that go with my skirts. Wearing skirts doesn't really impact my day to day life-- I spend most of my time sitting down, studying. It does make me automatically feel more "put together", though I do think that some outfits with jeans are more flattering than some of my outfits with skirts. It also sort of helps trick me into studying more when I'm in the more "professional" looking clothing. Skirts definately aren't appropriate for everything though-- hiking or the gym? I'd get all tangled up, and be uncomfortable. But for everyday life, well... I'm going to make a conscious effort to wear them more often. I might wait until it gets warmer again though, because right now? it is COLD and I hate stockings. They just aren't comfortable, and comfort is a high priority to me during exams.
Amusingly, the days it was warm it seemed like nearly everyone else was wearing skirts too. But it's been a ridiculously cold spring. I'm also likely to keep taking pictures of my outfits, and posting them at my flickr account. So.... outfits behind the jump!
Amusingly, the days it was warm it seemed like nearly everyone else was wearing skirts too. But it's been a ridiculously cold spring. I'm also likely to keep taking pictures of my outfits, and posting them at my flickr account. So.... outfits behind the jump!
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Challenge: skirts and dresses!
The challenge for this came from a site I don't actually frequent, from a blog I do read-- if you follow the links, you'll notice I'm pretty far, politically, from them. So... why am I (sort of, ok, my skirts are probably not quite as long as they'd like) taking part in their challenge? Well, it seems like a fun idea. It isn't intending to prove any point. And I like fun ideas, regardless of who comes up with them-- we should judge all ideas on their merits, instead of based on whether or not we agree with the speaker.
Also, I think it's really interesting to read about people who aren't like me-- who have different values, different beliefs, and different lives. It's one of the things that makes blogs and the interent kind of awesome, really-- especially when people who disagree can actually talk civilly about things.
Plus? I just love streotypicaly "girly" and "feminine" stuff. I'm a feminist, but I understand that that has nothing to do with whether I enjoy wearing skirts and cooking. I remember in college, one of my sorority sisters asked me one day if I ever wore anything but skirts. But here in Boston... well, it's just so much easier to wear jeans every day! But I'm not going to. One week. We'll see if it sticks.
Also? The shoes aren't pictured because I've been barefoot most of the day. Being sick will do that!
The beer is Abita Turbodog. I figure, if I'm showing off my wardrobe, I might as well show off what I drink, too.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Choice After Death?
A large part of feminism is about the importance of choices-- the importance of making them freely, and the importance of trusting women to make them. The political discourse usually centers around the choices about what to do regarding a pregnancy-- but really, the relevant choices extend into every aspect of life, and feminism is about letting women have agency and not making important choices for them.
So where do those choices stop?
I saw something today about the idea of opt-out organ donorship rather than opt-in, and some of the reactions were a little surprising to me-- but honestly, they were fairly in line with the ideal of choice. Though I see a dead body as simply a body, some of the Feministe commenters worried that less well off individuals would receive worse treatment under an opt-out policy, and some felt that bodily integrity and choice, even after death, ought to be paramount.
I do see the issues. There is a large chance that if there is improper behavior it would impact the poor gar more severely than others. There is also the fact that, if it is an opt out system, people without licenses or state ids would unwittingly be taking part and consenting, merely by existing.
The thing is, to me at least, that once we are dead-- well, choice no longer matters so much. Or at least, our choice. After all, we're dead. Maybe it still matters to our living loved ones, the people we've left behind, but I highly doubt that nay higher power will hold the actions of others against us after we die. And if my organs or body can do someone else good-- through a transplant, research, or study-- well, that's a hell of a lot better than letting my organic remains be preserved and stuck in the ground. And I am admittedly biased, in that I have opted in to organ donation, and in that I would like my body to have use after my death-- but this is one case in which I think making people opt out is not that large of a harm. We're all part of a complex system of living things, and our preserving corpses in the ground is, to me, a strange denial of that fact. I think that once the consciousness leaves, the body itself becomes just an empty shell-- and as such, if it can give someone else life or promote research-- well, thats a definite positive.
So where do those choices stop?
I saw something today about the idea of opt-out organ donorship rather than opt-in, and some of the reactions were a little surprising to me-- but honestly, they were fairly in line with the ideal of choice. Though I see a dead body as simply a body, some of the Feministe commenters worried that less well off individuals would receive worse treatment under an opt-out policy, and some felt that bodily integrity and choice, even after death, ought to be paramount.
I do see the issues. There is a large chance that if there is improper behavior it would impact the poor gar more severely than others. There is also the fact that, if it is an opt out system, people without licenses or state ids would unwittingly be taking part and consenting, merely by existing.
The thing is, to me at least, that once we are dead-- well, choice no longer matters so much. Or at least, our choice. After all, we're dead. Maybe it still matters to our living loved ones, the people we've left behind, but I highly doubt that nay higher power will hold the actions of others against us after we die. And if my organs or body can do someone else good-- through a transplant, research, or study-- well, that's a hell of a lot better than letting my organic remains be preserved and stuck in the ground. And I am admittedly biased, in that I have opted in to organ donation, and in that I would like my body to have use after my death-- but this is one case in which I think making people opt out is not that large of a harm. We're all part of a complex system of living things, and our preserving corpses in the ground is, to me, a strange denial of that fact. I think that once the consciousness leaves, the body itself becomes just an empty shell-- and as such, if it can give someone else life or promote research-- well, thats a definite positive.
Compulsory Heterosexuality
One of the most simultaneously interesting and annoying concepts I learned about this semester in feminist jurisprudence was the idea of compulsory heterosexuality*. At first, I was pissed off-- I don't like being told that my feelings are the result of some societally programmed false consciousness-- but at the same time, I do know that socialization has a huge effect on who we become as people-- nature creates a map, but nurture provides the force to guide us around that map.
So I ended up thinking more about compulsory heterosexuality, and how it might apply to me and to other women I know.
The idea of compulsory heterosexuality is fairly simple-- it's based on the idea that we are always presented being straight as a default and as inevitable. And culturally, that's really true-- or at least, it has been in the past. The end of every fairy tale is a heterosexual union, many people grew up never knowing any out queer* individuals, and it was assumed when everyone entered middle school that you had to have some sort of male heartthrob to crush on. Some of this is changing-- there are definitely more out queer individuals and gay couples, and there exists a growing number of kid's books that lack the traditional heterosexual pairing. It might be that the toddlers of today reach their consciousness in a world in which being straight is no longer the default assumption-- but in today's society, many people treat others as straight until proven not.
So, for someone of my age-- how much has compulsory heterosexuality affected me? I don't think it has, all that much. There definitely has been social pressure to be straight rather than gay-- both from family and from the peers I grew up with-- but I also grew up with social pressure not to date outside my race, and I certainly managed to do that in college. I'm also given to a little too much introspection-- over-analyzing all my feelings, towards everyone. Plus, I grew up with the idea that while being gay might not be socially acceptable, it certainly wasn't something bad-- yay fantasy novels? Books were definitely my first introduction to the world of non-straightness, as they were to many other ideas and concepts. I have dated men exclusively, and will be marrying a man. I do not, however, feel as if I have entered into this relationship with no choice. Instead, I have evaluated my life and my relationship choices. I have made choices along the way regarding who to date, and I have always chosen to date men, though I have certainly not chosen to date all the men who were available to me for dating.
There's another side to the compulsory heterosexuality theory though, and that side suggests that women ought to give up relationships with men to invest more deeply in relationships with other women, including sexual relationships. In this regard it lines up pretty well with the concept of political lesbianism. I am pretty much the opposite of a fan of this aspect. I find it to be completely ungenuine, and to be asking individuals to behave in a way that is unnatural for them-- just as a society that pressures everyone to act straight is asking some individuals to live in a way that is unnatural for them. I am completely in favor of investing more in same sex friendships, but I think trying to force a sexual relationship out of a friend-bond is problematic and unfair to both partners. Instead, I think it would be healthier if we could somehow remove the expectations of what gender someone should date, and encourage people to examine their emotional and sexual feelings on a case by case basis.
I do think that examining our views on sexuality is important. It is important to know what shaped us, what expectations ourselves and others have had for us, and what desires we might have that we don't consciously know. I do not think that heterosexuality is always a result of false consciousness though, and I think that both straight and non-straight sexual experiences can be equally fulfilling-- but that they are not likely to be equally fulfilling for any given individual. Just like there is nothing wrong with not being straight, being straight ought not have any judgement associated with it. And with a continually changing landscape, maturing individuals have a great opportunity to come to age more aware of themselves and their options than ever before.
What do you think about the idea of compulsory heterosexuality? How have expectations shaped your romantic experiences?
*Compulsory heterosexuality, as a term, was originated by Adrienne Rich in her essay Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.
*Why do I use the term queer? Because it's a broader and more encompassing term than "gay or lesbian". Queer includes gays, lesbians, bisexuals, pansexuals, those who are flexible, and those who feel no label fits, among others. Queer can also include people who are genderqueer.
So I ended up thinking more about compulsory heterosexuality, and how it might apply to me and to other women I know.The idea of compulsory heterosexuality is fairly simple-- it's based on the idea that we are always presented being straight as a default and as inevitable. And culturally, that's really true-- or at least, it has been in the past. The end of every fairy tale is a heterosexual union, many people grew up never knowing any out queer* individuals, and it was assumed when everyone entered middle school that you had to have some sort of male heartthrob to crush on. Some of this is changing-- there are definitely more out queer individuals and gay couples, and there exists a growing number of kid's books that lack the traditional heterosexual pairing. It might be that the toddlers of today reach their consciousness in a world in which being straight is no longer the default assumption-- but in today's society, many people treat others as straight until proven not.
So, for someone of my age-- how much has compulsory heterosexuality affected me? I don't think it has, all that much. There definitely has been social pressure to be straight rather than gay-- both from family and from the peers I grew up with-- but I also grew up with social pressure not to date outside my race, and I certainly managed to do that in college. I'm also given to a little too much introspection-- over-analyzing all my feelings, towards everyone. Plus, I grew up with the idea that while being gay might not be socially acceptable, it certainly wasn't something bad-- yay fantasy novels? Books were definitely my first introduction to the world of non-straightness, as they were to many other ideas and concepts. I have dated men exclusively, and will be marrying a man. I do not, however, feel as if I have entered into this relationship with no choice. Instead, I have evaluated my life and my relationship choices. I have made choices along the way regarding who to date, and I have always chosen to date men, though I have certainly not chosen to date all the men who were available to me for dating.
There's another side to the compulsory heterosexuality theory though, and that side suggests that women ought to give up relationships with men to invest more deeply in relationships with other women, including sexual relationships. In this regard it lines up pretty well with the concept of political lesbianism. I am pretty much the opposite of a fan of this aspect. I find it to be completely ungenuine, and to be asking individuals to behave in a way that is unnatural for them-- just as a society that pressures everyone to act straight is asking some individuals to live in a way that is unnatural for them. I am completely in favor of investing more in same sex friendships, but I think trying to force a sexual relationship out of a friend-bond is problematic and unfair to both partners. Instead, I think it would be healthier if we could somehow remove the expectations of what gender someone should date, and encourage people to examine their emotional and sexual feelings on a case by case basis.
I do think that examining our views on sexuality is important. It is important to know what shaped us, what expectations ourselves and others have had for us, and what desires we might have that we don't consciously know. I do not think that heterosexuality is always a result of false consciousness though, and I think that both straight and non-straight sexual experiences can be equally fulfilling-- but that they are not likely to be equally fulfilling for any given individual. Just like there is nothing wrong with not being straight, being straight ought not have any judgement associated with it. And with a continually changing landscape, maturing individuals have a great opportunity to come to age more aware of themselves and their options than ever before.
What do you think about the idea of compulsory heterosexuality? How have expectations shaped your romantic experiences?
*Compulsory heterosexuality, as a term, was originated by Adrienne Rich in her essay Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.
*Why do I use the term queer? Because it's a broader and more encompassing term than "gay or lesbian". Queer includes gays, lesbians, bisexuals, pansexuals, those who are flexible, and those who feel no label fits, among others. Queer can also include people who are genderqueer.
Monday, April 26, 2010
In which Jenny and I talk about Boobquake and breast cancer, because I have Too Much Work to write an independent post.
(4/26/2010 11:44:26 AM) Jenny: it is SO COLD in the library
(11:44:47 AM) Amanda: mine is pretty cold too
(11:44:53 AM) Amanda: yet another reason not to do boobquake!
(11:45:06 AM) Jenny: boobquake is stupid.
(11:45:14 AM) Amanda: it is enough that people can probably see my nipples even in this sweater
(11:45:16 AM) Amanda: I agree
(11:45:19 AM) Amanda: I think it's a terrible idea
(11:45:29 AM) Amanda: I have been debating in my head whether or not it's unfeminist
(11:45:35 AM) Amanda: bc on the one hand: agency! choice!
(11:45:43 AM) Jenny: it's along the lines of the "save the tatas" shirts for breast cancer
(11:45:51 AM) Amanda: and on the other... lets all flash as much tits as we can!
(11:45:52 AM) Amanda: right
(11:45:55 AM) Jenny: using the power of breasts for good
(11:46:01 AM) Amanda: I kind of like the spirit, but I hate everything else
(11:46:02 AM) Jenny: still means you're nothing without those tits.
(11:46:11 AM) Amanda: it's like, you get an e for effort.... but an f for fail
(11:46:15 AM) Jenny: yeah
(11:46:28 AM) Jenny: here's a thought: you could just talk about why cleavage doesn't cause earthquakes.
(11:46:45 AM) Amanda: indeed
(11:46:51 AM) Jenny: or about how breast cancer kills men and women, it doesn't just take breasts
(11:46:58 AM) Amanda: also very true!
(11:47:11 AM) Amanda: and hey, I’m kind of sick of the fact that breast cancer gets so much attention
(11:47:15 AM) Jenny: OH MY GOD ME TOO
(11:47:15 AM) Amanda: I mean, yes, its awful
(11:47:23 AM) Jenny: not to mention that MOST breast cancer is incredibly treatable.
(11:47:27 AM) Amanda: but lets talk about the things that most people don't recover from!
(11:47:30 AM) Amanda: exactly!
(11:47:32 AM) Jenny: that means you're not going to die from it. SHUT UP.
(11:47:40 AM) Jenny: let's talk about pancreatic cancer.
(11:47:43 AM) Jenny: or liver cancer.
(11:47:51 AM) Jenny: or glioblastoma multiforme
(11:47:53 AM) Amanda: those are the first two I was thinking of, actually
(11:47:58 AM) Amanda: ok, that last one I don't know about
(11:48:01 AM) Jenny: oh god
(11:48:02 AM) Amanda: and that? is the problem
(11:48:07 AM) Amanda: why DON'T I know about it?
(11:48:11 AM) Jenny: don't read about it if you don't want to get terribly depressed
(11:48:15 AM) Amanda: noted!
(11:48:20 AM) Jenny: you should know about it.
(11:48:24 AM) Jenny: everyone should.
(11:48:36 AM) Jenny: because the symptoms are remarkably similar to depression and Alzheimer's
(11:48:56 AM) Jenny: depending on where the tumor is in the brain, you can get personality changes, depression, rapid mood swings, etc
(11:49:13 AM) Amanda: Also things we need to talk more about! Especially Alzheimer's, because there's so much research there, I feel like if they had better funding, then prevention might be close
(11:49:29 AM) Jenny: heh
(11:49:42 AM) Jenny: I'd take a working treatment, honestly
(11:49:48 AM) Amanda: well, that too
(11:49:51 AM) Amanda: that would be awesome
(11:50:08 AM) Jenny: there are so many things that are tons and tons more debilitating than breast cancer
(11:50:26 AM) Jenny: even non-cancers, like MS, diabetes, atherosclerosis
(11:50:34 AM) Jenny: things that can really affect your quality of life
(11:50:40 AM) Jenny: things that sometimes ARE preventable
(11:51:06 AM) Amanda: YES
(11:51:27 AM) Jenny: or cancers that are deadly but preventable, like melanoma
(11:51:45 AM) Jenny: breast and prostate cancer are small potatoes compared to some
(11:51:53 AM) Amanda: yup
(11:52:03 AM) Amanda: although I DO think it's great you're working on prostate cancer
(11:52:15 AM) Amanda: because that work needs done too
(11:52:21 AM) Amanda: it's just the media that bothers me
(11:52:30 AM) Amanda: if we can't make cancer "sexy", we don't care
(11:52:35 AM) Jenny: prostate cancer gets into serious quality of life issues
(11:52:48 AM) Jenny: yeah, you know what's not sexy? progressive loss of motor control.
(11:53:16 AM) Jenny: ugh
(11:53:24 AM) Jenny: GBM is so depressing it makes me literally nauseated
(11:53:35 AM) Amanda: <3
(11:44:47 AM) Amanda: mine is pretty cold too
(11:44:53 AM) Amanda: yet another reason not to do boobquake!
(11:45:06 AM) Jenny: boobquake is stupid.
(11:45:14 AM) Amanda: it is enough that people can probably see my nipples even in this sweater
(11:45:16 AM) Amanda: I agree
(11:45:19 AM) Amanda: I think it's a terrible idea
(11:45:29 AM) Amanda: I have been debating in my head whether or not it's unfeminist
(11:45:35 AM) Amanda: bc on the one hand: agency! choice!
(11:45:43 AM) Jenny: it's along the lines of the "save the tatas" shirts for breast cancer
(11:45:51 AM) Amanda: and on the other... lets all flash as much tits as we can!
(11:45:52 AM) Amanda: right
(11:45:55 AM) Jenny: using the power of breasts for good
(11:46:01 AM) Amanda: I kind of like the spirit, but I hate everything else
(11:46:02 AM) Jenny: still means you're nothing without those tits.
(11:46:11 AM) Amanda: it's like, you get an e for effort.... but an f for fail
(11:46:15 AM) Jenny: yeah
(11:46:28 AM) Jenny: here's a thought: you could just talk about why cleavage doesn't cause earthquakes.
(11:46:45 AM) Amanda: indeed
(11:46:51 AM) Jenny: or about how breast cancer kills men and women, it doesn't just take breasts
(11:46:58 AM) Amanda: also very true!
(11:47:11 AM) Amanda: and hey, I’m kind of sick of the fact that breast cancer gets so much attention
(11:47:15 AM) Jenny: OH MY GOD ME TOO
(11:47:15 AM) Amanda: I mean, yes, its awful
(11:47:23 AM) Jenny: not to mention that MOST breast cancer is incredibly treatable.
(11:47:27 AM) Amanda: but lets talk about the things that most people don't recover from!
(11:47:30 AM) Amanda: exactly!
(11:47:32 AM) Jenny: that means you're not going to die from it. SHUT UP.
(11:47:40 AM) Jenny: let's talk about pancreatic cancer.
(11:47:43 AM) Jenny: or liver cancer.
(11:47:51 AM) Jenny: or glioblastoma multiforme
(11:47:53 AM) Amanda: those are the first two I was thinking of, actually
(11:47:58 AM) Amanda: ok, that last one I don't know about
(11:48:01 AM) Jenny: oh god
(11:48:02 AM) Amanda: and that? is the problem
(11:48:07 AM) Amanda: why DON'T I know about it?
(11:48:11 AM) Jenny: don't read about it if you don't want to get terribly depressed
(11:48:15 AM) Amanda: noted!
(11:48:20 AM) Jenny: you should know about it.
(11:48:24 AM) Jenny: everyone should.
(11:48:36 AM) Jenny: because the symptoms are remarkably similar to depression and Alzheimer's
(11:48:56 AM) Jenny: depending on where the tumor is in the brain, you can get personality changes, depression, rapid mood swings, etc
(11:49:13 AM) Amanda: Also things we need to talk more about! Especially Alzheimer's, because there's so much research there, I feel like if they had better funding, then prevention might be close
(11:49:29 AM) Jenny: heh
(11:49:42 AM) Jenny: I'd take a working treatment, honestly
(11:49:48 AM) Amanda: well, that too
(11:49:51 AM) Amanda: that would be awesome
(11:50:08 AM) Jenny: there are so many things that are tons and tons more debilitating than breast cancer
(11:50:26 AM) Jenny: even non-cancers, like MS, diabetes, atherosclerosis
(11:50:34 AM) Jenny: things that can really affect your quality of life
(11:50:40 AM) Jenny: things that sometimes ARE preventable
(11:51:06 AM) Amanda: YES
(11:51:27 AM) Jenny: or cancers that are deadly but preventable, like melanoma
(11:51:45 AM) Jenny: breast and prostate cancer are small potatoes compared to some
(11:51:53 AM) Amanda: yup
(11:52:03 AM) Amanda: although I DO think it's great you're working on prostate cancer
(11:52:15 AM) Amanda: because that work needs done too
(11:52:21 AM) Amanda: it's just the media that bothers me
(11:52:30 AM) Amanda: if we can't make cancer "sexy", we don't care
(11:52:35 AM) Jenny: prostate cancer gets into serious quality of life issues
(11:52:48 AM) Jenny: yeah, you know what's not sexy? progressive loss of motor control.
(11:53:16 AM) Jenny: ugh
(11:53:24 AM) Jenny: GBM is so depressing it makes me literally nauseated
(11:53:35 AM) Amanda: <3
And that's that, because you really don't want the additional conversation about her lab and the random people who show up in my section of the library during finals.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
What is Feminist Sex?
Hestia over at The Coming Night wrote a piece asking just that question, and looking at it from a second wave and radical perspective, though she herself is not a feminist. I came to a different answer than she did, since the feminism I and most of my feminist contemporaries embrace is not that of the radicals or the second wavers.
Feminist sex is that which is consensual, freely chosen, and takes into consideration the pleasure of all the parties involved. I was curious to see if my friends had a similar take on it, so I asked a couple of them before writing this post.
"I think feminist sex is about getting what you want out of sex and not faking the Big O" --Jane
"Clearly consensual, with carefully sourced porn. Takes into account the pleasure and preferences of both partners." --Jenny
Feminist sex is sex that realizes that what women want matters every bit as much as what men want. Feminist sex is sex which is focused on pleasure and the journey, rather than solely the goal of male orgasm. Feminist sex is sex where neither party is pressured to "perform" for the self esteem of the other. Feminist sex can be man on top or woman on top, doggy style, include a element of S&M, vanilla, all oral, use sex toys, be inside a heterosexual marriage or happen during a lesbian three ways of strangers, be the best sex of your life or be just an average encounter. The trappings of it don't matter as much as the spirit.
I know there are people who disagree with me. Separatist feminists, radical feminists, and political lesbians all likely do. Sex positive feminists, formal equality feminists, and liberal feminists are far more likely to agree with me. It's actually really hard to try to pin down "feminist sex" because... well, it's hard to pin down feminism. Different people automatically associate themselves with the different subsets. I'm a liberal sex positive third wave feminist, as are most of the feminists I know- and I have a very strong feeling that liberal, sex positive feminism is what is currently dominating the feminism movement. So I don't have any qualms saying that sex with a man, inside a heterosexual marriage, that includes giving oral sex and being tied to the bed for penetrative sex, is just as feminist as lesbian sex where both participants give and receive exactly the same actions, or heterosexual sex where the man is the one giving oral sex and tied to the bed for a session of pegging.
I know some people will argue that whenever a woman is being dominated, it's unfeminist, and that if she thinks she likes it, she's a victim of false consciousness. I'll admit that there are probably some women out there who are victims of false consciousness... but there are also those of us who are given to a lot of introspection and analysis of our thoughts, feelings, and desires. Telling women they can't be submissive in bed as just as restrictive as telling them they must be. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that your desires are off the beaten path-- and if you have a partner that thinks it sounds interesting, there's nothing wrong with exploring those desires. There's also nothing inherently degrading or demeaning about oral sex for either party-- because there is nothing unfeminist about wanting to give your partner pleasure. If you are always only focused on your partner's pleasure at the expense of your own, that's like a problem, and likely not feminist sex. But giving oral because you love your partner and want to make him or her happy, and because you delight in your partner's happiness? I don't see any way that isn't feminist.
Feminism is about choices-- and men and women having the equal ability to make choices that determine their lives and to have equal access and opportunity to act on their choices. As such, any attempt to tell a woman that for her sex to be feminist it must stick to certain scripts and ignore any desires that place her partner in power over her must ultimately fail. The keys to feminist sex are choice, communication, and having an active role in making sure all participants enjoy the sex they're having.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Why examining pop culture is an important part of feminism
A quick statement on why pop culture matters, inspired by a post at The Counter-Feminist.
Pop culture is important because it both reflects and establishes the attitudes of society and individuals in society. Children learn a lot of their attitudes through observing the behavior of others-- and even adults adjust their norms and social scripts based on what they see. So if pop culture presents an image of women as vapid and materialistic, and men as adult children incapable of domestic tasks and shut off from their emotions, people are going to internalize that that is what the typical woman or man is like. The human brain uses heuristics, so whatever it sees the most of is what it's going to think of first-- and if what it sees the most are negative stereotypes, well, that's what it's going to grab at. Pop culture influences attitudes and actions-- and pervasive attitudes can stop real progress.
Analyzing and writing about pop culture in these ways can act as a form of consciousness raising, challenging people to examine their own motivations and their surroundings. It can help to short-circuit the messages culture sends and help people question everything, leading them to a more accurate and fulfilling notion of what life is and what life ought to be. It also tells people who see misogyny in advertisements, movies, tv, or books that no-- you are no alone, and you are not silly for finding things offensive, even things that you enjoy on other levels.
Pop culture is a major part of modern life. To make things better for everyone, we have to pay attention to how life is, now, and realize that even small problems add up over time.
Next post: What is feminist sex?
Pop culture is important because it both reflects and establishes the attitudes of society and individuals in society. Children learn a lot of their attitudes through observing the behavior of others-- and even adults adjust their norms and social scripts based on what they see. So if pop culture presents an image of women as vapid and materialistic, and men as adult children incapable of domestic tasks and shut off from their emotions, people are going to internalize that that is what the typical woman or man is like. The human brain uses heuristics, so whatever it sees the most of is what it's going to think of first-- and if what it sees the most are negative stereotypes, well, that's what it's going to grab at. Pop culture influences attitudes and actions-- and pervasive attitudes can stop real progress.
Analyzing and writing about pop culture in these ways can act as a form of consciousness raising, challenging people to examine their own motivations and their surroundings. It can help to short-circuit the messages culture sends and help people question everything, leading them to a more accurate and fulfilling notion of what life is and what life ought to be. It also tells people who see misogyny in advertisements, movies, tv, or books that no-- you are no alone, and you are not silly for finding things offensive, even things that you enjoy on other levels.
Pop culture is a major part of modern life. To make things better for everyone, we have to pay attention to how life is, now, and realize that even small problems add up over time.
Next post: What is feminist sex?
Friday, April 16, 2010
Sexual Fluidity
I've just begun reading this really fascinating book discussing a longitudinal study of young women and their sexuality. I'm not very far in yet, but even the basic background topics are super interesting and provide a lot of material for fun thought experiments. One of the main ideas the book posits is that female sexuality is more fluid than male sexuality. Its focus is, I think on the sex of the people one is attracted too... but it also does note that sexual fluidity can also apply to other areas of attraction. And that made me think..
Most people I know have a "type", in some way, but the type itself.... varies. I have one friend who mainly attracted to tall, broad shouldered, "jocky" guys, who are intelligent and a little aggressive. She has had flings with men who don't fit the description... but most of the men she had always described as being interested in fit that narrow description.
I, personally, have a broader range-- men that are tall, intelligent, well read, funny, and a little arrogant. But my physical standards-- other than that they're of a similar height to me or taller-- have never been as firm. Hell, I don’t even stick to one ethnicity. One of my friends in college described me as not having a type one time. At first, I was a little offended, but after some reflection i decided that hey, that's a good thing! I'm more open to men who might be different but awesome. I've always been exceedingly picky about who I’ll actually be in a relationship to, but open to giving almost anyone a chance at a casual date.
But what I’m wondering now is—how much fluidity is there in the average person, not in terms of sexual orientation, but in terms of taste and preference. The book posits that women are more fluid in orientation, but are we also, in general more fluid in the type of people we date? I really don’t have an answer on this one—I haven’t really observed too much about this, even though I do talk a lot with my friends about our dating lives. As far as the small subset of over-educated nerds I know goes, it seems that most of us are fairly consistent in personality—or at least, consistent once you get past a few intro dates. However, there does seem to be a large variation in the appearance of people my friends date, regardless of gender. Granted, a few things remain consistent—everyone tends to go for people of around similar attraction levels—but specifics change. It does seem like the guys might stick to a specific body type more than the women do—but part of that may also be due to the fact that society tells us that men are attractive with a wider range of physical appearances than women are. Still, we can all write out a description of what we like, and there tend to be some characteristics we like more than outhers. Really, it makes sense for us to not be too fluid, since our personalities tend to stay relatively stable as adults—and while a ton of personalities may seem fun, dating around helps us realize what personalities actually work with our own.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Money, Money, Money
One of the stranger aspects of being in a Real Grownup Relationship is that my financial decisions are no longer really... my own. JD and I have separate bank accounts, but that still doesn't mean that my financial actions don't impact him. One of the big decisions now is that need to take out a bar loan, to be able to pay for the bar application, pay for the bar course, pay rent, eat, and if need be even buy some more business clothes so that if I get a job any time soon, I have something other than jeans and my interview suit to wear.
There are a few options for bar loans, with different interest rates, and different payment and deferment schedules, and I can determine the amount I need to take out, up to a set limit. Except... I'm not deciding any of this. At least, not me alone. JD and I are going to go chat with an associate of the bank that seems to have one of the best rate/deferment options, and we're going to discuss our options, and then make the decision together.
And yes, this loan will be in my name alone, and technically my debt alone. But we're starting a family! A two person family, sure, but my financial decisions now impact him, because they impact my overall ability to do things, and the standard of life I'll be capable of-- and that's relevant, when you have someone who is your equal partner, and who gets a say in all important life decisions.
And this loan thing is one of the first things to really make it sink in that, WOW, this time next year I'l going to be a lawyer and married and a REAL ADULT!!!
Some days, I still feel like a 12 year old.
But then... I think about the problems that I spend all day thinking about, and I think about the law, and I realize, hey! I'm capable of complex legal thought an analysis, and I'm responsible, and I actually have life goals and I'm totally going to be married! And I figure, well, if I managed to make it this far-- I can totally manage the rest of being a grown up ok.
Even when it means talking about how to spend "my" money. Because we're going to be talking about how to spend "his" money too. Because really? We're in this together. Marriage is about making a partnership, and making it work. And everyone works on how to balance things differently-- especially in money-- but making sure the conversation is had, and that we're on the same page? We'll, we're doing pretty good on that, even if it is mildly terrifying. Money is one of the top three things couples fight about-- the other two being sex and childrearing-- and relinquishing independence in this area, and entering into a partnership regarding money puts me in a place of vulnerability. I'm not giving up my independence-- but I'm joining it to this relationship. And JD is too. And from now on, all the important decisions either of us makes about our lives? Well, they'll be joint decisions. And that... is really, in the end, kind of cool.
And yes, this loan will be in my name alone, and technically my debt alone. But we're starting a family! A two person family, sure, but my financial decisions now impact him, because they impact my overall ability to do things, and the standard of life I'll be capable of-- and that's relevant, when you have someone who is your equal partner, and who gets a say in all important life decisions.
And this loan thing is one of the first things to really make it sink in that, WOW, this time next year I'l going to be a lawyer and married and a REAL ADULT!!!
Some days, I still feel like a 12 year old.
But then... I think about the problems that I spend all day thinking about, and I think about the law, and I realize, hey! I'm capable of complex legal thought an analysis, and I'm responsible, and I actually have life goals and I'm totally going to be married! And I figure, well, if I managed to make it this far-- I can totally manage the rest of being a grown up ok.
Even when it means talking about how to spend "my" money. Because we're going to be talking about how to spend "his" money too. Because really? We're in this together. Marriage is about making a partnership, and making it work. And everyone works on how to balance things differently-- especially in money-- but making sure the conversation is had, and that we're on the same page? We'll, we're doing pretty good on that, even if it is mildly terrifying. Money is one of the top three things couples fight about-- the other two being sex and childrearing-- and relinquishing independence in this area, and entering into a partnership regarding money puts me in a place of vulnerability. I'm not giving up my independence-- but I'm joining it to this relationship. And JD is too. And from now on, all the important decisions either of us makes about our lives? Well, they'll be joint decisions. And that... is really, in the end, kind of cool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)