See, the thing about female sexuality is.....


Ororo Munroe
The discussion on the Tuvok post got me thinking: when women talk about asserting themselves sexually or taking complete control of their sexuality, straight men automatically agree and avidly nod in support.  I think they do so because straight men think that when women take full control of their sexuality, it means they'll be more readily available to men.

That's why they encourage women to dress in revealing outfits.  That's why they swear up and down they respect the women they're plying with liquor, even as they treat them like whores.

What men don't understand is that for a woman to take complete control of her sexuality, she has to do just that: take complete control.  The physical alone is not enough to turn on, properly pleasure, and satisfy a woman.  So when she takes complete control of her sexuality, it means she first has to accept a few things about herself.

First of all, she has to determine whether or not she's happy being a woman.  If she is not, she may need to change that.

Secondly, if she is happy being a woman, she has to determine whether she's even sexual or not.

But let's say she is sexual.  Does she like men?  Does she like women?  Does she like both?  Whatever she likes (so long as it's not a child), she needs to accept it.  She will not be happy until she does.  She will not be fully satisfied until she embraces whatever she knows will satisfy her - friends, family, and church folk be damned.

Now, to get my point across, let's say the woman likes men.  A heterosexual woman who decides to take full control of her sexuality is not going to be a loose woman.  If anything, she's going to be pickier than ever. So if the woman wants a scholar, she's not settling for a jock.  If she wants kids, she's not going to waste any time with any man who doesn't want kids or doesn't believe in monogamy/marriage.  If she wants a gainfully employed man, the deadbeats will need not apply.

And if a man should somehow worm his way into her bed, there will be no "lying there" politely, trying not to yawn while the man above her tells himself he's actually doing something.  The well of pity sex will dry up at once; her "good friends" and emo exes-in-mourning will just have to go without.  There will be no forgiving poor performances because her lover has a pretty face, or makes good money, or has a body that makes all her friends jealous.

And if the woman herself has to go without, then woman in complete control of her sexuality will go without.  She will go without until she gets what she actually wants.  She will not let fear of being alone or her friends' attempts to share their dissatisfied misery trick her into settling and wasting her time with the wrong man.

Because there's no use in buying pudding if cheesecake is what will satisfy you.  Go hard or go home.

Now, I'm not saying anything new, of course.  Some male readers actually know this stuff.  Why then, do they continue to encourage women to take complete control of their sexuality?  For the same reason white people used to say they were going to vote for Colin Powell - it seems like the right thing to say.

It's polite.  It's politically correct.  It's "progressive."  It's just the thing men are misguided enough to believe they can say to get a woman into bed.

Comments

  1. And if the woman herself has to go without, then woman in complete control of her sexuality will go without. She will go without until she gets what she wants. She will not let fear of being alone or her friends' attempts to share their own dissatisfied misery trick her into settling and wasting her time with the wrong man.

    GIRL, TELL THE TRUTH AND SHAME THE FUCKING DEVIL! This is the gospel right here! This is EXACTLY what I've been saying...what's the point of fucking around (pun intended) if you can't have what you really want?

    *throws money on the table and whistles* Thank you; I couldn't have worded it better myself!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Somebody needs to put this on a plaque!

    ReplyDelete
  3. @ Vivi

    Major Co-sign.

    This was amazing! Can we burn every "Miss Independent"-like song while this is recited over a loud speaker?

    ReplyDelete
  4. This post resonates hard for me. The effort exerted to control every aspect of Women's lives, makes me angry and sex just ups the ante even more.

    How we think, feel and live is up to us and no one else. I remember taking a trip to Cape Cod. I wanted some alone time and booked myself into a lovely B&B.

    Me being alone caused a lot of discomfort from the owner of the B&B to the guests. The assumption was that my solitude was not my choice. I had to be in default mode because I was a Woman.

    Had a man walked in alone, no one would've thought twice. I remember receiving dinner invites and constant reassurance from the owner that it was "okay" for me to be by myself.

    I didn't need the invites or reassurance, but since I was some "lonely" chick, they all wanted to look out for poor little ole me. I was so f*ckin' annoyed.

    Whether you roll solo, are childless, husband-less or celibate, the world assumes it's never your choice at all.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Whether you roll solo, are childless, husband-less or celibate, the world assumes it's never your choice at all. "

    Too true. To use celebrities as an example, when was the last time they asked George Clooney when he plans to marry? Or if he wants children?

    Yet they have no problem putting that question (repeatedly) to any female celebrity over 21 and still single, as if it's a big Crime Of Nature for a woman not to have a man glued to her hip. Not to mention the gay rumours that spread IF she never has a man on her hip.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Female sexuality is so confusing. It's a good thing I'm a virgin. lol

    ReplyDelete
  7. Whether you roll solo, are childless, husband-less or celibate, the world assumes it's never your choice at all.

    Or maybe the world is intimidated by it, and so goes on a preemptive strike.

    Think about it; women are touted as emotional, irrational, and needy. Western civilization in particular has thrived with that as one of its core principles.

    Snatch that delusion from them and you basically topple a very crucial pillar. Men don't want to hear that just being men is "not enough" for a straiught women. Money and good looks are not enough either. Dick really is not enough - they have to bring something else to the table and that what's got men tripping all over themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  8. OMG. EPIC post!

    I've made waiting on cheesecake an art form. And boy is it ever worth it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've always said that a man needs more than a dick and a smile to get my attention. Shit, you can go and purchase a dick at your local Starship Enterprises and smile at yourself. So he gonna need way more than that if he wants to swing my way.

    @Stephe: New York Style, at that!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ Amaya

    Shit, you can go and purchase a dick at your local Starship Enterprises and smile at yourself.

    Ohhhh...Lawd.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Good stuff, good stuff Ankh.

    Although I have one bone to pick: A truly asexual person can be perfectly happy about their situation. They don't feel the need for the sexual element of their romantic partnerships, if they're even interested in romantic relationships at all. If someone is a fully productive member of society, is able to create working relationships with people, and is generally happy with her/his life, I wouldn't classify that as a disorder.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @ aine-xenon

    At this time, hyposexuality is classified as a disorder because it's often caused either by the physical (such as a hormonal imbalance) or the psychological (such as a trauma).

    Humans are sexual animals. An asexual human in their prime (not older age) - no matter how happy they are with it or how high-functioning they are - is considered contrary to the natural order. Granted, this view could change in the future, but as of now, it is an actual disorder.

    And if it's caused by the physical, it could simply be a symptom of a much bigger health problem.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oh my God, how I missed the post I have NOOOOOO idea, but I'm catching up on all of my Blasian Narritive Posts for sure! Did you, Moi, see the post I'd done a few months ago? It's either in my facebook notes, or on my blogger page, but I was pretty much ranting about the SAME thing; about how I openly admit I'm a sexual being, but at the same time, that doesn't make me promiscuous either.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @ Ankh,

    "no matter how happy they are with it or how high-functioning they are - is considered contrary to the natural order."

    That's what the establishment said about homosexuality in the 19th century. There is way too much we still don't fully understand about human sexuality for me to believe that those who deviate from the stated norm have to be affected by a "disorder", instead of being just being complete people exactly in the hormonal way they are.

    By my observation and familiarity of the two asexual buddies that I have, they were neither abused, nor do they feel anything is "wrong" or disordered about themselves. In fact, more than once, they called themselves the lucky ones because they are freed from what the rest of us consider a biological imperative. Their perspective on the matter is quite a bit different than what the professionals have to say on the matter.

    Regardless, I find human asexuality very fascinating because it turns the assumptions about "natural" desires of sexual congress on its head.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @ aine-xenon

    Reread my comment, particularly the end.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

This blog is strictly moderated. Everyone is now able to comment again, however, all Anonymous posts will be immediately deleted. Comments on posts more than 30 days old are generally dismissed, so try to stay current with the conversations.