Her Majesty

So I recently started re-watching the Showtime Series: The Tutors because my wonderful friend gave me her password to Netflicks Instant Watch (which is the greatest thing ever). The main appeal of the show are the costumes (not entirely accurate but amazing) and the sex (b/c Jonathon Reese Myers is hot). For me, the show also highlights the age-old problem of women in history; "using sex to get what she wants." Anne Boleyn uses her feminine wiles and seduces Henry VIII into marrying her but not before he changes the course of history by breaking off from the Catholic Church and creating the Church of England which allows divorce. Anne "bewitches" Henry into doing all of these things (which of course she later dies for). I have two issues with this situation. 1) Henry (of course) never took responsibility for his actions. He never admitted his weakness and his inability to resist Anne. His blatant desire to bang her (especially in the show) made him do everything that she asks. 2) History views Anne Boleyn as a whore and witch when in reality, she affected the history of Western civilization. But I also have a problem with giving her too much credit b/c she did use her body to get what she wanted (to be Queen and lots of bank). It all comes back to agency. Henry gave Anne too much agency by blaming her for the entire thing. Other people deny her agency by saying that she was following her father's orders or was a complete victim of Henry's whims.

To bring this to the present day, most of the posts in the blog have been about agency. Women constantly struggle with issues of agency especially in scholarship. Students of women's history deal with problems of agency everyday. But so do women. As the Albright Sheriff pointed out, the hookup culture highlights this issue b/c some people claim that it is always detrimental to women by assuming that we need an emotional connection to sex at all times. In media, women are portrayed as victims of the sexual needs of men (granted a lot of times they are) but not always especially not in the ways that people assume. So, where is your agency?

Love,

(still in need of a pen-name)

What's love got to do with it? College & the Hookup Culture

"Sex first, ((maybe)) date later" has been my motto for most of my single college career, and definitely characterizes the college dating scene at large. First of all, it's easier to get laid by a random dude than to get him to take you on a date (though I've had my fair share of Northampton creepers with strange facial hair ask me out). Second of all, for me at least, sex is a very important piece of any burgeoning relationship, and I'd rather know early on if that chemistry just ain't there. Third, that's just the way it goes and it's easier to adjust to the system than to buck it and try to find real romance at beer-soaked parties.

But what bothers me isn't actually about the hookup culture itself, but rather about the response to it by "sexperts." Smith College's Wellness Director (she talks to us about stress, sleep, and orgasms...I WANT HER JOB) has blasted the hookup culture (and she isn't alone as a critic) as being bad for women in particular, dragging out that old standard line that women need more emotional connection and will feel like unfulfilled whores if they're not fucking someone who intends to wife them.

...really? Sigh. First of all, have you seen the BDOCs (Big Dyke On Campus) here? They tear through nubile, naive first years with a vengeance, and seem to have NO sense of remorse or lack of satisfaction or worries that they might be whores. And neither do any of my straight friends who indulge in hookups devoid of meaning here and there.

The only caveat for me (aside from making it safe; don't be stupid, babies and herpes meds are waaaay more expensive than the Pill and a rubber) is that you have to know and accept what you're doing. If you know that, for yourself, you need to have an emotional connection with someone before you get naked in order to maintain your self-respect and to enjoy the sex, congratulations for having that self-knowledge.

But if you, like me, acknowledge that such hookups will likely only end with your carnal needs being met (if you're lucky...), than proceed forth and have a great time. Some hookups can develop into relationships, if that's what you're looking for, but as long you enter into it with no expectations other than a fun time, there's no reason to walk away feeling dissatisfied or used. Don't let archaic, old-school notions of women and our supposed needs get in the way of your pleasure...IF that's what you want and understand the way that it will proceed. Both men and women can get tired of no-strings attached sex, and if you're in that boat, be honest with yourself and the people you date/fuck.

Meaningful sex with someone you love CAN be intensely pleasurable; Beefcake and I tried making love once instead of our usual fast-and-furious fucking, and it was wonderful. But I've also had sex without strings attached that blew my mind. And as I get to know Meatball* (originally just a hookup) better as a real human being, the sex is definitely improving. You can experience the best of both worlds, just not at once (if you find a way, teach me).

Knowing what you want and need and acting in a way congruent with that is one of the best ways to exercise your sexual agency as a woman, whether that means quickie sex in bar bathrooms (still on my bucket list) or sex within a monogamous relationship on a bed of rose petals.

Much love,
The Albright Sheriff

*Meatball=new, less mocking name for Sharpshooter

From the Hills to our Humps

While it is finals time, it is also time for me to procrastinate in a HUGE way. I painted my nails last night. they're hot pink and awesome! And while I wrote my paper, I had the TV turned on to MTV (I couldn't find the remote- per usual- and it was the last channel the TV had been on when it was last on). The new season of "The Hills" just started. In the several hours that I sat at my desk writing my paper/watching tv/painting my nails, I watched enough vitriol, fake tans, bleached hair, and plastic surgery to make me so grateful for not being a UT (texas, thank you very much) sorority bitch. (thank heaven- and mom and dad- for that one.)

I don't watch MTV normally- the thought of Snooky makes me cringe, and music videos put me to sleep. It was quite an education in the state of interpersonal relationships in the US among young people. Really. Law and Order doesn't accomplish the same thing. I'd like to rant a little bit about it now:

1. HEIDI IS PLASTIC. Her mother CRIED. I was looking at Barbie. She said she WANTED TO BE BARBIE. She tried to verbalize how much pressure she was under by society and the media to look "perfect." She couldn't cry when her mother told her she'd gone too far. In a nutshell- what bothers me most about this moment that has been encapsulated on MTV is that our perfection-obsessed, porn-based, media-obsessed, photoshopping, OMG-SHE-ISN'T-WEARING-DOLCE-AND-MAKEUP-TO-GET-A-CUP-OF-COFFEE-AFTER-YOGA, society pushed this vulnerable woman into thinking she has to be BARBIE to have a career and to be a functioning member of society. This moment is a HUGE reality-check. Do we need to remove ourselves from what humans are supposed to look like genetically in order to be beautiful?

2. If our ideal of beauty remains the bust of Nefertiti- we need to remember that it's a statue, calculated to be geometrically perfect, NOT a person. The cast of the Hills NEVER ate. Over the course of three episodes, food never went in their mouths. They drank bottles of booze and wore their string bikinis, but never put some form of nutrition in their mouths. Way to promote healthy lifestyles. The preteen and teenage girls who watch this show- with an obsession almost as intense as their ridiculous love for vampires- are taking what they see to heart.

3. There was one part of an episode when Spencer was talking to one of the guys about how if he dates a girl for a certain amount of time, the engagement ring is expected, then the wedding happens, then he's whipped, then after a year and a half, there's an expectation of having babies. REALLY? This is how you view long-term relationships? This is how you think women think? This is the message you're sending to men? That we all want the same thing and you shouldn't think that a woman might just want to be in a relationship with you while the going's good? So let's just put this in context with current events: we have Tiger Woods, the Palin fiasco, hiking in Appalachia=fucking a stripper in Argentina, Sandra Bullock/Jesse James blow-up, and Twilight. NONE of these promotes a solid, mature male presence in a relationship. Men are being told left and right that being a womanizing, adulterous, controlling, abusive asshole is expected of them in our society. So, when Spencer tells his bros that being married is a giant hellhole, he's reinforcing this image.

4. Bitchy gossip. I admit, I sit and obnoxiously observe people all day long. It's fun. But when you are pissed that a girlfriend doesn't party with you for a night on a trip and then sleeps late and your response is to whisper to each other and come up with the fact that said girlfriend MUST be on drugs, that's crossing a line. I have no idea who these people are, but they are rounding out my Hills rant nicely. The amount of energy spent accusing this poor girl of being a druggie just because she has a life really took me over the edge- we've moved past the witch trials... really. The gossip they spread caused friction with her family, friends, and job. To damage someone that much because you're upset that she didn't choose to party with you is way out of line.

Massachusetts just passed an anti-bullying bill. Contrasting this measure with the actions taken by an insecure group of girls on the Hills places into focus how extensive and out-of-hand bullying has become. The schoolyard bully has become the college bully and the workplace bully and the boss who's a bully. It has pervaded every area of our lives and everyone has been damaged by it at some point in their life. We can't all be queen bees all the time- we need to learn to have a little Aretha-style respect and know that we can be kind and still get where we want to be in life. (Women in the workforce is a WHOLE other can of worms...)

So, in summation- The Hills was a little microcosm of contemporary culture of the United States. It simultaneously freaked me out and made me realize how pervasive negative visions of beauty, health, relationships, and friendship have become in the US and how much has to be done to restore a sense of balance in our society. We can celebrate our humps but we need to remember that people have the right to celebrate theirs- from AA to DD and size 0 to whatever.

OOOOOHHHHH FUNNY and so relevant: http://perezhilton.com/2010-04-28-the-little-hills

Love,

texas

Definitely not the raunchiest entry.

My heart sank like Virginia Woolf. Following a recount of my experience working at a birthing center, I had just told my mother over the phone that the midwives and obstetrician-gynecologists I worked with recommended a pelvic exam at least once a year for females eighteen years old and over. “No,” was the instant reply. When asked why, my mother told me it was unnecessary for women to have an exam when they were not sexually active or married—the implication either being that women should not be sexually active until they get married, or that only sexually active women require pelvic exams—both statements which I did not agree with. It saddened me because my mother’s religious and cultural beliefs were contaminating her view of standard health protocol. I can’t say, however, that I was saddened by her view on sex because I believe all people are different and entitled to their own beliefs. Just as I think it is wrong to judge a single person who has had multiple sexual partners, I think it is also wrong to judge someone who believes in abstinence before marriage. What makes me even sadder, though, is the thought that your average Smithie does not share my sentiments.

Smith professes to be a diverse and accepting community, yet I find it to only be that way towards people who fit within a certain mold. If you are a Conservative or a Republican, you are not welcome. If you believe there is a God, you are not welcome (especially if you are Christian.) This is mainly because people automatically assume that your identification as a Conservative/Republican/Monotheist insinuates that you are a homophobe devoid of reason. Thus, here at Smith my mother would probably be used as the perfect case study of an ignorant, religiously fanatic prude. Her religion, culture and views on marriage immediately culminate in one point: she is wrong. This is how Smithies can be just as narrow-minded and judgmental as the people they profess to differ completely from.

My concern, specifically, is on how culture and religion affect perceptions of sex. The personal beliefs I hold vacillate constantly between those who view it like my mother, and those who view it like so many Smithies. As much as I love my heritage and culture, it’s wrong to deny women of basic needs related to their reproductive health. Yet I believe in pursuing monogamous relationships because they are more fulfilling. As for religion, I strive to follow most of the absolutes written in the doctrine of my faith. But at the same time, I don’t think God is as completely rigid about rules as He is often interpreted to be. I told my mother this once, and she asked me what I meant. She also asked how I could possibly even formulate the idea of someone—God—who I had never even met.

I'm not ready to talk about all aspects of my religious beliefs with anyone yet, but I will close with a little scenario I like to play in my head every once in awhile and is a running favorite with the minuscule menagerie of an audience inside the theater of my brain. In essence, this is what I meant:

Armageddon happens. Global warming melts all the glaciers on earth, chinchillas, maltese terriers and everything else cuddly becomes extinct and Mad Men is canceled. The next morning God appears. Actual God. Turns out He/She did exist. God didn't make a huge entry. Just turned up simultaneously in the corner of every living room on the planet and proceeded to introduce Him/Herself. God was like looking at pure colours, the idea of a face. Not like Dick Cheney. God was actually pretty cute. Strangely, people didn't go berserk or faint or anything like that. God had a very calming, subduing presence, like a hug from an obese friend. At this time and place, He/She seemed to make sense.

Truth is, no one really knew what to do as they'd never experienced a desire to worship before. God was quite modest and didn't really want a fuss made, so He/She was treated as another member of the family. God possessed divine knowledge and was great for advice, but was diplomatic as well. For example, if asked about your econ. problem set, God would often just give you the answer. But when asked why Rwanda happened, God gazed off into the distance and ate a banana with a furrowed brow. Hilarious, intelligent, heart-breaking, and a little bit insane-- God was the ultimate friend. Sometimes, people got militant about their relationship with God and abused others for failing to love Him/Her enough. When this got too heated, God would zap them with his freeze ray and they'd chill out. It was a pretty good system.

Cheers,
Amanda

rap and sex

Ahh, yes. Lovely misogynistic rap music. The genre that brought us gems like "Put Anthrax on a Tampax and slap you till you can't stand," (Eminem, "Superman"), and "Do like Ice Cube, slam her ass in a ditch," (NWA, "A Bitch is a Bitch").

Shockingly violent misogyny aside, popular rap provides a pretty (disgustingly) astute commentary on sex and gender relations from a distinctly male gaze. While I don't claim to know anything about lyrics influencing today's youth to be crazy sex fiends or murderers, it's pretty damn clear that these lyrics absolutely reflect our cultural norms in relation to sex and male-female power dynamics.

I, like Chris Rock, love hip hop (especially stuff that shows some level of skill...but that's another rant) but find certain aspects of it difficult to defend. As a bisexual female with many queer/lesbian/gay friends, it can be hard to stomach Nas dissing Jay-Z for "deal(ing) with emotions like bitches" or having "dick-suckin' lips" ("Ether") without feeling kinda guilty and queasy.

I actually adore the word bitch and am trying hard to reclaim it as a positive term for smart, sexy women in charge. I am a bitch. Smithies are bitches. Hillary Clinton is bitch. Sarah Palin ain't no bitch (Palin, get on my level!). But unfortunately, I know most MCs and rappers aren't using the term that way.

Which brings me to example A, from Dr. Dre's "Housewife."
And when it all boils down you gonna find in the end
a bitch is a bitch, but a Dogg is a man's best friend
So what you found you a hoe that you like
But you can't make a hoe a housewife

Consciously or unconsciously, in the chorus of this track, Dre points out the virgin-whore complex that's as old as time: women fall into two categories in this world, and the world of rap is no exception. You can be a whore or you can be an angelic, self-sacrificing mother (or in rap, a ho or a wifey), with no gray in between. Obviously this is deeply problematic, since the vast majority of women exist somewhere in that in-between, and deserve no shame for that fact. A woman shouldn't be scorned for owning her sexuality, but that's exactly what a verse like this does: it directly juxtaposes the ho with the housewife, and acknowledges that once a ho, always a ho. A damaged reputation is burden you can never be free of. But beware housewives! You can always become hoes too, if you're not careful. Dre, much as I love you, you make me sad. I can be both a ho AND a housewife if I want to, motherfucker (the new American dream?).

And now, example B, from T.I.'s "What You Know" (an excellent song to lift to, btws)
Ya bitches get low
Because I get dough

Oh, damn. For such a short excerpt, this actually says a shit ton about heterosexual gender relations.
First of all, the women here (bitches seems to just be the neutral term for females in rap, so I'ma roll with that and not deconstruct why using it as a man is inapprops), are getting low for him, thus presumably showing their sexual availability and that they want him (FYI, male readers: just because a bitch is grinding on you DOES NOT MEAN SHE WANTS YOU. Please get that through your heads, both of 'em). But as he points out, they're doing it because he's rich, which is the age-old way men of less-than-attractive looks or of an elderly age get with women way out of their league (see: every film Marilyn Monroe was ever in). Women need their looks to get sexual attention; men just need deep pockets in order to demand sex from women.

That being said, I will probably always dance like a rap video vixen to a good beat, because it's all good fun if you don't listen too closely, and will reserve my attention for more female positive hip hop like Atmoshphere and Brother Ali.

Much love,
The Albright Sheriff

A taste of laughter

While the nature of what constitutes an "embarrassing" sexual situation is being tossed around, I have personally found that the awkward moments during sex are great for a] storytelling over meals (Albright, you know how we roll), but more importantly, b] helping the ego recover post-breakup.

An example to illustrate:

A while back, my psoriasis decided to gang up on me, leaving me with a highly uncomfortable outbreak on a highly unfortunate part of my body (yep, you guessed it: the lower lady parts). Since that's a rather sensitive part of the body, I had to be careful what I put on to relieve the itch. Thankfully, Vagisil has a numbing agent in it, which substantially relieved the pain.

On my way to work one morning, I slapped a dollop of cream on and went on my merry, itch-free way. The psoriasis had calmed so much, in fact, that I forgot it was even a problem---until later that day when I arrived at my ex's (let's call him "Harry Potter" for the sake of internet anonymity) house, that is. While proceeding to go downstairs, so to speak, Potter discovered (and attempted to relay to me, in a combination of impeded speech and frantic gesticulation) that he had ingested the Vagisil, and his mouth had gone completely numb.

Back then I was mortified---I had just Vagisil-ed my boyfriend's face, for crying out loud! How do you respond to that in the heat of the moment? But now, after a long and painfully drawn-out breakup, I feel like it was a little "taste" of preemptive karma. (That's right, douchebag, you deserve it). So for all of those embarrassing moments that happen, and happen they will, I say laugh along with them. And later on when you need to remind yourself of why you're awesome, laugh again.


Love,
La Femme N

embarrassing moments

What is it that makes something embarrassing that happens during sex? Is it the act itself, or fear about the person we're with and what they'll think of us based on that?

To illustrate further, my darlings, a little story time...

For those not in the know, the Albright Sex Fairies attend the lovely Smith College, an elite woman's college in western Massachusetts. A few weeks ago, I was issued an invitation to a frat party at the illustrious Worcester Polytechnic Institute, which seemed very promising, given their male: female ratio of 7:3 or so (for the record: Although I, the Albright Sheriff, identify as bi, since I don't present myself as particularly homo-oriented in my appearance, most of my encounters detailed here involve the male persuasion...though there certainly be surprises!).

Although we were for a long time the only people on the dance floor and certainly the only ones belting out "Bad Romance" at an epic volume, most of the lovely females in my group eventually made their way off with newly acquired "friends" at the close of the night. I found myself a good looking guy (who I picked up with the genius move of a drunken ass grab and, "Hey, you're cute" while trying to wipe the sweaty hair off my face), and we headed up to his room to get more acquainted.

The first round was actually quite good--first times with anyone new are generally awkward, getting used to new rhythms, penis sizes/girths ...plus, I've got a VCH (google it, I'll definitely blog about that later) and I imagine that can be scary. But what surprised me about this new guy was that he deliberately turned the lights off.

Why? This always surprises me. Is it embarrassment? If I'm having sex with you, presumably I want to see what I'm getting myself into (or more accurately, what I'm getting into myself). Is it a fear that the other person won't want you if they see you in all your glory under flourescent frat house lighting?

Anyway. After talking and cuddling (aw), we went at it again. As the hot and heavy wore down to a close, I lay down, waiting for him to finish. Which he did. In my eye. Thus earning himself the nickname "Sharpshooter."

And he was so embarrassed! It was adorable, actually (his embarrassment, not the cum in my bloodshot eye).

But why be embarrassed about sex with the lights on? Or about cum in the eye for that matter? Apologies (and helping me clean up) are one thing. But to feel uncomfortable because you screwed up? Why bother?

Sex is messy. Funny things happen. My philosophy is usually either, "eh, could be worse" or to laugh it off. Cum in the eye? Not my fave sex move, but not deadly (though I did have to put in a new contact when we returned to Smith). I try not to fuck people I feel too much pressure to be perfect with in bed, because that's a disaster waiting to happen. SOMETHING (in the form of ED, a lost piercing, a queef, a nosy sibling, whatever) will inevitably happen, and to really enjoy and be in control of my sex life, I've got to be able to laugh it off and to take it in stride. Sex brings up enough insecurities without letting the inevitable fuckups get in the way of enjoying it.

Sharpshooter later visited me for my birthday (aw). And this time, he came in my EAR. But his aim seems to be improving, as my nose has not yet been violated (or my left eye!). Something to work towards, I guess.

Much love,
The Albright Sheriff

Man-whores

Man-whore: a man who engages in a variety of sexual activity outside of a relationship. Ideally, incredibly skilled at this activity although not always a reality.

Slut (standard definition): a woman who engages in a variety of sexual activity.

Hmm, same definition and therein lies my problem. According to this popular definition, I am a slut but I do not agree. The word slut robs women of their sexual agency because it assumes that any woman who undertakes sexual activity outside of a relationship does so because she needs men to validate her sense of self-worth whereas that is not always the case. Someone I know recently described the word slut as the sound that old mashed potatoes make when they hit the ground. The word man-whore simply describes men who engages in sexual activity without any positive or negative connotations because people assume that men always have sexual agency. (Although I don't know how many people use the term man-whore while slut is used all-too liberally) Thus, the concept of man having sex too much does not exist. In fact, I recently called a guy a man-whore and he looked at me like I was crazy. I replied "what, you are." By calling men man-whores, I am trying to delineate this difference; men can't have too much sex while women can. Men can have casual, "I just wanted to get some sex" but for women, sex always means "something" or she got hurt in the process of a one night stand. I'm not saying that a one-night stand is the best form of sexual interaction (usually it's not) or that women can't get hurt in the process (cause they can) but all I want is the ability for women to have sex with who they want and when they want without being called a slut or whore. Plus, in my experience (again just mine) one-night stands or casual-hookups have caused less damage to my emotional well-being than long-term relationships. Just because society tells me that a relationship is "better" or "healthier" does not mean that society is right.

The female equivalent of man-whore, whore, carries the same amount of social baggage as slut. It's a problem of language. A woman who lives her sexual life as she desires can describe herself as "sexually liberated" or an "empowered woman" but these terms have no "sex-appeal," no shine or sparkle. I am in search of term to describe a sexually-liberated woman that does not make me sound like a crazy lunatic who does not shave her armpits. Please let me know if you come up with one.

Special note: Everyone should keep in mind that I am an equal opportunity objectifer. If men want to objectify me (as a woman) in their speech, songs, or other forms of media, that is fine as long as they will accept the fact that I (as a woman) have every right to objectify them in an equal manner. I do not necessarily think that people should objectify each other but if I am fighting for equality, then this is honestly the easier option.

Just because

from overheadinnewyork.com
Teenage boy: Did you know that "woman" spelled backwards is "kitchen"?
Female suit with briefcase: Go fuck yourself.

--Times Square

Much love,
The Albright Sheriff

Empowered Woman vs Slut: What's the Diff?

In my feminist, utopian vision of the world, I've always conceived of women wielding their sexuality in the carefree way that men did: as a positive, pleasurable force in their lives that needn't be related directly to makin' babies, that allowed them to have sex with whomever they wanted, as much as they wanted, however they wanted, even if that meant one night stands, multiple partners, women/men/transgendered individuals, whatever, as long as it was consensual.

Which sounds suspiciously like the old-school definiton of a slut.

While I could go on for ages about women being taught to fear their sexuality/the double standard (and surely will in later posts), suffice it to say that one of my most intense middle school memories was my Nana telling me that the shirt I wore my first day of 5th grade made me look "fast" (which, presumably, would make me end up miserable with six kids and a philandering husband like her...thanks, Nana, but I'll pass).

I had a clear image then and now of what constituted a slut. I am sad to say that I have been that judgmental bitch at the club, commenting on how nasty and whore-ish you look in that dress with those clear heels. Just like porn, you know sluts when you see them.

Or do you? Is that slut just maybe an empowered female, reclaiming her sexuality with a positive force, laughing at your judgment the whole time?

(Maybe if she took off those clear heels...)

In all seriousness, the working definition I've come up with (for my sexuality and for ALL empowered women, which I hope is every woman!), is the following:

Empowered women have sex with who they want, when they want, how they want, but they do so because of their own desire, not just because it's available. "Sluts" participate in sex with anyone, anytime, just because someone wants them and they need that validation of being wanted so much (which we all do, to an extent).

That's my bit. I'd love to hear what ya'll think! Anyone out there (besides my partner in crime in this blog) reclaiming the word slut?

Much love,
The Albright Sheriff

Mission Statement

The authors of this blog would like to invite you to read about our recent musings on sexual encounters in college. Our mission is to examine the gender dynamics in the sexual milleu of college life and reclaim female sexuality to be equivalent (although not identical) to male sexuality.

We hope that this will be a positive forum for women to discuss sexual issues. Our main goal is to have fun!