Lately most of my posts have veered toward the serious in topic, which is great and all (I've been reading the ten books about sex and feminism that I bought on Amazon...perhaps that's an influence?), but a little lighthearted, sex-advicey piece feels more appropriate today.
So children, let's talk about threesomes.
Threesomes can range from the sublime (pleasure from all angles!) to the ridiculously awkward (one man rubbing another man's cum into my back as if it were nice massage oil!). They allow you a safe space (ideally) to act out a fantasy, to please two people at once or to be pampered by two people at once (which is possibly the most incredible thing I've ever experienced, save for Herrel's chocolate whip cream). Group sex was likely what convinced Beefcake to give a relationship a try, that not all relationships were suffocatingly close and sexually dull (it didn't hurt that it involved an Eastern European girl, I'm sure). They give you a sense of validation (TWO people want me? AWESOME!) but if your heart's not in it and you're doing it more for your partner, you risk feeling even worse afterward.
Unfortunately, for women, threesomes are becoming more de riguer than strange experimental sex act (while I don't think they're as common as, say, missionary position, they're no longer relegated to freaky things that you should be ashamed of, though it is interpreted as an indication of a certain sexual permissiveness and adventurous attitude). And that's fantastic if it's something you'd like to explore. But if it's not, and you're only trying it for your partner and to satisfy their fantasies, the whole experience could be uncomfortable and feel like you're being pressured into something. In the performance vs pleasure dichotomy, you choose performance to make the other person happy, even if it means a queasy stomach during the whole process. A threesome shouldn't be seen as a gift for just the man or just one person; it should be about all of you enjoying yourselves. It's similar to all of those (ridiculous, repetitive, downright STUPID) articles in Cosmo and the like touting "50 New Ways to Please Your Man!" Who said I was with a man? And Cosmo, what about my pleasure?
There is ample pleasure to be had in a threesome if it is something you actually want to do. If you're just doing it for someone else and have no real desire to indulge in it, you might surprise yourself and find it to be a turn on...or you might hate it. The most important thing with threesomes (and all sex, honestly) is to know what you like. Sometimes, this can only be found through experimentation, but if the very idea of something makes you feel like you wanna vom, perhaps it's best to keep that relegated to your partner's fantasies and to focus on something that both turns you on and gives you a sense of sexual empowerment of knowing what you enjoy and how to get it.
You also need to be able to communicate what you like. No one can read your mind (although maybe I should try fucking a psychic before I make that allegation); use your words, you're a big girl! Tell them what you want, or at the very least, guide their hand, tongue, vibrator, whatever, to where you want it to be. This is especially important with threesomes, where you're most likely to suffer simply from over stimulation (not literally, most of the time), because there's two people to attend to and your own enjoyment can get lost in the mix.
It's also important to take stock of how you feel about yourself, especially if you're bringing another woman into the bedroom. Do you have low self-esteem? Do you feel self-conscious naked? Do you constantly compare your appearance to that of other women to see how you rank? If any of those questions ring a bell for you, it might be best to not necessarily seek out the "hottest" woman to join you in bed, but to find someone you genuinely feel comfortable around. It can also be nice to have someone new who touches you as if you're a goddess, especially if you've been a relationship for a long time and that sense of "OMG I'm so lucky this person wants to be naked around me" fades. If they make you feel gorgeous and relaxed, the experience will be that much more pleasurable and you can focus on how good it feels instead of wondering if they noticed your stretch marks or stomach fat or [insert female body insecurity here].
And of course, be safe. But that's a fucking no brainer, right guys? Condoms aren't expensive, but a baby or living with herpes certainly would be.
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Saturday, June 12, 2010
lil freak or SLUG?: bisexuality and the college scene
If you read this blog with any regularity, you know I'm bi (though pan is the more politically correct term and truly means the same for my personal intents and purposes, bi just feels comfortable for me). I've known since probably sixth grade, but growing up in Pennsyltucky, didn't exactly have the discourse or safe space available to me to explain what that meant for me and as such am out to almost everyone except for my family. I've been romantically and sexually involved with both men and women, though thanks to my overwhelmingly femme hetero appearance, it's mostly been the menfolk. I've had my share of threesomes of all combinations, and in fact rung in the New Year and Christmas with them (they can be awesome...perhaps a post of that to follow).
But despite the threesome perks, bisexuality has a tendency to bring out reactions in people that, for lack of a better word, SUCK. The two that come to mind most prominently for me are the hardcore Smithies and unfortunately many hetero men (not all, mind you, but a lot!).
SLUG is one of those many acronyms common to the Smith vernacular, and gets tossed around constantly, especially first year. It stands for Smith Lesbian Until Graduation, which is what many people identifying as bi (especially if you don't come out as soon as you are accepted into Smith) are often brushed off as. But that's absolutely RIDICULOUS. I know much of Smith is composed of uber-wealthy people from liberal accepting metropolitan areas, but for many of the rest of us, coming out at home (whether as gay, bi, trans, whatever) wasn't necessarily a great choice, either for social cohesion or actual safety.
Brushing off bisexuality as "SLUG-ing" because it's the only option around takes away a person's agency to experiment sexually. I'm of the opinion, like Kinsey, that very few people are TOTALLY gay or straight, that we're all shades of grey bisexuality (that sounds like a hipster band...), and that everyone varies to the extent at which they feel comfortable acknowledging or feeling or acting on those desires. Smith, with its tolerant and gay happy vibe, is the perfect venue in which to experiment with those desires and feelings. I've known many "straight" women here who fell in love with a woman here, though they might never love another female again. Does that make them gay? Bi? Bored? Can they "pass" as straight more easily, and thus not experience gay discrimination? WHO CARES. I will probably never know what it's like to face real discrimination for my sexuality (I did the queer haircut waaay back in 8th grade and concluded it was not for me...my girl J writes here about gay/femmes/hair), but that doesn't make my feelings and sexuality arbitrary. By cutting these people out of the gay culture and rights movement, we undermine only ourselves and our progress. IT'S WHAT THE CONSERVATIVES WANT.
Now. Onto men. I could save myself the time typing a rant about men and how their perceive bisexuality as something that's theirs to manipulate and enjoy for their sexual entertainment by just posting the lyrics to Usher's "Lil Freak" (featuring Niki Minaj, a real live bisexual!), but I'd like to flesh it out myself.
Nearly every het man I've ever met who I've talked to about my sexuality is immediately at least twice as interested and suddenly full of questions (it has crossed my mind to simply NOT share that about myself, but that's ridiculous. Why should I hide a chunk of who I am so as to not be harassed? Perhaps you could STOP harassing? Idealistic, I know). I met a fella at a house party last night who participated in this exact phenomenon. Oh, you're a bisexual (A bisexual? What the fuck? Are you A hetero?). You like threesomes?
Yes, yes I do. But not with anyone so vile as to ask me about them prior to knowing any proper information about who I am. Many (again, not all) hetero men immediately see this as a golden opportunity, as if I'm (and most bi women) their "lil freak" as Usher would say, ready and eager to please him and letting him dictate the moves. They try to take something that is mine, my sexuality, and make it theirs for their own pleasure. It's just another thing for them to dominate. Even men I've been in relationships with have occasionally seen it as something to brag about, as if they'd achieved something important in finding a woman with long hair who liked both pussy and cock. If I volunteer that information or readily pursue a threesome, wonderful. But I fuck who I want, when I want. And if you're acting vulgar about it the minute we meet, count yourself out.
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
But despite the threesome perks, bisexuality has a tendency to bring out reactions in people that, for lack of a better word, SUCK. The two that come to mind most prominently for me are the hardcore Smithies and unfortunately many hetero men (not all, mind you, but a lot!).
SLUG is one of those many acronyms common to the Smith vernacular, and gets tossed around constantly, especially first year. It stands for Smith Lesbian Until Graduation, which is what many people identifying as bi (especially if you don't come out as soon as you are accepted into Smith) are often brushed off as. But that's absolutely RIDICULOUS. I know much of Smith is composed of uber-wealthy people from liberal accepting metropolitan areas, but for many of the rest of us, coming out at home (whether as gay, bi, trans, whatever) wasn't necessarily a great choice, either for social cohesion or actual safety.
Brushing off bisexuality as "SLUG-ing" because it's the only option around takes away a person's agency to experiment sexually. I'm of the opinion, like Kinsey, that very few people are TOTALLY gay or straight, that we're all shades of grey bisexuality (that sounds like a hipster band...), and that everyone varies to the extent at which they feel comfortable acknowledging or feeling or acting on those desires. Smith, with its tolerant and gay happy vibe, is the perfect venue in which to experiment with those desires and feelings. I've known many "straight" women here who fell in love with a woman here, though they might never love another female again. Does that make them gay? Bi? Bored? Can they "pass" as straight more easily, and thus not experience gay discrimination? WHO CARES. I will probably never know what it's like to face real discrimination for my sexuality (I did the queer haircut waaay back in 8th grade and concluded it was not for me...my girl J writes here about gay/femmes/hair), but that doesn't make my feelings and sexuality arbitrary. By cutting these people out of the gay culture and rights movement, we undermine only ourselves and our progress. IT'S WHAT THE CONSERVATIVES WANT.
Now. Onto men. I could save myself the time typing a rant about men and how their perceive bisexuality as something that's theirs to manipulate and enjoy for their sexual entertainment by just posting the lyrics to Usher's "Lil Freak" (featuring Niki Minaj, a real live bisexual!), but I'd like to flesh it out myself.
Nearly every het man I've ever met who I've talked to about my sexuality is immediately at least twice as interested and suddenly full of questions (it has crossed my mind to simply NOT share that about myself, but that's ridiculous. Why should I hide a chunk of who I am so as to not be harassed? Perhaps you could STOP harassing? Idealistic, I know). I met a fella at a house party last night who participated in this exact phenomenon. Oh, you're a bisexual (A bisexual? What the fuck? Are you A hetero?). You like threesomes?
Yes, yes I do. But not with anyone so vile as to ask me about them prior to knowing any proper information about who I am. Many (again, not all) hetero men immediately see this as a golden opportunity, as if I'm (and most bi women) their "lil freak" as Usher would say, ready and eager to please him and letting him dictate the moves. They try to take something that is mine, my sexuality, and make it theirs for their own pleasure. It's just another thing for them to dominate. Even men I've been in relationships with have occasionally seen it as something to brag about, as if they'd achieved something important in finding a woman with long hair who liked both pussy and cock. If I volunteer that information or readily pursue a threesome, wonderful. But I fuck who I want, when I want. And if you're acting vulgar about it the minute we meet, count yourself out.
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
Thursday, June 10, 2010
A picture is worth a thousand words
Yesterday, I was at Harry Potter's house after work, where his brother was immersed in a video game. Personally, I'm not much of an enthusiast, mostly for the usually violent nature of today's games, though my lack of decent hand-eye coordination plays a large part too. But yesterday made me dislike the activity for another reason...
I couldn't tell you what game Little Brother was playing; it was war-based in nature, with very detailed graphics and very serious ammunition. But what disturbed me specifically was the depiction of women in the storyline. They were highly sexualized; attire was skimpy and revealing, DD's were a recurring theme, and during segments where characters had pre-programmed exchanges, the camera looked on from peeping-tom angles (I kid you not--there was one shot of a female character from the floor beneath her that suggestively panned up the back of her legs and all the way up under her miniskirt--gross.) This particular character was the helpless victim of the storyline, constantly needing rescuing and protection; it was belittling. Don't lie around helplessly while you wait for macho-man to rescue you--save your own damn skin, and for goodness sake, do it with your shirt buttoned over your boobs! (Even more youth-friendly games send the damsel-in-distress message. Take Mario Galaxy for instance--Princess Peach is kidnapped, so Mario embarks on a [less violent] quest to save her. Hey, if you're going to send a certain implicit message to viewers, you'd better start 'em young! Ugh.)
Even more disturbing in Little Brother's game was the treatment of the second female character when she made her appearance in the game. Here was the enemy, dressed in a skintight suit that emphasized every curve (including a not-at-all-concealed camel toe; thank you, detailed video game graphics, for showing off what doesn't need to be put on display). The player's mission? To kill her, like the other foes of the game. Yet while other opponents were mowed down under one round of AK-whatever fire, it took multiple attempts to kill off this character--all while she was on the floor, crying for mercy. It was sickening to watch.
But why should I get upset over what I saw? After all, it's just a game, right?
There's plenty of debate surrounding video games; do explicitly violent games desensitize children/teens/players of any age to violence, and/or do these games make players more prone to violent acts themselves? It's a legitimate concern. But amidst all this hype, I hope that the implicit messages aren't overlooked--they are just as damaging.
Teach peace,
La Femme Nikita
I couldn't tell you what game Little Brother was playing; it was war-based in nature, with very detailed graphics and very serious ammunition. But what disturbed me specifically was the depiction of women in the storyline. They were highly sexualized; attire was skimpy and revealing, DD's were a recurring theme, and during segments where characters had pre-programmed exchanges, the camera looked on from peeping-tom angles (I kid you not--there was one shot of a female character from the floor beneath her that suggestively panned up the back of her legs and all the way up under her miniskirt--gross.) This particular character was the helpless victim of the storyline, constantly needing rescuing and protection; it was belittling. Don't lie around helplessly while you wait for macho-man to rescue you--save your own damn skin, and for goodness sake, do it with your shirt buttoned over your boobs! (Even more youth-friendly games send the damsel-in-distress message. Take Mario Galaxy for instance--Princess Peach is kidnapped, so Mario embarks on a [less violent] quest to save her. Hey, if you're going to send a certain implicit message to viewers, you'd better start 'em young! Ugh.)
Even more disturbing in Little Brother's game was the treatment of the second female character when she made her appearance in the game. Here was the enemy, dressed in a skintight suit that emphasized every curve (including a not-at-all-concealed camel toe; thank you, detailed video game graphics, for showing off what doesn't need to be put on display). The player's mission? To kill her, like the other foes of the game. Yet while other opponents were mowed down under one round of AK-whatever fire, it took multiple attempts to kill off this character--all while she was on the floor, crying for mercy. It was sickening to watch.
But why should I get upset over what I saw? After all, it's just a game, right?
There's plenty of debate surrounding video games; do explicitly violent games desensitize children/teens/players of any age to violence, and/or do these games make players more prone to violent acts themselves? It's a legitimate concern. But amidst all this hype, I hope that the implicit messages aren't overlooked--they are just as damaging.
Teach peace,
La Femme Nikita
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Vagina Teeth
I was reading the "MetroNews" paper this morning (crappy paper handed out at subway stations like "Express" in DC) but I discovered this article: "African doctor's anti-rape condom has teeth, critics." A female doctor in South Africa has invented a female condom which has tiny hooks that attached themselves to a rapist's penis and can only be removed in a hospital. The hooks do not cut the attackers skin (somehow I don't exactly understand how this works) which reduces the chances of HIV. Dr. Sonnet Ehlers who invented the condom said that "she was inspired by a rape victim who told her: 'If only I had teeth down there.'" "Dr. Ehlers says the device is vital to help women who in a country with one of the highest rates of rape in the world. A survey by South Africa's Medical Council found that 1 in 4 women in the country say they have been raped." Criticism: "Women would have to wear this every minute of their lives on the off-chance that they would be raped,' said Lisa Vetten, from the South African Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.
Personally, I'm on the fence. On the one hand, the device could reduce the number of rape victims during times of conflict where rape is used as a systematic way to defeat the will power of another group (once men lose control of their women, what do they have really?). For example, in the DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo), millions of women have been raped by forces on all sides, to the point that that now they can't leave their homes without fear of attack. This device would give them back their independence and sense of control. However, this is only a short-term solution. Rather than treating the symptoms, we need to treat the disease. We need to address the problems in society that cause such a high rate of violence against women, primarily the belief that men have a right to dominate women. Women have been identified as the means through which a population continues, so if you attack the women, you break the people. Men need to acknowledge that they have an equal stake in society b/c it takes two people to make a new person. Overall, the question is "does the device give women a sense of power and control over their bodies or does it only breed fear of all men? Honestly, I just don't know.
Lots of Love,
Lady Lola
Personally, I'm on the fence. On the one hand, the device could reduce the number of rape victims during times of conflict where rape is used as a systematic way to defeat the will power of another group (once men lose control of their women, what do they have really?). For example, in the DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo), millions of women have been raped by forces on all sides, to the point that that now they can't leave their homes without fear of attack. This device would give them back their independence and sense of control. However, this is only a short-term solution. Rather than treating the symptoms, we need to treat the disease. We need to address the problems in society that cause such a high rate of violence against women, primarily the belief that men have a right to dominate women. Women have been identified as the means through which a population continues, so if you attack the women, you break the people. Men need to acknowledge that they have an equal stake in society b/c it takes two people to make a new person. Overall, the question is "does the device give women a sense of power and control over their bodies or does it only breed fear of all men? Honestly, I just don't know.
Lots of Love,
Lady Lola
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Strut your stuff
During finals week, my procrastination-obsession quickly became Texts From Last Night. I mean seriously, how can you not become an instant addict?? Some of the texts on there are pee-your-pants hilarious. Anyway, one of the most recurrent themes throughout TFLN's posts is the ever-infamous "walk of shame."
Yet in the spirit of our blog, what exactly is so shameful about the morning following an evening of sexual empowerment? Is there some unspoken switch that flips in the early morning hours that transforms the previous night's conquest into something disgraceful? (Exhibit A: (630) Just saw two girls doing a walk of shame together. Slut bonding at it's best.) Um, excuse me? Slut bonding???
Furthermore, how often do you hear of a man's morning-after departure as an embarrassing escape? Rarely. (Exhibit B: (571) I think I just witnessed the elusive male walk of shame).
Just a little food for thought...
Love,
La Femme Nikita
Yet in the spirit of our blog, what exactly is so shameful about the morning following an evening of sexual empowerment? Is there some unspoken switch that flips in the early morning hours that transforms the previous night's conquest into something disgraceful? (Exhibit A: (630) Just saw two girls doing a walk of shame together. Slut bonding at it's best.) Um, excuse me? Slut bonding???
Furthermore, how often do you hear of a man's morning-after departure as an embarrassing escape? Rarely. (Exhibit B: (571) I think I just witnessed the elusive male walk of shame).
Just a little food for thought...
Love,
La Femme Nikita
motherhood
Last night after work, I was attempting to relax while mindlessly flipping through this month's Marie Claire (in my defense, sometimes they write good pieces about international women's issues! But they also published a piece by Lori Gottileb, author of Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough, a moderately horrifying book). I came across a fact in their article on birth control that literally made me gasp.
By age 30, almost 90 percent of a woman's eggs are done. By 40, a full 97 percent have disappeared (according to a January study from University of St. Andrews and Edinburgh University in Scotland).
I just felt the first tick of my biological clock. Immediately I began to worry: 30?! I've only got nine years! What if I wind up totally infertile? What if I can never participate in birth? Or motherhood? Sure, I could adopt. But what if I miss my chance?
It's a testament to the strength of the myth that motherhood completes a woman that an avowed feminist who might not even want kids such as myself (in my senior yearbook blurb, I wrote "I plan to be fabulous, take over the world, find someone I love waking up next to everyday, and not have babies." Seriously) still feels these socially-induced knee jerk reactions to facts like that.
What bothers me about the way motherhood is perceived is that it's not really seen as a choice. Sure, you could choose to not have kids. But what's wrong with you? Couldn't find anyone to knock you up? Or are you just that selfish? I've heard all of these and more when I tell people I don't think I want kids (or I'll have at least four. Ask me why sometime, I have a rational reason). I think my favorite one is the total dismissal of my desire to perhaps not have kids as illegitimate: "Oh, you'll change your mind." Really? When? After I get bombarded with more media reports on how my fertility is fast disappearing and how much harder birth will be on my older body (because we all know more mature women aren't good for anything since they've lost their sex appeal!). It's disgusting.
And if you do choose to have children, you'll only face tons of articles and studies about how you're doing it wrong, with the myth of "perfect" motherhood glimmering in the distance just beyond your sleep-deprived, over-worked and under-appreciated reach. Stay-at-home mom? You will be judged for not "doing it all," or will be assumed to have given up your dreams (or if you're a woman of color, you'll be cast as a "welfare queen"). Work outside the home? Obviously, you're neglecting your kids and they'll begin to resent you as soon as you put them into daycare. And if you dare to out-earn your male partner (you do have a male partner, don't you? Side note break from the sarcasm: this makes me deeply happy!), you're emasculating hubby and rendering him impotent and that can't be good for the baby. And it is about the baby after all, isn't it?
All these are (slightly exaggerated) social attitudes women face about children, and they're sexist. Plain and simple. Men who choose not to have children or marry are sexy independent bachelors; women who do so are selfish or bitches or spinsters or old maids. Why? Because social attitudes are usually shaped by middle class straight white dudes, people who (whether they mean to or know it or not) are deeply invested in maintaining rigid gender roles. What better way to do that than to make women feel incomplete for not producing (and having the gall to not want to produce) a child?
I know this post is snarkier than mine usually are (I am not demeaning motherhood, let me make that clear. I have enormous respect for any and all mothers. I love my mama!). And I think that's just because I was so blown away and MAD by how instantly I (someone who spends a good deal of her time criticizing the Man and society and sexism and whatnot) bought into this idea of motherhood being a woman's supreme life achievement. And it bothered me all day long. In the back of my head is the Greek chorus wailing about motherhood and lost chances and fertility when I'm only 21. That's sad. So call people on their bullshit when you can. Your choices are just as valid as anyone else's, as long as they're true to what you want.
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
By age 30, almost 90 percent of a woman's eggs are done. By 40, a full 97 percent have disappeared (according to a January study from University of St. Andrews and Edinburgh University in Scotland).
I just felt the first tick of my biological clock. Immediately I began to worry: 30?! I've only got nine years! What if I wind up totally infertile? What if I can never participate in birth? Or motherhood? Sure, I could adopt. But what if I miss my chance?
It's a testament to the strength of the myth that motherhood completes a woman that an avowed feminist who might not even want kids such as myself (in my senior yearbook blurb, I wrote "I plan to be fabulous, take over the world, find someone I love waking up next to everyday, and not have babies." Seriously) still feels these socially-induced knee jerk reactions to facts like that.
What bothers me about the way motherhood is perceived is that it's not really seen as a choice. Sure, you could choose to not have kids. But what's wrong with you? Couldn't find anyone to knock you up? Or are you just that selfish? I've heard all of these and more when I tell people I don't think I want kids (or I'll have at least four. Ask me why sometime, I have a rational reason). I think my favorite one is the total dismissal of my desire to perhaps not have kids as illegitimate: "Oh, you'll change your mind." Really? When? After I get bombarded with more media reports on how my fertility is fast disappearing and how much harder birth will be on my older body (because we all know more mature women aren't good for anything since they've lost their sex appeal!). It's disgusting.
And if you do choose to have children, you'll only face tons of articles and studies about how you're doing it wrong, with the myth of "perfect" motherhood glimmering in the distance just beyond your sleep-deprived, over-worked and under-appreciated reach. Stay-at-home mom? You will be judged for not "doing it all," or will be assumed to have given up your dreams (or if you're a woman of color, you'll be cast as a "welfare queen"). Work outside the home? Obviously, you're neglecting your kids and they'll begin to resent you as soon as you put them into daycare. And if you dare to out-earn your male partner (you do have a male partner, don't you? Side note break from the sarcasm: this makes me deeply happy!), you're emasculating hubby and rendering him impotent and that can't be good for the baby. And it is about the baby after all, isn't it?
All these are (slightly exaggerated) social attitudes women face about children, and they're sexist. Plain and simple. Men who choose not to have children or marry are sexy independent bachelors; women who do so are selfish or bitches or spinsters or old maids. Why? Because social attitudes are usually shaped by middle class straight white dudes, people who (whether they mean to or know it or not) are deeply invested in maintaining rigid gender roles. What better way to do that than to make women feel incomplete for not producing (and having the gall to not want to produce) a child?
I know this post is snarkier than mine usually are (I am not demeaning motherhood, let me make that clear. I have enormous respect for any and all mothers. I love my mama!). And I think that's just because I was so blown away and MAD by how instantly I (someone who spends a good deal of her time criticizing the Man and society and sexism and whatnot) bought into this idea of motherhood being a woman's supreme life achievement. And it bothered me all day long. In the back of my head is the Greek chorus wailing about motherhood and lost chances and fertility when I'm only 21. That's sad. So call people on their bullshit when you can. Your choices are just as valid as anyone else's, as long as they're true to what you want.
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
Monday, June 7, 2010
cause for optimism
In a few days, I plan to do a post on why feminism is absolutely still necessary (to silence any haters). But today, I want to recognize that sometimes, there are very real reasons to have some sense that feminism has accomplished quite a bit, even in changing deep seated attitudes.
Beefcake and I were talking one night about this blog, and he said something that was so awesome, I thought it deserved a plug here.
He said that there needed to be a better definition of consent, for the sake of both men (most of whom really don't want to be part of someone's non-consensual, horrible experience) and women (who don't deserved to be in those situations to begin with), something based more on an affirmation of desire than of a lack of no. He literally defined enthusiastic consent, having never (to my knowledge) read anything about the concept. I don't know if it's my feminist influences rubbing off on him and it's not the beginning of a revolution or anything, but it did really make me happy to see a white heterosexual male coming from a place of privilege and making that kind of statement.
Talking about the kinds of issues that women face, even if it's often dismissed as "complaining" does have an impact. It's the cheapest, easiest and most effective way to raise awareness of why feminism is still necessary: by talking about it. I hope all of you have moments like that with menfolk, as well as "I'm not a feminist, but.." womenfolk (and transfolk!).
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
Beefcake and I were talking one night about this blog, and he said something that was so awesome, I thought it deserved a plug here.
He said that there needed to be a better definition of consent, for the sake of both men (most of whom really don't want to be part of someone's non-consensual, horrible experience) and women (who don't deserved to be in those situations to begin with), something based more on an affirmation of desire than of a lack of no. He literally defined enthusiastic consent, having never (to my knowledge) read anything about the concept. I don't know if it's my feminist influences rubbing off on him and it's not the beginning of a revolution or anything, but it did really make me happy to see a white heterosexual male coming from a place of privilege and making that kind of statement.
Talking about the kinds of issues that women face, even if it's often dismissed as "complaining" does have an impact. It's the cheapest, easiest and most effective way to raise awareness of why feminism is still necessary: by talking about it. I hope all of you have moments like that with menfolk, as well as "I'm not a feminist, but.." womenfolk (and transfolk!).
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)