It's taken many years for me to reach this point. My view, however, is not informed by religious sentiment or politics; but my personal experience of a miscarriage I had in 2003.
I will be upfront, though, that I believe in God; but my relationship to Him is at best ambivalent, because it's easy to accept the idea of a super being. However, I belong to no religion, and suspect that less than 1% of all believers actually embrace what they believe - because saying you believe in something and living like you believe in something are two different things.
But when I talk about being against abortion, I'm often called a bible thumper, a right winger, etc. So I wonder if religion and politics are the main reasons people are comfortable being pro-choice, if that's why they refuse to see the topic as anything other than a women's rights issue.
It's relevant, then, to know that before my miscarriage I was pro-choice. I made those arguments: It's our right as women to decide what we do with our bodies. And what about cases of rape or medical issues - why should we suffer more by being forced to keep our babies if we don't want to? And why should adoption be the only option for us if we do get pregnant?
Okay, so that's easy when you've never been pregnant or known someone who had an abortion, when feminism has been telling us that we control our bodies, etc. Yet we make it illegal for people to take illicit drugs like cocaine. When someone threatens to kill him- or herself, we're supposed to call 911. Good Samaritans, too, are rewarded for saving people's lives. Etc.!
In other words, we don't give ourselves complete autonomy over our bodies. Or rather, our laws don't, social norms don't, parents don't, etc. Yet we fail to recognize that a developing fetus at every stage of its development is a human being. Sure, it doesn't start out looking remotely human; but you don't get to those moments when you first get pregnant, as the visible print of a person happens over time.
Unfortunately, miscarriages also happen; I knew it as an unmistakable loss I felt from inside me. There was, too, that feeling of certainty that what I had inside me was a life; it's nothing I can explain in words. But the circumstances of my miscarriage were unique; my ex beat me, and, I think, that, in addition to my state of malnutrition (I was practically starving as a first-year grad student away from home - enough so that I ended up in the hospital a few months later), is what led to my miscarriage.
But be clear: A miscarriage is not an abortion. Specifically, one cannot anticipate a miscarriage and, more, it can result from any number of things (hence, nonspecific). An abortion, however, is the murder of a human life, one who cannot protest and is at the complete mercy of his or her mother.
Yet there are only three main ways we can get pregnant: consensual sex; rape; insemination. However, they can all result in the maturation of a fetus which, yes, starts out as cells - but without those cells, you do not get hands, toes, a head, etc. - and then turns into a baby, hopefully one that survives to cry. So go ahead and pretend that before you begin to see the suggestion of a person, nothing of significance is happening; yet we're comprised of particles smaller than atoms.
An unborn baby, however, is the most defenseless of people, especially in its earliest stages. Women who choose to murder their babies generally must do so within their first trimesters - Why? Because it's least harmful to our bodies. Is that also the time when a baby doesn't yet begin to appear human, have a heartbeat that can be recorded, etc.? Because we seem to measure the value of a baby on those terms instead of grasping that the baby does not begin to look like a person without first being something else.
So, yes, abortion is murder. Yet we call it a women's rights issue. It's our body, we can do what we like - only it's not just our body when we get pregnant. A pregnant woman is, in fact, one body carrying a second, distinct body that, if it survives the process - and anything else (e.g. cancer, accidents, malnutrition, murder, etc.) - will grow taller over time.
However, we would arrest a parent who killed his or her child. At one point, however, children had no status; parents could do what they wanted, and their cruelties were answered by claiming children as protected animals. Sometime later we legally recognized them as people; but it wasn't until around the late 19th century that we began to feel a social impulse to protect them, especially those of the poor and working classes (in the case of Lewis Hine, by labeling images of middle class children as child laborers).
In terms of babies, however, I read about a recent attempt to legally recognize unborn babies as people; but it turned into a controversy about Republicans and their so-called war on women. I haven't been up on the issues, so I don't know what the war on women is about; however, I've heard many references to the women's rights issue, a rhetoric that defined the debates on Obamacare and birth control which, as I've argued in other places, should not be included in preventive care[1].
Except I'm not here to talk about politics. I gave that example only to point out that, if you don't support abortion, you're likely to be denounced as a bible thumper or a right winger - those even when you've made no reference to religion or politics. The word slut is the other reason I get called out on them; but my view on sexual behaviors is also not what I'm here to talk about. Let me just summarize my views on consensual sex and rape in terms of the abortion topic:
Consensual Sex
If you're a woman and not prepared to take responsibility for the possibility of getting pregnant - and that means keeping or giving up your baby - do not have sex with a man, as that's the only way to ensure you do not get pregnant. If you're that desperate, buy a sex toy, masturbate, have oral sex with a man (69 gets you both off)[2], etc. - just do not let a penis near your vagina, as even the precum can make you pregnant. In other words, there's no excuse to murder your baby because of your selfish choices.
Rape
If you're a woman and this happens to you, it's not your fault. It's also okay if you feel angry, violated, hurt, depressed, etc.; but you are a survivor. That means you're alive, and you can find the strength to continue your life. However, if you get pregnant, killing that baby does not justify what happened you - because that baby also did not ask for you to be raped; you have to rise above yourself and not murder a life as a substitute for your intense desire to kill the man who raped you. Wanting to kill and killing are two different things. In other words, there's no excuse to murder your baby because of your selfish choices.
What I wish for
- That unborn babies be legally recognized as people at all stages of development.
- That abortion be legally recognized as the murder of an unborn baby, thus making it a criminal offense for which both the mother and abortionist should be held responsible.
However, my view that abortion is murder is consistent with my feminism. Specifically, as I know unborn babies to be people, so, too, do I recognize that the issue of abortion is not a women's rights issue since no person should be able to murder another person. More, that a woman has the choice of whether or not to have sex which can result in the possibility of getting pregnant; if that happens, she has the obligation to attempt or to actually carry a baby to term because she has no right to decide if another person lives or dies.
Anyway, this is just where I am at present on this topic. But to be clear, again, with regard to where I stand on the abortion issue: I belong to no religion and have no religious motivation; I belong to no party and have no political motivation. I am, instead, a woman who experienced a miscarriage and became personally aware of what it means to be pregnant and lose a baby. This is where I stand, however; you don't have to agree with me.
[1] Preventive care is free and includes services like mammograms and postrate screenings which are meant to alert doctors to what may be wrong with women's and men's bodies. Birth control does not answer that need, and thus should not be free to women. This, however, is another issue.
[2] A woman can get pregnant from swallowing cum, but the chances of that happening are extremely slim. The risk of getting pregnant from precum, however, is much greater.
12 August 2012
14 June 2012
If sex isn't an act of desperation, insecurity and/or dissatisfaction on your part, the word slut should have no power: Some thoughts
Yesterday, in a context that had nothing to do with me, two girls behind me were talking. One of them said something like, "If she calls me a slut, I will have to murder her" (yes, she said murder). Then the conversation continued in another language.
So, what were these girls talking about: A movie? Well, it doesn't matter; the word slut is what made me eavesdrop in the first place, especially because of a specific context that has involved me.
As a participant on various USA Today discussion forums, I've thrown around the word slut and had it become a focal point for other, mostly female, respondents. Here's how I've defined slut: Any man or woman who has sex outside of marriage with more than one partner (not necessarily at the same time).
Here's the simple concept: Slut isn't a new word. It's been around for centuries, and, in fact, has different connotations depending on where you are. In the USA, for example, we mean something along the lines of the definition I provided. In Turkey, however, my landlord said it denoted inappropriate or bad. Bottom line, though: Slut has no positive connotations attached to it, and it's almost always targeted at women.
Knowing this, thus, why the anger over the word slut? After all, this is the real world; people have negative and positive responses to anything from food, entertainment, work, on and on.
But being called a name doesn't make you that name, because words only have power - for good or bad - if you give them power. It's from this perspective that I think the word slut is saying something else.
Much like I told a Facebook friend (as a general comment), if sex isn't an act of desperation, insecurity and/or dissatisfaction on your part, the word slut should have no power. Because there are people who will say something like: Call me whatever you like, it's my body and I can do with it what I want. In other words: You don't define me.
It was the idiot female yesterday, however, who made me realize that desperation, insecurity and/or dissatisfaction must be a huge part of the anger. I mean, why would you want to kill someone over a word? Here are my thoughts:
- If sex is an act of desperation, you already feel bad about yourself;
- You feel bad about yourself because sex is empty;
- Sex is empty because you have no real connection with the person you're having sex with;
- You have no real connection because you've made your relationship hinge on sex;
- Your relationship hinges on sex because you're needy;
- You're needy because someone important said (explicitly or implicitly) you were a nothing;
- You un/knowingly believe you're a nothing because you've never learned to stand alone.
Let's be clear: I'm not presenting a morality argument, this isn't about religion, etc. However, while the various forms of sex (oral and otherwise) can be pleasurable, they also invite risks of STDs (no orientation is immune) - herpes, though, is one that can be undetectable on STD tests for years, if at all - pregnancy when the relationship involves a man and a woman (no birth control except abstinence is 100% effective), and emotional complications (intimacy is a kind of drug). More, these risks increase the more partners you have; in terms of your emotional health, this can lead to the inability to deeply connect with someone outside of sex. My personal view is: Don't have sex unless you're prepared emotionally, mentally and financially to have a baby - because abortion is murder, and no baby should die because of a woman's selfishness.
Anyway, back to my point: I think people for whom sex is an act of desperation, insecurity and/or dissatisfaction, the word slut reinforces what they already feel about themselves. As a result, they lash out, focusing on the word itself when they're really talking about themselves. That is, they're offended at the word slut because that's how they see themselves: As a slut. And, since I think that most people settle for their marriage partners, this psychological suggestion of the word slut applies also to married people.
I mean, how hard is it to deny being a slut? Because the people who don't identify as sluts don't make a big deal about the word slut; for them, slut is just a word. For those who want to go so far as to kill someone over the word, they're obviously expressing desperation, insecurity and/or dissatisfaction.
Oh, I'm sure there must be a literature on the psychological rootedness of words. But if you're going to give me power with a word like slut, well, all I can do is laugh.
So, what were these girls talking about: A movie? Well, it doesn't matter; the word slut is what made me eavesdrop in the first place, especially because of a specific context that has involved me.
As a participant on various USA Today discussion forums, I've thrown around the word slut and had it become a focal point for other, mostly female, respondents. Here's how I've defined slut: Any man or woman who has sex outside of marriage with more than one partner (not necessarily at the same time).
Here's the simple concept: Slut isn't a new word. It's been around for centuries, and, in fact, has different connotations depending on where you are. In the USA, for example, we mean something along the lines of the definition I provided. In Turkey, however, my landlord said it denoted inappropriate or bad. Bottom line, though: Slut has no positive connotations attached to it, and it's almost always targeted at women.
Knowing this, thus, why the anger over the word slut? After all, this is the real world; people have negative and positive responses to anything from food, entertainment, work, on and on.
But being called a name doesn't make you that name, because words only have power - for good or bad - if you give them power. It's from this perspective that I think the word slut is saying something else.
Much like I told a Facebook friend (as a general comment), if sex isn't an act of desperation, insecurity and/or dissatisfaction on your part, the word slut should have no power. Because there are people who will say something like: Call me whatever you like, it's my body and I can do with it what I want. In other words: You don't define me.
It was the idiot female yesterday, however, who made me realize that desperation, insecurity and/or dissatisfaction must be a huge part of the anger. I mean, why would you want to kill someone over a word? Here are my thoughts:
- If sex is an act of desperation, you already feel bad about yourself;
- You feel bad about yourself because sex is empty;
- Sex is empty because you have no real connection with the person you're having sex with;
- You have no real connection because you've made your relationship hinge on sex;
- Your relationship hinges on sex because you're needy;
- You're needy because someone important said (explicitly or implicitly) you were a nothing;
- You un/knowingly believe you're a nothing because you've never learned to stand alone.
Let's be clear: I'm not presenting a morality argument, this isn't about religion, etc. However, while the various forms of sex (oral and otherwise) can be pleasurable, they also invite risks of STDs (no orientation is immune) - herpes, though, is one that can be undetectable on STD tests for years, if at all - pregnancy when the relationship involves a man and a woman (no birth control except abstinence is 100% effective), and emotional complications (intimacy is a kind of drug). More, these risks increase the more partners you have; in terms of your emotional health, this can lead to the inability to deeply connect with someone outside of sex. My personal view is: Don't have sex unless you're prepared emotionally, mentally and financially to have a baby - because abortion is murder, and no baby should die because of a woman's selfishness.
Anyway, back to my point: I think people for whom sex is an act of desperation, insecurity and/or dissatisfaction, the word slut reinforces what they already feel about themselves. As a result, they lash out, focusing on the word itself when they're really talking about themselves. That is, they're offended at the word slut because that's how they see themselves: As a slut. And, since I think that most people settle for their marriage partners, this psychological suggestion of the word slut applies also to married people.
I mean, how hard is it to deny being a slut? Because the people who don't identify as sluts don't make a big deal about the word slut; for them, slut is just a word. For those who want to go so far as to kill someone over the word, they're obviously expressing desperation, insecurity and/or dissatisfaction.
Oh, I'm sure there must be a literature on the psychological rootedness of words. But if you're going to give me power with a word like slut, well, all I can do is laugh.
16 February 2012
On human and spiritual relationships: My take on *Perfect Sense* (2011)
Well, Perfect Sense (2011) is a high end movie - high end simply referring to the artsy types of movies that deliberate about something (obvious message), though often fail for one reason: there's no real point (incomplete expression of the obvious message). You get the idea, right?
Anyway, Perfect Sense (2011) kept me in my seat because the abstract parts are generally brief and work to push the story forward - unlike The Tree of Life (2011) which not only had bad audio, but also a significant interruption from what I guessed was a story of loss (I wouldn't know since I walked out early on). Perfect Sense (2011), however, doesn't begin to lag until toward the end when it's mostly visual (there is sound like wind, at one point a touch of instrumental).
Throughout the story, though, the lead female sets the script in voiceover aided by visualization which adds a sense of urgency to what's happening. While the main thrust begins with the loss of smell, everything accelerates starting with the loss of taste (spread is significantly quicker).
But of the five major senses, Perfect Sense (2011) never gets to the loss of touch, though sex is important to the story until the loss of hearing. The ending, however, allows me this interpretation:
(1) Of the five major senses, touch is the most important.
(1)(a) Smell matters less because future is past.
(1)(b) Taste matters less because it's about flavor.
(1)(c) Hearing matters less because people lie.
(1)(d) Vision matters less because of time (aging).
(2) Relationships are about intimacy.
(2)(a) Smell is analogous to first impressions.
(2)(b) Taste is analogous to dating.
(2)(c) Hearing is analogous to commitment.
(2)(d) Vision is analogous to death.
(3) Intimacy means being completely exposed (naked within and out)
(3)(a) Grief* anticipates loss of smell.
(3)(b) Insanity anticipates loss of taste.
(3)(c) Rage* anticipates loss of hearing.
(3)(d) Surrender anticipates loss of vision.
* I believe these were the exact terms used in the movie, not sure about the other two.
I'm suggesting this interpretation on human relationships because the last thing we see in Perfect Sense (2011) is the male and female leads moving toward an embrace. This is the point we know they'll stay together, no matter what else they might lose.
In Perfect Sense (2011), though, the cause for the loss of four major senses (smell, taste, hearing, vision) is unknown but experienced by everyone everywhere; as the visuals connect across cultures, so do the losses. Further, for each loss the next pre-loss - as there are spaces of time between losses - is amplified*: taste for smell, hearing for taste, vision for hearing.
* I believe this was the exact term used in the movie, but I'm not sure.
In the context of relationships, what this says is: As relationships deepen, the more intense they become. Relationships, thus - in the cycle of Perfect Sense (2011) - arouse, inflame, are tested, then bind with forgiveness*. Now consider the spiritual dimension:
* I believe this was the exact term used in the movie, but I'm not sure.
(1) Smell is human weakness.
(2) Taste is desire for Other.
(3) Hearing is being called.
(4) Vision is acceptance.
In this way, the black screens in the opening and closing scenes of Perfect Sense (2011) can be read as birth and death. Thus presents a cycle of death (of the individual) and rebirth (unity between individuals OR between an individual and Other).
What's with Other? Well, that depends on what you call God; since agnostics accept an Other but not necessarily God, I'm ignoring only atheists and anyone who doesn't believe in reincarnation.
For me, however, these parallels between human and spiritual relationships in Perfect Sense (2011) are highly significant. Let me tell you why:
(1) Marriage is an expression of surrender.
(2) Faith is an expression of surrender.
Marriage is surrender when love is unconditional (this again goes back to the idea of knowing someone at the core: no secrets/hiding, no need for secrets/hiding). Faith is surrender when belief is transparent (the greatest missionary leads by example, never insists that others believe).
Consider, too, that before the credits roll, the lead couple - again, moving to embrace - can NOT smell, taste, hear AND see each other; so their potential embrace can be seen as analagous to an act of faith. Marriage, however, is also an act of faith: When you know the core of someone, there's nothing more to know; while love deepens and strengthens over time, everything else is just layering (because the core of something doesn't change however differently it might be expressed).
Yes, I'm aware that my interpretations may be a stretch! But look at the title: Perfect Sense (2011). So if you think the ending doesn't make sense, ask yourself: What would it mean for the lead couple to lose the sense of touch? Alienation?
I don't think so! And that's why I'm sticking with my thoughts on the movie! lol
References
Perfect sense. (2011). Directed by David Mackenzie. Written by Kim Fupz Aakeson. Sigma Films, Film i Väst, Subotica Entertainment, and Zentropa Entertainments. [Retrieved this info. from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1439572/]
Tree of life, The. (2011). Directed and written by Terrence Malick. Brace Cove Productions, Cottonwood Pictures, Plan B Entertainment, and River Road Entertainment. [Retrieved this info. from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478304/]
Anyway, Perfect Sense (2011) kept me in my seat because the abstract parts are generally brief and work to push the story forward - unlike The Tree of Life (2011) which not only had bad audio, but also a significant interruption from what I guessed was a story of loss (I wouldn't know since I walked out early on). Perfect Sense (2011), however, doesn't begin to lag until toward the end when it's mostly visual (there is sound like wind, at one point a touch of instrumental).
Throughout the story, though, the lead female sets the script in voiceover aided by visualization which adds a sense of urgency to what's happening. While the main thrust begins with the loss of smell, everything accelerates starting with the loss of taste (spread is significantly quicker).
But of the five major senses, Perfect Sense (2011) never gets to the loss of touch, though sex is important to the story until the loss of hearing. The ending, however, allows me this interpretation:
(1) Of the five major senses, touch is the most important.
(1)(a) Smell matters less because future is past.
(1)(b) Taste matters less because it's about flavor.
(1)(c) Hearing matters less because people lie.
(1)(d) Vision matters less because of time (aging).
(2) Relationships are about intimacy.
(2)(a) Smell is analogous to first impressions.
(2)(b) Taste is analogous to dating.
(2)(c) Hearing is analogous to commitment.
(2)(d) Vision is analogous to death.
(3) Intimacy means being completely exposed (naked within and out)
(3)(a) Grief* anticipates loss of smell.
(3)(b) Insanity anticipates loss of taste.
(3)(c) Rage* anticipates loss of hearing.
(3)(d) Surrender anticipates loss of vision.
* I believe these were the exact terms used in the movie, not sure about the other two.
I'm suggesting this interpretation on human relationships because the last thing we see in Perfect Sense (2011) is the male and female leads moving toward an embrace. This is the point we know they'll stay together, no matter what else they might lose.
In Perfect Sense (2011), though, the cause for the loss of four major senses (smell, taste, hearing, vision) is unknown but experienced by everyone everywhere; as the visuals connect across cultures, so do the losses. Further, for each loss the next pre-loss - as there are spaces of time between losses - is amplified*: taste for smell, hearing for taste, vision for hearing.
* I believe this was the exact term used in the movie, but I'm not sure.
In the context of relationships, what this says is: As relationships deepen, the more intense they become. Relationships, thus - in the cycle of Perfect Sense (2011) - arouse, inflame, are tested, then bind with forgiveness*. Now consider the spiritual dimension:
* I believe this was the exact term used in the movie, but I'm not sure.
(1) Smell is human weakness.
(2) Taste is desire for Other.
(3) Hearing is being called.
(4) Vision is acceptance.
In this way, the black screens in the opening and closing scenes of Perfect Sense (2011) can be read as birth and death. Thus presents a cycle of death (of the individual) and rebirth (unity between individuals OR between an individual and Other).
What's with Other? Well, that depends on what you call God; since agnostics accept an Other but not necessarily God, I'm ignoring only atheists and anyone who doesn't believe in reincarnation.
For me, however, these parallels between human and spiritual relationships in Perfect Sense (2011) are highly significant. Let me tell you why:
(1) Marriage is an expression of surrender.
(2) Faith is an expression of surrender.
Marriage is surrender when love is unconditional (this again goes back to the idea of knowing someone at the core: no secrets/hiding, no need for secrets/hiding). Faith is surrender when belief is transparent (the greatest missionary leads by example, never insists that others believe).
Consider, too, that before the credits roll, the lead couple - again, moving to embrace - can NOT smell, taste, hear AND see each other; so their potential embrace can be seen as analagous to an act of faith. Marriage, however, is also an act of faith: When you know the core of someone, there's nothing more to know; while love deepens and strengthens over time, everything else is just layering (because the core of something doesn't change however differently it might be expressed).
Yes, I'm aware that my interpretations may be a stretch! But look at the title: Perfect Sense (2011). So if you think the ending doesn't make sense, ask yourself: What would it mean for the lead couple to lose the sense of touch? Alienation?
I don't think so! And that's why I'm sticking with my thoughts on the movie! lol
References
Perfect sense. (2011). Directed by David Mackenzie. Written by Kim Fupz Aakeson. Sigma Films, Film i Väst, Subotica Entertainment, and Zentropa Entertainments. [Retrieved this info. from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1439572/]
Tree of life, The. (2011). Directed and written by Terrence Malick. Brace Cove Productions, Cottonwood Pictures, Plan B Entertainment, and River Road Entertainment. [Retrieved this info. from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478304/]
13 February 2012
Let's talk body equality - Again
Girls and boys enjoy public spectacle when they romp around topless. One day it's inappropriate; girls learn it's shameful to show their bare torsos, boys that it's shameful to see girls' bare torsos. I'm still talking about boys and girls here, not teens or adults. Scott Metzger's cartoon below illustrates today's reality, that it's unacceptable for women to be topless in public spaces:
I have suggested previously that today's reality is partly the result of the sexualization of women's breasts, as well as the erasure of women's sexuality (the explicit desire for a man's body). Let's not forget the double standard given to women's and men's bodies: A woman loses her looks with the addition of weight and time, while a man loses nothing. This is not a situation unique to the USA.
Yes, feminism has a lot to do with some of the choices women make today. There are sexually active women, and women who aren't afraid to tell their partners what they want. Sure, both men and women can be common whores; but women choose it more often as validation that they are wanted.
Once girls begin to cover up, they are told many implicit things without understanding fully the impact it has on them for their entire lives. They are told:
(1) You have something shameful.
(2) Your breasts are an important definition of who you are.
(3) Your sexuality can only be measured by what's hidden.
(4) You are a sex object.
What are some of the results? Many teens and women want plastic surgery to enhance their looks; they have no appreciation for themselves as bodies. Women also continue wearing makeup (even the natural look) to cover up their so-called flaws; I have said previously that this can be partly understood in the context of relationships between themselves and their primary female influences (bonding creates a psychological hold on people; it takes first acknowledging it to face it). More, many women need to (1) negatively criticize other women's bodies to justify their lack of self-esteem about their own bodies (because they're not satisfied with them), or (2) constantly compare themselves with other women to reinforce their perpetuating self-views that they have something to be ashamed of.
I mean, I could go on and on about the self-destructive things women do! But that's not really my point.
As I've suggested previously, men's and women's bodies are both sexually exciting to members of the same or opposite sexes. And, yes, as I've said, more men today are getting plastic surgery or, in one case that I had the direct experience to discover, a heterosexual man wore heavy foundation as part of his daily routine (because he said, he was used to being in front of strobe lights).
So don't misunderstand; there's a LOT of scholarship on men's bodies, masculinity, etc. The difference is that men grow up being more confident about their bodies because they are given the freedom to enjoy their bodies. And I'm specifically referring to the inequality between men's and women's torsos.
Because, yes, men and women are equal ONLY in relation to fecundity (the tools that give and receive fluids), which is understood in the context of fertility, which is why the gay movement is an open contest to this claim - because they remind heterosexuals that fecundity is more about sexuality than birth. And fertility is the reason why women or men who can't procreate - though it falls largely on women - may feel debased, unworthy or that something's wrong with them; fecundity, thus, is simply the interaction between bodies designed to fulfill a sexual experience. (I say this because I knew a woman once who told me that she had some kind of vaginal dysfunction that made it impossible for her to feel penetration; in fact, her boyfriend raped her knowing that, unless he told her, she wouldn't know he was inside her.)
Over the years, however, women and men have started making more jokes about big breasted men. Big breats on men generally result from either too much muscle or too much fat. I have, I think, mentioned Seinfeld and the joke about the man bra. Yet, as Scott Metzger's cartoon illustrates, it remains unacceptable for women to go around topless in public while it's okay for men of any sized breasts to do so.
It really doesn't matter if you want to call men's breasts pecs; they're the same thing (just ask a doctor if you doubt me; or, better, read the medical articles about men's breast cancer[1]). The point is that we women are also sexual creatures, so we also get turned on by men's exposed torsos - just as men get turned on by ours. (Gay men, of course, get turned on by men's chests.) The difference is that we're normalized to want to hide our breasts; in fact, there are criminal law that proscribe our doing so.
But what's really different about women's and men's breasts? I'm talking about the outer structures of men's and women's breasts. We all have curves and nipples, though ours might be softer - but men's breasts get softer (and saggier) the larger they are. More, we're encouraged to get mammograms, while men aren't - and that's why when men get breast cancer, their survival rate is significantly lower (because they don't get to a doctor typically until they're in the advanced stages)[1].
Of course, men's and women's fecundities are different, as they serve different purposes. So why: Continue covering up our torsos? Accept our being oversexualized compared to men? Ignore our own sexualities which includes desiring after a man's body? Refuse to be ashamed of our bodies?
Oh yes, I plan to return to this topic! It's just not often I find an illustration that clearly expresses what I'm thinking! So thanks again, Scott Metzger, for your permission to include your cartoon here!
[1] Many years ago I volunteered for the American Red Cross - Greater Houston Area Chapter. It was doing research for the Protect Your Back Program that I did a lot of readings at the Texas Medical Center libraries; it was there that I chanced on an article on men's breast cancer, then followed up by reading other case histories (because I was excited to find out about something I couldn't have imagined before then).
 |
| © Scott Metzger (http://www.metzgercartoons.com) Cartoon used with permission from Scott Metzger. |
Yes, feminism has a lot to do with some of the choices women make today. There are sexually active women, and women who aren't afraid to tell their partners what they want. Sure, both men and women can be common whores; but women choose it more often as validation that they are wanted.
Once girls begin to cover up, they are told many implicit things without understanding fully the impact it has on them for their entire lives. They are told:
(1) You have something shameful.
(2) Your breasts are an important definition of who you are.
(3) Your sexuality can only be measured by what's hidden.
(4) You are a sex object.
What are some of the results? Many teens and women want plastic surgery to enhance their looks; they have no appreciation for themselves as bodies. Women also continue wearing makeup (even the natural look) to cover up their so-called flaws; I have said previously that this can be partly understood in the context of relationships between themselves and their primary female influences (bonding creates a psychological hold on people; it takes first acknowledging it to face it). More, many women need to (1) negatively criticize other women's bodies to justify their lack of self-esteem about their own bodies (because they're not satisfied with them), or (2) constantly compare themselves with other women to reinforce their perpetuating self-views that they have something to be ashamed of.
I mean, I could go on and on about the self-destructive things women do! But that's not really my point.
As I've suggested previously, men's and women's bodies are both sexually exciting to members of the same or opposite sexes. And, yes, as I've said, more men today are getting plastic surgery or, in one case that I had the direct experience to discover, a heterosexual man wore heavy foundation as part of his daily routine (because he said, he was used to being in front of strobe lights).
So don't misunderstand; there's a LOT of scholarship on men's bodies, masculinity, etc. The difference is that men grow up being more confident about their bodies because they are given the freedom to enjoy their bodies. And I'm specifically referring to the inequality between men's and women's torsos.
Because, yes, men and women are equal ONLY in relation to fecundity (the tools that give and receive fluids), which is understood in the context of fertility, which is why the gay movement is an open contest to this claim - because they remind heterosexuals that fecundity is more about sexuality than birth. And fertility is the reason why women or men who can't procreate - though it falls largely on women - may feel debased, unworthy or that something's wrong with them; fecundity, thus, is simply the interaction between bodies designed to fulfill a sexual experience. (I say this because I knew a woman once who told me that she had some kind of vaginal dysfunction that made it impossible for her to feel penetration; in fact, her boyfriend raped her knowing that, unless he told her, she wouldn't know he was inside her.)
Over the years, however, women and men have started making more jokes about big breasted men. Big breats on men generally result from either too much muscle or too much fat. I have, I think, mentioned Seinfeld and the joke about the man bra. Yet, as Scott Metzger's cartoon illustrates, it remains unacceptable for women to go around topless in public while it's okay for men of any sized breasts to do so.
It really doesn't matter if you want to call men's breasts pecs; they're the same thing (just ask a doctor if you doubt me; or, better, read the medical articles about men's breast cancer[1]). The point is that we women are also sexual creatures, so we also get turned on by men's exposed torsos - just as men get turned on by ours. (Gay men, of course, get turned on by men's chests.) The difference is that we're normalized to want to hide our breasts; in fact, there are criminal law that proscribe our doing so.
But what's really different about women's and men's breasts? I'm talking about the outer structures of men's and women's breasts. We all have curves and nipples, though ours might be softer - but men's breasts get softer (and saggier) the larger they are. More, we're encouraged to get mammograms, while men aren't - and that's why when men get breast cancer, their survival rate is significantly lower (because they don't get to a doctor typically until they're in the advanced stages)[1].
Of course, men's and women's fecundities are different, as they serve different purposes. So why: Continue covering up our torsos? Accept our being oversexualized compared to men? Ignore our own sexualities which includes desiring after a man's body? Refuse to be ashamed of our bodies?
Oh yes, I plan to return to this topic! It's just not often I find an illustration that clearly expresses what I'm thinking! So thanks again, Scott Metzger, for your permission to include your cartoon here!
[1] Many years ago I volunteered for the American Red Cross - Greater Houston Area Chapter. It was doing research for the Protect Your Back Program that I did a lot of readings at the Texas Medical Center libraries; it was there that I chanced on an article on men's breast cancer, then followed up by reading other case histories (because I was excited to find out about something I couldn't have imagined before then).
17 January 2012
"'More Lights, Baby'": A Language Handicapped Response to *7Sex7* (2011)
Sometime in the last 1-3 years I heard or read about plans of the adult movie industry to make porn mainstream. 7Sex7 (2011), a Croatian movie with some English, may be the first of this kind.
However, I know from my own experience watching a Bulgarian movie last year - then talking with a native about it - how easy it is to misread a movie based only on its visual cues. I can say this, though: Regardless of its classification as an erotic film, 7Sex7 (2011) is just watered down (or soft) porn comprised of seven sex ("la penetracia") scenes.
Because different scenes share things in common, however, I thought an outline might be helpful. So here goes:
(1) The 2nd-7th scenes are in color.
(2) The 2nd and 4th scenes take place inside a business (photography studio; music shop).
(3) The 1st and 7th scenes take place outside (on top of a building; in the woods).
(4) The 3rd and 5th-6th scenes take place inside apartman/apartments.
(5) The 1st-2nd and 5th scenes show women's nipples.
(6) The 1st and 6th scenes include hearing women pee (behind little wall, on toilet).
(7) The 2nd and 7th scenes show vaginas (a partial shot that reveals a bikini line shave; a full view that shows an obvious fake, something like a patch of fur).
(8) The 1st-2nd and 5th scenes show men's asses (full shot).
(9) The 5th-6th scenes include smoking after sex.
(10) The 4th and 6th scenes feature a guy named Marko (as character in scene; as character off scene).
(11) The 4th and 6th-7th scenes name characters (Helena and Marko; Marko (see previous comment); Franjo (said in response to "Kako se zoveš?", but he answers his phone as Franje)).
(12) The 5th-6th scenes show men in only panties.
(13) The 5th-6th scenes show scantily clad women (wearing lingerie; in just panties).
(14) The 1st, 4th and 7th scenes feature men fucking standing up (backside, with woman also standing; frontside, with woman sitting; frontside, with woman also standing).
(15) The 2nd and 5th scenes add ambiguity to the sex (doesn't show consummation; hides women under a blanket).
(16) The 1st-2nd and 4th-7th scenes feature frenzied, deviant sex (deviant explained later in my response).
(17) The 5th-6th scenes don't start with conversations.
(18) The 2nd and 5th scenes include but show no consummation of same sex action (man on man; woman on woman).
That's most of what I remember, anyway. The 2nd scene, though, raises some interesting questions.
For example, the 2nd scene is the only one that expresses intimacy between two characters (as opposed to the threesome in the 5th scene). However, consummation of the sexual act is absent though suggested as the foreseeable outcome.
Did I mention that the characters in the 2nd scene are "gay" men? I highlight "gay" because it's part of the men's conversation, which includes references to Shakespeare and teatro/theatre.
It's possible, though, that the concept "gay" is something new for Croatians - or, if not new, little talked about; but I'm just a tourist, so I really have no clue. It's also conceivable that the scriptwriter's "gay" since the only evidence of intimacy is in the 2nd scene of 7Sex7 (2011) - because I think intimacy's an important aspect of normal sexual relationships.
Don't confuse me, as I have no interest in the politics of sex. As a heterosexual, however, I only really responded to the 2nd scene; had it not been paused, it's possible I would've been turned on - because, as I said, the only real intimacy shown in the movie is between these "gay" men.
However, the closest 7Sex7 (2011) gets to erotic (besides the 2nd scene) happens with the female on female action in the 5th scene, which, like the 2nd scene, suggests vulnerability in one of the characters. But the women - Lada and Stela[1] - make up part of a threesome with a man, and are likely prostitutes because the blonde says something to the man about "kompencacion"/compensation.
Of course, men are the obvious targets of 7Sex7 (2011). After all, the various heterosexual sex acts points to the failure of the man's imagination - generalizing here! - to recognize that women generally respond differently to sex than men. Now, this topic of sex is something I know - because these conversations are part of normal discourses in the U.S.
But I'm in Croatia. So here are two questions 7Sex7 (2011) raises:
- Is this kind of frenzied sexual activity normal for Croatians?
- Are Croatian women satisfied with their sex lives - that is, are they experiencing regular orgasms?
As an outsider, though, what 7Sex7 (2011) looks like is a bunch of strangers deciding to fuck at around the same time[2] on "Mon 9 Mar" - this date because the camera focuses on the clock at least twice in the 6th scene and, since all the scenes are thematically connected by sex, I'm guessing that it's significant. But if you also saw the movie, let me anticipate you by asking: Do you remember what happens in the 6th scene?
Let me tell you. In the 6th scene the guy turns out not to be the one in the photos of the couple; but the woman is. From what the camera does and the woman addressing her caller as Marko, it's obvious she's cheating (having an adulterous relationship). That's not the only thing to mark their sex as deviant, however.
So let me be clearer: Deviant sex is any sex that lacks intimacy. Healthy sexual relationships, thus, reflect intimacy because they're based on trust and open communication. Since I believe that real love is rare and happens only between two people at one time (I will comment on this further in another post), I obviously have a very strict view on how I define deviant sexual relations.
7Sex7 (2011), thus, bored me exactly because it presents extended performances of deviant sex. For me, an erotic film should tease and sensualize the viewer.
In fact, I once saw an excellent example of an erotic movie (just don't ask me the name of it) that inspired me to masturbate. Let me suggest, therefore, that if filmmakers want to succeed visually with eroticism, they should target women. Anything else is just porn - because it doesn't take much to excite men.
P.S. I think at least one of the three young couples sitting behind me in the auditorium yesterday were getting each other off - because I heard moaning (first from a female, later a male) during the 2nd scene. As for the other viewers, there was an older couple sitting below me and, also behind me, one solitary male.
[1] Their names can be found on the kitchen cabinet door.
[2] I'm saying this for two reasons: it's light out in the scenes where the sky's visible, while the 1st scene (in black and white) suggests light because the man appears to be working with building maintenance tools; 7Sex7 (2011) can be read as pieces of a slice of life vignette, which takes as its premise a particular time and place that's randomly chosen.
References
7Sex7 [Color - b&w]. (2011). Directed by Irena Skoric. Croatia: Artizana film. [I used http://www.irenaskoric.com/7_seX_7_EN.html for this information.]
However, I know from my own experience watching a Bulgarian movie last year - then talking with a native about it - how easy it is to misread a movie based only on its visual cues. I can say this, though: Regardless of its classification as an erotic film, 7Sex7 (2011) is just watered down (or soft) porn comprised of seven sex ("la penetracia") scenes.
Because different scenes share things in common, however, I thought an outline might be helpful. So here goes:
(1) The 2nd-7th scenes are in color.
(2) The 2nd and 4th scenes take place inside a business (photography studio; music shop).
(3) The 1st and 7th scenes take place outside (on top of a building; in the woods).
(4) The 3rd and 5th-6th scenes take place inside apartman/apartments.
(5) The 1st-2nd and 5th scenes show women's nipples.
(6) The 1st and 6th scenes include hearing women pee (behind little wall, on toilet).
(7) The 2nd and 7th scenes show vaginas (a partial shot that reveals a bikini line shave; a full view that shows an obvious fake, something like a patch of fur).
(8) The 1st-2nd and 5th scenes show men's asses (full shot).
(9) The 5th-6th scenes include smoking after sex.
(10) The 4th and 6th scenes feature a guy named Marko (as character in scene; as character off scene).
(11) The 4th and 6th-7th scenes name characters (Helena and Marko; Marko (see previous comment); Franjo (said in response to "Kako se zoveš?", but he answers his phone as Franje)).
(12) The 5th-6th scenes show men in only panties.
(13) The 5th-6th scenes show scantily clad women (wearing lingerie; in just panties).
(14) The 1st, 4th and 7th scenes feature men fucking standing up (backside, with woman also standing; frontside, with woman sitting; frontside, with woman also standing).
(15) The 2nd and 5th scenes add ambiguity to the sex (doesn't show consummation; hides women under a blanket).
(16) The 1st-2nd and 4th-7th scenes feature frenzied, deviant sex (deviant explained later in my response).
(17) The 5th-6th scenes don't start with conversations.
(18) The 2nd and 5th scenes include but show no consummation of same sex action (man on man; woman on woman).
That's most of what I remember, anyway. The 2nd scene, though, raises some interesting questions.
For example, the 2nd scene is the only one that expresses intimacy between two characters (as opposed to the threesome in the 5th scene). However, consummation of the sexual act is absent though suggested as the foreseeable outcome.
Did I mention that the characters in the 2nd scene are "gay" men? I highlight "gay" because it's part of the men's conversation, which includes references to Shakespeare and teatro/theatre.
It's possible, though, that the concept "gay" is something new for Croatians - or, if not new, little talked about; but I'm just a tourist, so I really have no clue. It's also conceivable that the scriptwriter's "gay" since the only evidence of intimacy is in the 2nd scene of 7Sex7 (2011) - because I think intimacy's an important aspect of normal sexual relationships.
Don't confuse me, as I have no interest in the politics of sex. As a heterosexual, however, I only really responded to the 2nd scene; had it not been paused, it's possible I would've been turned on - because, as I said, the only real intimacy shown in the movie is between these "gay" men.
However, the closest 7Sex7 (2011) gets to erotic (besides the 2nd scene) happens with the female on female action in the 5th scene, which, like the 2nd scene, suggests vulnerability in one of the characters. But the women - Lada and Stela[1] - make up part of a threesome with a man, and are likely prostitutes because the blonde says something to the man about "kompencacion"/compensation.
Of course, men are the obvious targets of 7Sex7 (2011). After all, the various heterosexual sex acts points to the failure of the man's imagination - generalizing here! - to recognize that women generally respond differently to sex than men. Now, this topic of sex is something I know - because these conversations are part of normal discourses in the U.S.
But I'm in Croatia. So here are two questions 7Sex7 (2011) raises:
- Is this kind of frenzied sexual activity normal for Croatians?
- Are Croatian women satisfied with their sex lives - that is, are they experiencing regular orgasms?
As an outsider, though, what 7Sex7 (2011) looks like is a bunch of strangers deciding to fuck at around the same time[2] on "Mon 9 Mar" - this date because the camera focuses on the clock at least twice in the 6th scene and, since all the scenes are thematically connected by sex, I'm guessing that it's significant. But if you also saw the movie, let me anticipate you by asking: Do you remember what happens in the 6th scene?
Let me tell you. In the 6th scene the guy turns out not to be the one in the photos of the couple; but the woman is. From what the camera does and the woman addressing her caller as Marko, it's obvious she's cheating (having an adulterous relationship). That's not the only thing to mark their sex as deviant, however.
So let me be clearer: Deviant sex is any sex that lacks intimacy. Healthy sexual relationships, thus, reflect intimacy because they're based on trust and open communication. Since I believe that real love is rare and happens only between two people at one time (I will comment on this further in another post), I obviously have a very strict view on how I define deviant sexual relations.
7Sex7 (2011), thus, bored me exactly because it presents extended performances of deviant sex. For me, an erotic film should tease and sensualize the viewer.
In fact, I once saw an excellent example of an erotic movie (just don't ask me the name of it) that inspired me to masturbate. Let me suggest, therefore, that if filmmakers want to succeed visually with eroticism, they should target women. Anything else is just porn - because it doesn't take much to excite men.
P.S. I think at least one of the three young couples sitting behind me in the auditorium yesterday were getting each other off - because I heard moaning (first from a female, later a male) during the 2nd scene. As for the other viewers, there was an older couple sitting below me and, also behind me, one solitary male.
[1] Their names can be found on the kitchen cabinet door.
[2] I'm saying this for two reasons: it's light out in the scenes where the sky's visible, while the 1st scene (in black and white) suggests light because the man appears to be working with building maintenance tools; 7Sex7 (2011) can be read as pieces of a slice of life vignette, which takes as its premise a particular time and place that's randomly chosen.
References
7Sex7 [Color - b&w]. (2011). Directed by Irena Skoric. Croatia: Artizana film. [I used http://www.irenaskoric.com/7_seX_7_EN.html for this information.]
