In the 1960s, women burned bras in protest. So is it any wonder that I, a feminist, would refuse to wear one? Of course, I'm a native Houstonian, which means I've seen shirtless men in speedo shorts jogging around my city's streets - the same city that arrested several women for protesting in bikinis a few years ago (though I can't remember what they were upset about). In Canada, women raised the bar on protests: they did them topless.
Why are women expected to wear more? And why are women still complaining that men keep looking at us as bodies, and then ignore our eyeballing gestures in their direction? Why do we privilege male bodies as non-sexual, and yet condemn them as sexual maniacs, perverts, rapists, etc.?
It's time, I think, that we women grow up! We can't have it both ways; we need to recognize that both men and women are made up of bodies and minds, and that we each have the potential to be sexually licentious and free.
As for me, I rarely approach anything without first seeing what happens. That's why I've been working on the public no bra thing since 2003. It only took until Fall 2007 for me to completely refuse wearing bras under my tops. And, yes, I have large breasts; but outwardly, I'm just a body - like any other person around the world.
The difference is that I'm not afraid to reveal my imperfections. Of course, I'm fat, so I can get away with not caring about "pretty."
For whatever reason, though - just to sidetrack - I got into wearing my hair pulled back. At least, until an undergrad said something about images that show we're studious. Since that conversation two weeks ago, I've been wearing my hair down in public. (At home, I still pull it back when I'm preparing food, etc.; usually I'm too lazy to pull out the hair thingee, so it regularly stays in my hair until I'm ready to go to sleep.)
Anyway, I started thinking, and I came to the conclusion that the reason we women continue committing to being bra-wearing slaves is that we're projecting an image of what we shouldn't be: scared. Yes, wearing a bra means you're scared to go against social conventions that privilege the male body while also condemning women's bodies as sexual-specific.
I'm sorry, but I have to tell you: Men's bodies turn me on. (Remember, I'm heterosexual.) Any woman who is into men is lying if she says men's bodies don't present a turn-on. Grow up! Women are just as sexual as men are - and we need to own this!
Why do we harp on strippers and other women who aren't afraid to expose themselves? Because they're not afraid of themselves!
Oh yes, you have to be comfortable with who you are first before you'll ever feel safe to walk outside of the boxes society has pushed us into from the moment we were declared women (or girls, whatever). I mean, we're ridiculous. By the time female toddlers turn into girls, we're covering them up, but not the boys. They get to run around topless, and we think it's okay!
Seriously, we are a society hooked on child pornography, because we're constantly displaying babies in just their diapers and calling that cute! Then, because we're prudes, we have to cover up our girls, and this creates a complex. The result is women are scared of their own bodies!
We should be celebrating every woman who's not afraid to challenge conventions! Why are people upset over celebrities like Brittany Spears? Because they're not hiding behind false pretenses! (Seriously, why do we forget that they're people, too?)
You're probably wondering, though, what all of the above has to do with my choosing not to wear bras and letting my hair down. What I'm saying is: It's time we women broke the mirrors. We need to rebuild ourselves to define our own paths. We need to refuse any action that sets us apart from men. We need to disrupt the whole idea of gender. We need...
13 December 2007
23 November 2007
A Short Note on the Impossibility of Commitment
Does my position that commitment isn't possible scare you? If you're threatened by it, it's because you know you can never be happy. When matrimonial unions work, it's because each person didn't hold back and found in the other someone whose smile was opening into a berth of truth rather than widening into a parody of conventions. And yes, I'm aware that people stay bound for other reasons (kids, money, etc.); what matters is how much you value yourself.
I've already made it clear: marriage isn't something I want. It probably wouldn't make sense to you either for me to say I'm a cynical optimist. This is how it stands when it comes to marriage and the impossibility of commitment:
1.) Commitment requires complete abandonment*, of both the individual person (your selfish wants) and of others outside of the nuclear relationship (the person you're married to is always first (except when you're being threatened in any form), then your kids (except when they're being threatened in any form), and, finally, when there's no conflict, your friends, family, etc.).
2.) Commitment requires accepting the rules of bondage, which marriage is; it's a contract that two people will stay together no matter what happens (and this includes sexual frustrations).
3.) Commitment requires absolute trust, and this means having absolutely no doubts that the person you're marrying belongs to you (and, yes, this is where we start talking about the concept of soulmates).
In response:
A) I don't believe anyone other than you should be first. Yes, you can still be there for other people; but if it's a choice about following what you're ambitious to do when you're being asked to choose between that and someone else, go!
B) I can't even imagine what it is to be dating someone, much less a lifetime of boring; I mean, I need a guy who's willing to share his interests with me (as I would with him), and to seek new directions of knowledge so that we don't run out of things to say (I can't see myself ever wanting to stop learning), etc.
C) I fell in love once, and so I know what love is; it's simply a biological function when a woman's in the prime of her life to have babies (and that's passed, therefore I'm free from ever being so compromised).
* I will note that the law is always first even when it means the end of your relationship to turn your husband(whatever)/child/family/etc. in. Of course, when it's an issue of justice, justice always prevails over the law, especially when the law acts to allow direct harm.
I've already made it clear: marriage isn't something I want. It probably wouldn't make sense to you either for me to say I'm a cynical optimist. This is how it stands when it comes to marriage and the impossibility of commitment:
1.) Commitment requires complete abandonment*, of both the individual person (your selfish wants) and of others outside of the nuclear relationship (the person you're married to is always first (except when you're being threatened in any form), then your kids (except when they're being threatened in any form), and, finally, when there's no conflict, your friends, family, etc.).
2.) Commitment requires accepting the rules of bondage, which marriage is; it's a contract that two people will stay together no matter what happens (and this includes sexual frustrations).
3.) Commitment requires absolute trust, and this means having absolutely no doubts that the person you're marrying belongs to you (and, yes, this is where we start talking about the concept of soulmates).
In response:
A) I don't believe anyone other than you should be first. Yes, you can still be there for other people; but if it's a choice about following what you're ambitious to do when you're being asked to choose between that and someone else, go!
B) I can't even imagine what it is to be dating someone, much less a lifetime of boring; I mean, I need a guy who's willing to share his interests with me (as I would with him), and to seek new directions of knowledge so that we don't run out of things to say (I can't see myself ever wanting to stop learning), etc.
C) I fell in love once, and so I know what love is; it's simply a biological function when a woman's in the prime of her life to have babies (and that's passed, therefore I'm free from ever being so compromised).
* I will note that the law is always first even when it means the end of your relationship to turn your husband(whatever)/child/family/etc. in. Of course, when it's an issue of justice, justice always prevails over the law, especially when the law acts to allow direct harm.
Equality Begins with a Name Choice
Sometimes, when I don’t feel well, I think. So maybe this is a symptom of my delusional brain which believes equality between the sexes is possible: To achieve equality, marriage partners must accept name changes on either side.
By our accepting the male’s last name in marriage, we are in effect giving up our right to equality. If we choose to keep our last names, we’re saying that we are equal in the relationship; that is, two individuals have agreed to form an alliance.
When, however, will men change their last names to ours? In other words, why should we be the only ones obligated (and pressured) to change our last names? If the concept of a marriage recognizes equality, why is only one sex required to change for the other?
What if, say, Jones and Johnson decided to marry? Couldn’t we consider these two following possibilities: Johnson and Jones; Jones-Johnson and Johnson-Jones? Our generations, too, should reflect these terms: Johnson-Jones or Jones-Johnson. After all, babies require both sperm and egg to hatch themselves onto the world.
I think this may be our greatest detriment: This insistence on our giving in to men by giving up our names; by choosing feminism, we refuse to because we don’t wish to compromise our identities. I’m proposing the radical concept of making name changes obligatory to each sex.
That is, no marriage should privilege the male over the female. More specifically, no woman (in societies where women have the choice) should feel the expectation of compromising for the men in their lives by taking on the men’s last names.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying: By exchanging our last names with our married partners (and I’m making no comment about gay marriages; as far as I know, no name changes happen in those circumstances), we’re allowing the men more power over us.
After all, if we give up our identities for men, what else are we going to give up? For example, wouldn’t it be natural for us to agree to stay at home with our kids (and I’m not making a judgment about stay-at-homers)? If you’re like me, why feel pressured at all into wanting kids?
No, I’m not married; but this is partly choice, and largely the knowledge that I’m not the kind of woman with the right vibes. Yes, men avoid me for the most part; I don’t compromise, and this must be apparent in the things I say and do.
Of course, women like me get the reputation for being overcritical, bitchy and irrational. Men want to control us: how we act and what we say. They want us to be pretty for them so they can show off the arm candy at their sides. Many men prance around, too, of course.
If it weren’t about the image, then why do lovers, etc. feel the need to show off in public? One answer: They want other people to know they’re having sex. So when do we as women take a stand and say, Enough! I’m more than eye candy and a body to be played around with?
So I say: Either refuse to change your name or, if you decide to change your name, make sure your mate changes his name. If there’s real love between the two of you, he won’t have a problem with it any more than you will.
But if only you change your name, don’t complain when he treats you like a doormat. By giving up your identity for his, you’re telling him he’s worth more than you. I have nothing against marriage. What I’m saying is: Let’s be sure enough of ourselves to claim equality.
And while equality begins before marriage, marriage contributes to the direction of our future lives. Some women are the money-makers, so they have the power to make some of the rules. (If they didn’t tell you, making more money than men gives you more power than them.)
For the rest of us who don’t hold the power in the relationship, choose to hold on to that part of us that makes us us: womanhood. Embrace womanhood so that when you make the commitment, you demand of him what society demands of you. Only then can we be equals.
By our accepting the male’s last name in marriage, we are in effect giving up our right to equality. If we choose to keep our last names, we’re saying that we are equal in the relationship; that is, two individuals have agreed to form an alliance.
When, however, will men change their last names to ours? In other words, why should we be the only ones obligated (and pressured) to change our last names? If the concept of a marriage recognizes equality, why is only one sex required to change for the other?
What if, say, Jones and Johnson decided to marry? Couldn’t we consider these two following possibilities: Johnson and Jones; Jones-Johnson and Johnson-Jones? Our generations, too, should reflect these terms: Johnson-Jones or Jones-Johnson. After all, babies require both sperm and egg to hatch themselves onto the world.
I think this may be our greatest detriment: This insistence on our giving in to men by giving up our names; by choosing feminism, we refuse to because we don’t wish to compromise our identities. I’m proposing the radical concept of making name changes obligatory to each sex.
That is, no marriage should privilege the male over the female. More specifically, no woman (in societies where women have the choice) should feel the expectation of compromising for the men in their lives by taking on the men’s last names.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying: By exchanging our last names with our married partners (and I’m making no comment about gay marriages; as far as I know, no name changes happen in those circumstances), we’re allowing the men more power over us.
After all, if we give up our identities for men, what else are we going to give up? For example, wouldn’t it be natural for us to agree to stay at home with our kids (and I’m not making a judgment about stay-at-homers)? If you’re like me, why feel pressured at all into wanting kids?
No, I’m not married; but this is partly choice, and largely the knowledge that I’m not the kind of woman with the right vibes. Yes, men avoid me for the most part; I don’t compromise, and this must be apparent in the things I say and do.
Of course, women like me get the reputation for being overcritical, bitchy and irrational. Men want to control us: how we act and what we say. They want us to be pretty for them so they can show off the arm candy at their sides. Many men prance around, too, of course.
If it weren’t about the image, then why do lovers, etc. feel the need to show off in public? One answer: They want other people to know they’re having sex. So when do we as women take a stand and say, Enough! I’m more than eye candy and a body to be played around with?
So I say: Either refuse to change your name or, if you decide to change your name, make sure your mate changes his name. If there’s real love between the two of you, he won’t have a problem with it any more than you will.
But if only you change your name, don’t complain when he treats you like a doormat. By giving up your identity for his, you’re telling him he’s worth more than you. I have nothing against marriage. What I’m saying is: Let’s be sure enough of ourselves to claim equality.
And while equality begins before marriage, marriage contributes to the direction of our future lives. Some women are the money-makers, so they have the power to make some of the rules. (If they didn’t tell you, making more money than men gives you more power than them.)
For the rest of us who don’t hold the power in the relationship, choose to hold on to that part of us that makes us us: womanhood. Embrace womanhood so that when you make the commitment, you demand of him what society demands of you. Only then can we be equals.
27 September 2007
The problem with relationships: let's start with questioning assumptions
Earlier this year when I hadn't gotten the carpool thing worked out yet, I was dependant on taxis to get to and from campus. The dispatcher, Rob, called me sometimes even when the conversation didn't involve a taxi. By summer, he'd quit his job.
I wasn't looking to hook up with Rob, but I'm always open to meeting new people with the hope of seeing where that particular friendship will lead. (And we understand, right, that when I talk about friends, I mean it strictly in platonic terms?) So I didn't discourage the communication, though I suspected he was horny since, for whatever reason, I only attract men who are hard up.
Rob and I finally met face to face when he arrived as my driver for the MARC station. Of course, it was very early and I was nervous about being by myself this first time. So Rob treated me to a breakfast at the Waffle House and then waited with me until the train arrived. Before we parted, I gave him a quick hug.
Rob had, by that time, already shown that he didn't follow-through on things he said. That is, his actions didn't often match his words; thus, if I'd been open to a dating possibility, he was already written off. With friends, however, I don't assume anything about the person; anything goes unless they choose not to be involved with me anymore or do something that goes against me (like lying).
I've known people like Rob before; they call every now and then, and sometimes you go out and do things but usually after a few months have passed. Like I said, friends are different; there are no expectations on my end since I'm just getting to know someone who may or may not stick around. (The benefit I get from hanging out with people is that sometimes I get sparked with an idea for a project I want to work on, or gain knowledge about something I never thought about before then, etc.)
For whatever reason, this semester Rob called more frequently. We'd talked about doing a movie, but then he didn't get back with me about it. I'd suggested that we go to the fair together, but he bailed. As a last resort - because my back was pained and sore from the soccer canoeing I did the previous Fri. - I asked him for a massage, and he wasn't willing to give up 10-15 minutes. (My landlord's wife, a retired nurse, very fortunately came through for me and by Tues., I was fine; earlier that day, I had trouble moving my neck and arm.)
Okay, so whatever. I called Rob to say hi tonight and we got into an argument which inspired tonight's question about what I expect out of a relationship with a guy. By the end of that - after being explicitly clear about not wanting to date, marry, have sex, and cook or clean for a guy - Rob hung up on me. His contention before that was: "You'll never get a guy."
So then I thought about what was said. I used to think that what I wanted was for the guy to not only pay for everything, but also, assuming we got married, to cook and clean for the both of us. Because of Rob, however, I realized how wrong I was, because it's not about any one person cooking or cleaning for the other person.
Then I thought: Why do we expect either person in a relationship (remember, I'm heterosexual, so I often think in terms of men and women; but this doesn't mean that what I say can't be applied to other arranged couples) to cook and clean for both people? Rob said: "It should be 50/50." That is, the guy should cook and clean for the woman, and the woman should cook and clean for the guy.
My response was no, a guy should never expect me to cook and clean for him. What I didn't share with him because he was by then angry: First, I don't know how to cook except basic foods like cheeseburgers, etc. Secondly, on the rare times I cooked for other people, I was exhausted by the amount of work involved. Finally, while we as social beings have progressed in our thinking, the general assumption is that women will cook and clean even when we work full-time and contribute as mothers. However, I refuse to be stereotyped; if a guy even thinks I should want to cook for him, he's boxing me into a position which many women have worked for years to overcome, though we continue to reify presumptions about our bodies and traditional roles.
Because of the conversation with Rob, what I came to accept is: (1) I won't cook and/or clean for someone else; (2) I don't expect someone else to cook and/or clean for me. (Yes, in a dating situation, I maintain that the guy must pay for everything.) If I'm in a relationship with a guy and we end up married (and this will, again, never happen), we can both cook and clean for ourselves - that is, as individual persons. I mean, isn't that we would've been doing before marriage?
Now, if he's someone who likes to cook not just for himself but for other people, I don't have a problem with him cooking for me. However, he can't expect the same in return because I don't like cooking and most definitely not for anyone else. If he's also someone who likes doing laundry, he's welcome to do my laundry (except for my undergarments, which I clean by hand when I shower) should he so wish; otherwise, he does his laundry, and I do mine, etc.
Of course, Rob's insistence that it must be "50/50" brings with it the assumption that a woman has an obligation to cook and clean. Let's make it clear: No, we don't. Marriage isn't about being one person; you're still individuals. If I come into a relationship with no interest in cooking, a guy can't expect me to cook for him; otherwise, we're not going to work. As I said, I'm a feminist.
Because I have nothing to lose by being alone, I'm not threatened by the men who still hold women to specific values wrapped inside prejudices concerning our femininities. As for me, I don't wear dresses, make-up, nail polish, perfume, jewelry and bras (yes, I've been braless through the semester thus far which I'll talk about in a later post). Oh, and I stopped wearing deodorant and don't brush my hair. Also, while I continue to shave my underarms, my hairy legs remain. Otherwise, I'm still fat and ugly, and very strongly my own person - I mean, hello?
Yes, my standards are high. And because of that, I don't compromise. If relationships require compromising for the other, I don't need or want to be so involved. It's simple, really: I require a guy who's open about people and who doesn't have anything to prove. That's what it comes down to: being who you are even if it means being alone - and I ask: What's so scary about that? For an individual, sacrifice is nothing - and that's what I'm suggesting about us women: We need to reach a point when we can accept ourselves as individuals first.
I wasn't looking to hook up with Rob, but I'm always open to meeting new people with the hope of seeing where that particular friendship will lead. (And we understand, right, that when I talk about friends, I mean it strictly in platonic terms?) So I didn't discourage the communication, though I suspected he was horny since, for whatever reason, I only attract men who are hard up.
Rob and I finally met face to face when he arrived as my driver for the MARC station. Of course, it was very early and I was nervous about being by myself this first time. So Rob treated me to a breakfast at the Waffle House and then waited with me until the train arrived. Before we parted, I gave him a quick hug.
Rob had, by that time, already shown that he didn't follow-through on things he said. That is, his actions didn't often match his words; thus, if I'd been open to a dating possibility, he was already written off. With friends, however, I don't assume anything about the person; anything goes unless they choose not to be involved with me anymore or do something that goes against me (like lying).
I've known people like Rob before; they call every now and then, and sometimes you go out and do things but usually after a few months have passed. Like I said, friends are different; there are no expectations on my end since I'm just getting to know someone who may or may not stick around. (The benefit I get from hanging out with people is that sometimes I get sparked with an idea for a project I want to work on, or gain knowledge about something I never thought about before then, etc.)
For whatever reason, this semester Rob called more frequently. We'd talked about doing a movie, but then he didn't get back with me about it. I'd suggested that we go to the fair together, but he bailed. As a last resort - because my back was pained and sore from the soccer canoeing I did the previous Fri. - I asked him for a massage, and he wasn't willing to give up 10-15 minutes. (My landlord's wife, a retired nurse, very fortunately came through for me and by Tues., I was fine; earlier that day, I had trouble moving my neck and arm.)
Okay, so whatever. I called Rob to say hi tonight and we got into an argument which inspired tonight's question about what I expect out of a relationship with a guy. By the end of that - after being explicitly clear about not wanting to date, marry, have sex, and cook or clean for a guy - Rob hung up on me. His contention before that was: "You'll never get a guy."
So then I thought about what was said. I used to think that what I wanted was for the guy to not only pay for everything, but also, assuming we got married, to cook and clean for the both of us. Because of Rob, however, I realized how wrong I was, because it's not about any one person cooking or cleaning for the other person.
Then I thought: Why do we expect either person in a relationship (remember, I'm heterosexual, so I often think in terms of men and women; but this doesn't mean that what I say can't be applied to other arranged couples) to cook and clean for both people? Rob said: "It should be 50/50." That is, the guy should cook and clean for the woman, and the woman should cook and clean for the guy.
My response was no, a guy should never expect me to cook and clean for him. What I didn't share with him because he was by then angry: First, I don't know how to cook except basic foods like cheeseburgers, etc. Secondly, on the rare times I cooked for other people, I was exhausted by the amount of work involved. Finally, while we as social beings have progressed in our thinking, the general assumption is that women will cook and clean even when we work full-time and contribute as mothers. However, I refuse to be stereotyped; if a guy even thinks I should want to cook for him, he's boxing me into a position which many women have worked for years to overcome, though we continue to reify presumptions about our bodies and traditional roles.
Because of the conversation with Rob, what I came to accept is: (1) I won't cook and/or clean for someone else; (2) I don't expect someone else to cook and/or clean for me. (Yes, in a dating situation, I maintain that the guy must pay for everything.) If I'm in a relationship with a guy and we end up married (and this will, again, never happen), we can both cook and clean for ourselves - that is, as individual persons. I mean, isn't that we would've been doing before marriage?
Now, if he's someone who likes to cook not just for himself but for other people, I don't have a problem with him cooking for me. However, he can't expect the same in return because I don't like cooking and most definitely not for anyone else. If he's also someone who likes doing laundry, he's welcome to do my laundry (except for my undergarments, which I clean by hand when I shower) should he so wish; otherwise, he does his laundry, and I do mine, etc.
Of course, Rob's insistence that it must be "50/50" brings with it the assumption that a woman has an obligation to cook and clean. Let's make it clear: No, we don't. Marriage isn't about being one person; you're still individuals. If I come into a relationship with no interest in cooking, a guy can't expect me to cook for him; otherwise, we're not going to work. As I said, I'm a feminist.
Because I have nothing to lose by being alone, I'm not threatened by the men who still hold women to specific values wrapped inside prejudices concerning our femininities. As for me, I don't wear dresses, make-up, nail polish, perfume, jewelry and bras (yes, I've been braless through the semester thus far which I'll talk about in a later post). Oh, and I stopped wearing deodorant and don't brush my hair. Also, while I continue to shave my underarms, my hairy legs remain. Otherwise, I'm still fat and ugly, and very strongly my own person - I mean, hello?
Yes, my standards are high. And because of that, I don't compromise. If relationships require compromising for the other, I don't need or want to be so involved. It's simple, really: I require a guy who's open about people and who doesn't have anything to prove. That's what it comes down to: being who you are even if it means being alone - and I ask: What's so scary about that? For an individual, sacrifice is nothing - and that's what I'm suggesting about us women: We need to reach a point when we can accept ourselves as individuals first.
09 September 2007
Women and the Image of Domesticity
A while ago, it occurred to me why single women need useless things. So it happens I had a roommate in Michigan who housed furniture but seldom used what she bought. The week before she moved out of our apartment, her lover installed a dining room set for her. Because I lived with her, I knew her latest acquisition was for show. After all, she rarely ate in the apartment.
That's when I understood what was involved in her choices: the image of domesticity. I don't mean to single her out, because I think it's true of most women on the market for marriage. We've grown up with images of weddings and expectations of family living, and, more importantly, we've talked about these issues in terms of patriarchy, the power derived from our fertility, and so forth.
It's like this: imagine you're dating a potential prospect. What's going to make you stand out from the competition? If we believe the statistics available to us, we as a gender outnumber the men. Therefore, every woman who needs a husband to feel accepted in a society that still privileges couples (even in the corporate world, a promotion may implicitly require a ring) needs to show her lovers she's wiferly.
Don't we use terms like motherly and fatherly? So why not wiferly? What I'm suggesting by that term is that in defining our relationships with our significant others - for those wishing ceremonial betrothals - we seek to promote ourselves as the most ideal mates. Though many men today contribute more toward the household (housecleaning, babysitting, etc.) - even though, historically, we may be surprised that men have always done so - we women continue to be associated with the private sphere before anything else.
Thus, if we're creating masks to give the illusion of ourselves as wives, when do we get to be who we are? It remains my belief that only those who see us visibly and without pretension are right for us. Let's face it: If we're working this hard just to secure a symbol, what's the point when our façades crack and we're confronted with someone who suddenly realizes we're not who we pretended to be? Those behaviors are why I think adultery will always be a part of the human landscape.
Until we risk breaking our own mirrors, we'll continue in delusional states that deny us what's already ours: our selves. Why else do we cover up our blemishes with make-up, concealments, and other accessories if not so our compris(ed)ing partners associate us with health? A healthy woman, after all, is supposed to conceive strong children. If she also shows an interest in her abode, she will look after her family. Of course, there are many other stereotypes.
Therefore, unless you can recognize your actions, you have no choice but to question everything you do. If, however, we allow the image of domesticity to conceal us from our motives, we only have ourselves to blame if/when we realize we're unhappy in a union predicated on sales(wo)manship. Then again, should you follow my advice, you may end up like me: relationship(-)less for a lifetime - but free. As for me, I'm all about being an individual first.
That's when I understood what was involved in her choices: the image of domesticity. I don't mean to single her out, because I think it's true of most women on the market for marriage. We've grown up with images of weddings and expectations of family living, and, more importantly, we've talked about these issues in terms of patriarchy, the power derived from our fertility, and so forth.
It's like this: imagine you're dating a potential prospect. What's going to make you stand out from the competition? If we believe the statistics available to us, we as a gender outnumber the men. Therefore, every woman who needs a husband to feel accepted in a society that still privileges couples (even in the corporate world, a promotion may implicitly require a ring) needs to show her lovers she's wiferly.
Don't we use terms like motherly and fatherly? So why not wiferly? What I'm suggesting by that term is that in defining our relationships with our significant others - for those wishing ceremonial betrothals - we seek to promote ourselves as the most ideal mates. Though many men today contribute more toward the household (housecleaning, babysitting, etc.) - even though, historically, we may be surprised that men have always done so - we women continue to be associated with the private sphere before anything else.
Thus, if we're creating masks to give the illusion of ourselves as wives, when do we get to be who we are? It remains my belief that only those who see us visibly and without pretension are right for us. Let's face it: If we're working this hard just to secure a symbol, what's the point when our façades crack and we're confronted with someone who suddenly realizes we're not who we pretended to be? Those behaviors are why I think adultery will always be a part of the human landscape.
Until we risk breaking our own mirrors, we'll continue in delusional states that deny us what's already ours: our selves. Why else do we cover up our blemishes with make-up, concealments, and other accessories if not so our compris(ed)ing partners associate us with health? A healthy woman, after all, is supposed to conceive strong children. If she also shows an interest in her abode, she will look after her family. Of course, there are many other stereotypes.
Therefore, unless you can recognize your actions, you have no choice but to question everything you do. If, however, we allow the image of domesticity to conceal us from our motives, we only have ourselves to blame if/when we realize we're unhappy in a union predicated on sales(wo)manship. Then again, should you follow my advice, you may end up like me: relationship(-)less for a lifetime - but free. As for me, I'm all about being an individual first.
21 August 2007
The dangers of sex: a health perspective
If the main argument against women having sex is our right to choose what we do with our bodies, here's the problem: sex isn't about morality. By presenting it in those terms, we overlook a more significant issue: health.
Why is sex dangerous? Outside of the risks of getting an STD (sexually transmitted disease), it's the STDs you can't protect yourself from (e.g., herpes, HIV) that you need to worry about. You can get mono from kissing, etc. You can get hepatitis from oral sex regardless of whose anatomy benefits from it - man or woman. With HIV, it's not just sexual penetration that places you at risk; and, more importantly, you can't guarantee the condom (men's or women's) won't break.
If you're jumping into sex without knowing the person you're doing it with - especially without a strong level of trust - you're choosing to take unnecessary risks that could impact you in the long-term. Think of it in terms of economics: Is it worth investing hundreds of dollars every year to cover medical expenses for incurable STDs/health problems for one night of sex that your lover paid - oh I don't know - $100 for? Say you were together for six months, but you spent most of the time intwined so that the pay in came around to $1,000?
If you're rich and can afford medical care, no problem. What about those of us who aren't - is it worth the risk? A one-night stand, for example: Is one night with a lousy or awesome lover worth the long-term investment if you're not lucky enough to avoid contracting something you didn't plan on? Ask yourself: Is your body worth a hamburger meal and a movie (or whatever people pay out for sex)?
The issue isn't marriage. Who cares if you have sex with someone and don't marry him or her? What's at stake is what you're willing to give up to be with someone you can't guarantee will stick around long enough even if you don't wind up caught in a spiralling nightmare. Even if you don't care that the person does or doesn't want to continue contact after the sex is over, what does your body mean to you?
I mean, seriously. If you're so horny for sex, why not get a dildo or other sex toy to get you off than risk it with someone who could end up costing you thousands of dollars that your insurance may cover? And if you get caught in that situation, are you looking forward to ending up dealing with pills or whatever else is available for the rest of your life - not to mention the burden of passing on the ailment to someone else if you continue renting out your body?
Oooh, yes: That's what we do when we have sex. Someone gives money for however long it takes two (or more as the case may be) to have sex. Then maybe you don't talk for a few days - or maybe you do - and then you have sex again, either with or without being taken out again. And the cycle continues. After all, there's no free sex really. I mean, can you see yourself in a sexual relationship where the other person doesn't give you anything or take you around anywhere? Barring that, could you only have sex without needing to talk or e-mail/text message/etc.?
No, sex is paid for and it's up to you to know what your body's worth. For myself, I've made it almost impossible to place myself in that compromising position. Here are my latest rules regarding the possibility of sex, which means accepting the unnecessary risks involved with it:
- I've had to have dated the guy for at least six months, and he's had to have spent by that time at least $5,000 on me.
- When we start dating, he needs to sign a legal contract that guarantees his monogamy to me during our relationship; he must also agree to undergo regular testing for STDs, etc. prior to our having sex and during the time we have sex if I decide I'm ready and he still wants me.
- He must set aside $50,000 in a trust fund to be used only for medical expenses on the chance I do contract an STD or other health-related problem from him (that is, none of it gets paid directly to me and I must show documentation that I need hospitalization or medication, etc.); he only gets the money back if (1) we never have sex during our relationship (payable immediately) or (2) after an X amount of time in which I continue to test negative since some things like HIV or herpes can take years to show up as positive.
Why do I go through all of the above trouble? One, I'm not interested in marriage. Two, I believe that dating has attached to it whether we accept it or not an implicit understanding/desire that the relationship may lead to marriage even if the person you're with isn't someone who interests you as a marriage prospect. Why do you think affairs are so problematic? Even when the relationship is just sex, there's an unwritten assumption that there's more to it than the physical aspects, which is stupid I know, but nonetheless true.
Three, I'm not interested in having sex. I'd rather develop friendships with people that will last until my end of time as we know it. If I choose to have sex with someone, I want it to be with a guy who isn't just going to go away afterward, who isn't married, and who isn't just looking to satisfy his needs. (Ah yes, I'm also fat; and what I attract every time - and it's never failed - are horny men, which is a complete turnoff. I've always been more than my body, and I'm not - given my weight - excited at the thought of getting hot and bothered with someone - another reason I stay fat; it's a turn-off for most men unless they're desperate.)
Finally, I don't need the tensions associated with dating. Friendship requires nothing but time. You can hang out with someone and just talk or you can go do things together, and the whole point of that is just to share time together as two people who may or may not have similar interests and enjoy the common bond of personhood. Sex is right when the chemistry's right and/or the person you're with is someone you trust and who not only respects who you are at every level but also feels a common bond to you where sex is an expression of affection and not just about two bodies going at it.
We are animals after all, and there's nothing wrong with sex or wanting to have sex. If it were only that, sex wouldn't be anything to argue about. The problem with morality is that it makes it something to challenge; like, who cares if you believe it's wrong, it's my body and I'll do with it what I want and you can't stop me.
Now make sex a health issue and promote it as that, and then maybe people start thinking of not having sex immediately (at least, not without developing trust with the other person) because they recognize that not doing so fails as a preventative measure. Place sex in terms of a long-term economic issue and you might get people asking what their bodies are worth to risk the high interest rates attached to sexual activity.
It won't change things significantly; I mean, just look at the example of credit cards. However, it might get more people thinking about it and, unlike credit cards, you're talking about a person's life here; and something that affects us personally more often than not gets our attention.
Anyway, if we were focusing more on building relationships than just releasing tensions (which we don't need people to do for us given all the available sex toys), we might find a better world in which we see each other not for what the other can give us, but what we can share together. I know, in an ideal world, blah da blah da.
* Note: I wish to acknowledge tigger_ne who, while playing a game of Yahoo!® Games - Literati with me, willingly engaged me as I expressed the above during our informal chat conversation. He's otherwise consented to be recognized as "Dr. B.," a psychology professor in some state I can't remember. He also introduced the phrase "benevolent sexism," which I aim to do research on for a later post; the scholars he recommended I start with are Fiske and Glick (2001). :)
Why is sex dangerous? Outside of the risks of getting an STD (sexually transmitted disease), it's the STDs you can't protect yourself from (e.g., herpes, HIV) that you need to worry about. You can get mono from kissing, etc. You can get hepatitis from oral sex regardless of whose anatomy benefits from it - man or woman. With HIV, it's not just sexual penetration that places you at risk; and, more importantly, you can't guarantee the condom (men's or women's) won't break.
If you're jumping into sex without knowing the person you're doing it with - especially without a strong level of trust - you're choosing to take unnecessary risks that could impact you in the long-term. Think of it in terms of economics: Is it worth investing hundreds of dollars every year to cover medical expenses for incurable STDs/health problems for one night of sex that your lover paid - oh I don't know - $100 for? Say you were together for six months, but you spent most of the time intwined so that the pay in came around to $1,000?
If you're rich and can afford medical care, no problem. What about those of us who aren't - is it worth the risk? A one-night stand, for example: Is one night with a lousy or awesome lover worth the long-term investment if you're not lucky enough to avoid contracting something you didn't plan on? Ask yourself: Is your body worth a hamburger meal and a movie (or whatever people pay out for sex)?
The issue isn't marriage. Who cares if you have sex with someone and don't marry him or her? What's at stake is what you're willing to give up to be with someone you can't guarantee will stick around long enough even if you don't wind up caught in a spiralling nightmare. Even if you don't care that the person does or doesn't want to continue contact after the sex is over, what does your body mean to you?
I mean, seriously. If you're so horny for sex, why not get a dildo or other sex toy to get you off than risk it with someone who could end up costing you thousands of dollars that your insurance may cover? And if you get caught in that situation, are you looking forward to ending up dealing with pills or whatever else is available for the rest of your life - not to mention the burden of passing on the ailment to someone else if you continue renting out your body?
Oooh, yes: That's what we do when we have sex. Someone gives money for however long it takes two (or more as the case may be) to have sex. Then maybe you don't talk for a few days - or maybe you do - and then you have sex again, either with or without being taken out again. And the cycle continues. After all, there's no free sex really. I mean, can you see yourself in a sexual relationship where the other person doesn't give you anything or take you around anywhere? Barring that, could you only have sex without needing to talk or e-mail/text message/etc.?
No, sex is paid for and it's up to you to know what your body's worth. For myself, I've made it almost impossible to place myself in that compromising position. Here are my latest rules regarding the possibility of sex, which means accepting the unnecessary risks involved with it:
- I've had to have dated the guy for at least six months, and he's had to have spent by that time at least $5,000 on me.
- When we start dating, he needs to sign a legal contract that guarantees his monogamy to me during our relationship; he must also agree to undergo regular testing for STDs, etc. prior to our having sex and during the time we have sex if I decide I'm ready and he still wants me.
- He must set aside $50,000 in a trust fund to be used only for medical expenses on the chance I do contract an STD or other health-related problem from him (that is, none of it gets paid directly to me and I must show documentation that I need hospitalization or medication, etc.); he only gets the money back if (1) we never have sex during our relationship (payable immediately) or (2) after an X amount of time in which I continue to test negative since some things like HIV or herpes can take years to show up as positive.
Why do I go through all of the above trouble? One, I'm not interested in marriage. Two, I believe that dating has attached to it whether we accept it or not an implicit understanding/desire that the relationship may lead to marriage even if the person you're with isn't someone who interests you as a marriage prospect. Why do you think affairs are so problematic? Even when the relationship is just sex, there's an unwritten assumption that there's more to it than the physical aspects, which is stupid I know, but nonetheless true.
Three, I'm not interested in having sex. I'd rather develop friendships with people that will last until my end of time as we know it. If I choose to have sex with someone, I want it to be with a guy who isn't just going to go away afterward, who isn't married, and who isn't just looking to satisfy his needs. (Ah yes, I'm also fat; and what I attract every time - and it's never failed - are horny men, which is a complete turnoff. I've always been more than my body, and I'm not - given my weight - excited at the thought of getting hot and bothered with someone - another reason I stay fat; it's a turn-off for most men unless they're desperate.)
Finally, I don't need the tensions associated with dating. Friendship requires nothing but time. You can hang out with someone and just talk or you can go do things together, and the whole point of that is just to share time together as two people who may or may not have similar interests and enjoy the common bond of personhood. Sex is right when the chemistry's right and/or the person you're with is someone you trust and who not only respects who you are at every level but also feels a common bond to you where sex is an expression of affection and not just about two bodies going at it.
We are animals after all, and there's nothing wrong with sex or wanting to have sex. If it were only that, sex wouldn't be anything to argue about. The problem with morality is that it makes it something to challenge; like, who cares if you believe it's wrong, it's my body and I'll do with it what I want and you can't stop me.
Now make sex a health issue and promote it as that, and then maybe people start thinking of not having sex immediately (at least, not without developing trust with the other person) because they recognize that not doing so fails as a preventative measure. Place sex in terms of a long-term economic issue and you might get people asking what their bodies are worth to risk the high interest rates attached to sexual activity.
It won't change things significantly; I mean, just look at the example of credit cards. However, it might get more people thinking about it and, unlike credit cards, you're talking about a person's life here; and something that affects us personally more often than not gets our attention.
Anyway, if we were focusing more on building relationships than just releasing tensions (which we don't need people to do for us given all the available sex toys), we might find a better world in which we see each other not for what the other can give us, but what we can share together. I know, in an ideal world, blah da blah da.
* Note: I wish to acknowledge tigger_ne who, while playing a game of Yahoo!® Games - Literati with me, willingly engaged me as I expressed the above during our informal chat conversation. He's otherwise consented to be recognized as "Dr. B.," a psychology professor in some state I can't remember. He also introduced the phrase "benevolent sexism," which I aim to do research on for a later post; the scholars he recommended I start with are Fiske and Glick (2001). :)
