oh to be so shallow

I've been debating frequently in one of my classes about reproductive technology, designer babies, and genetic engineering for frivolous purposes (to make a child more attractive, primarily...or as one student awkwardly put it, "hot babies"). While much of it is hypothetical ("in the extremely unlikely scenario in which this extremely unreliable technology becomes widespread"), one thing that we got stuck on is this: is it so wrong to want attractive children?

The way I imagine it, at the most base level, selecting your kid's genes (while creepy and eugenics-y and not at all something I endorse for non-medical reasons) is not necessarily that different than selecting an attractive person to mate with (or a sperm donor who describes his looks as something that sounds like it might mix well with your own genetic offerings). No one heads out to the bars and seeks out a mediocre person, or even a downright ugly one to take home that night. We all head for the people who strike us as attractive (whatever that means to you). And naturally, when expecting  a child, no one hopes for their future bundle of joy to be ugly or disfigured in some way that will impede their growth or socialization: shallow or not, we all want attractive, smart kids. And we want to find good lookin' people to make them with.

But my question is: is this desire natural? Or is it learned?

I wholeheartedly think what we conceive of as attractive is often socialized bullshit, but some things seem to be based in a natural desire to find someone who will give our offspring a chance of surviving. So while I might pick the brunette girl with a thick ass or the guy with broad shoulders and someone else might find those features off-putting, the exact traits that make you weak in the knees are almost arbitrary. The really important urge is that the prospective partner is someone who seems healthy looking and reasonably attractive in the purely genetic sense (symmetrical figures, "average" sized, the like), an urge might very well be "natural." But as we are no longer living in the woods, fighting for our survival with our brains and bodies alone, does it make sense that we extrapolate this "natural" urge to raw attractiveness alone?

Just some half-formed thoughts congealing as I write a final paper on gamete donation. Gimmie your more intelligent comments!

Much love,
The Sheriff

Oh, and happy December!

a return to my raunchier roots: the etiquette of cum

As I've jokingly complained about, my posts have grown more mature and theoretical and concerned with feminism and less about the raunchy details of sex, like spanking and threesomes. But on my glamorous Greyhound bus ride to and from Pennsylvania for Thanksgiving break, I found myself pondering one of the less theoretical, more blatantly nasty aspects of hetero-sex: the man cum.

The main argument I've heard for cumming on a female partner (or male, I suppose) is pretty weak: less likely to get her pregnant (false! There is still semen in your pre-cum, and it only takes one little spermy to inseminate that egg). It is, admittedly, easier to clean up. But that doesn't mean it's completely unproblematic.

I distinctly remember the first time a guy came outside of me, making his mark all over my stomach and leaving me furious. I didn't know that it was considered "custom" to have a man's projectile fluids disposed of on one's body, and I was so appalled, I left immediately, dashing off to catch the PVTA back to Smith. I was only a wee first-year at this point, having no real vocabulary to express my discontent with his actions, and so I let it continue until eventually, I got used to it. It no longer infuriated me.

I then dated Beefcake, who always wanted to blow a load on my face, a desire I curtailed as much as possible. Cum on one's face feels blatantly demeaning: it makes no mistake of the fact that you are there as an object, not as an equal partner. Or at least that's how it felt. But now, with the ever-considerate Meatball, I don't mind it (he certainly doesn't mind when I cum on him). And at some point, I began to enjoy it, being able to see that my partner did, in fact, get off on having sex with me. Is this internalized misogyny? Just a little vain? Is cumming on a woman just rude? Or am I over-analyzing this? What say you?

Much love,
The Sheriff

the failures of Kate Obenshein's speech

The Smith College Republicans (yes, we have some) hosted a Conservative Women's Conference this weekend, and I went to a few of the speeches. Their keynote speaker was Kate Obenshein, whose speech was entitled "The Failures of Feminism." For the record, she asked if she could come to campus, so it's not necessarily that they sought out a particularly controversial speaker, but they did market her as anti-feminist (which didn't raise the ire of Smithies as much as I thought it would...perhaps people were afraid of another Ryan Sorba event?). I went to A) hear another perspective, and B) support a friend who helped arrange the event.

Primarily, I was disappointed by her complete lack of intellectual rigor backing up any of her statements. Her speech rested on the 5 Failures of  Feminism, including rise in abortion, the divorce rate, STDs/promiscuity, and the War on Boys (there may be another that I'm forgeting). And she could've made a case connecting anyof them (pretty weakly) to feminism, but instead she ranted about how they were bad and said that feminism caused them and moved promptly onto her next topic without establishing any causal link.

I think she also suffers from a disease that a lot of people have when they think about oppression. When someone says "the patriarchy," it's easy to just imagine a group of old white dudes sitting around a table and controlling things. Maybe they look like this guy.

But the patriarchy isn't some club that people belong to (though that would be a hilarious name for a country club...), it's a system of oppression that works it way into every aspect of our lives (just like racism, hetero-sexism, classism, etc.), from pop culture to social interactions to the workplace. It's not always blatant, and I think she missed the point on that one. She said she's started a leadership program for Republican women in her home state of Virginia and she was shocked at the fact that these women weren't confident, didn't want to run for office, etc. and that she just had no idea why that might be, but definitely had nothing to do with sexism in the Republican party. Or MAYBE it has something to do with the fact that women are socialized from birth to be less bold, less confident, less fitting for positions of leadership?

Kate's reliance on gender roles as inherent and natural was also grating. I know at Smith (and probably tons of other liberal artsy fartsy places) it's drilled into us that gender is a social construct and the associated traits are 98% crap, and Kate was just approaching it from a whole 'nother viewpoint. She often talked about her son and chalked up things to a "boys will be boys" platitude, claiming that their interest in guts and gore and dominating people is inherent because they're supposed to be strong, bold, and courageous to balance out women (...so women can't be bold, strong, and courageous? Oh good). 

When someone asked her if she thought this "boys will be boys" mentality lead to excusing rape/sexual assault/harassment, Kate skirted around the question, and actually said that we need to raise boys with discipline and loving guidance to "rein in their instinctive behavior." Wait. So rape is instinctive? I'm sorry, but no. Let's give men some credit: sure, some of them are brutes and rapists and just douches, no doubt. But they asbolutely have the miniscule amount of self control that it takes to refrain from violating a woman. Period.

She quoted the Feminine Mystique, clearly never having cracked the spine of that book (Friedan was NOT a radical. She had children, and a husband, and wanted to improve the lives of housewives. Not exactly crazy ass shit) . She also called a ten-year-old girl who sent her son a picture of herself (with her shirt on) a hussy. She also cut me off when I wanted to correct her about her statement that "radical feminism" (put into quotations because I have no idea what kind of definition this lady was workin' with) leads women to see themselves as sexual and thus as sexual objects solely for men. So I did not much take a liking to Miss Kate.

But what did you guys think? Did anyone find any validity in her speech?

Much love,
The Sheriff

friday links

This week's links are alllllll about the body image love and food. Yay!

I've seen this several times, but it's always a good reminder of how good we have it.

How to defend yourself against other people's funky body/food issues. Invaluable at the holidays.

Speaking of which, here's some tips on helping your family curb the fat talk. (I have a crazy orthorexic aunt who loves to tell me about her gym routines while eating fat free Cool Whip and Diet Jello as I nom on cheesecake, so you know I'ma use these).

Awesome talk about the stupid practice of gendering food (steak=manly, yogurt=chick food)

How striving for/having the "perfect" body can mask the imperfect life. Real talk, guys.

The time to love your body? It's NOW bitches!

Bisexuality: Do I need to come out?

This is heartbreaking and hopeful all at once. If you have ANY extra $, please consider donating to fund this girl's eating disorder treatment.

Much love,
The Sheriff
FYI: There will be likely no posts next week from me. The Sheriff needs some time off for Thanksgiving to just relax and get creatively inspired again. If you would like to guest post, please please please comment below!

"friendly" patriarchy?

My African-American studies professor is absolutely incredible. She's deeply knowledgable about her subject area, but she's also fuckin' funny (she's probably in her 60s and she explained to us the origins of the myth that black men have big cocks by saying "if the stereotypes are true and black women are more lustful, well, the men better be packin' heat!"). She also asks us really thought provoking questions (I know that's what college is for, obviously, but as a Gov major, the discussions are often a little dry).

Such as: what does patriarchy do for us? Why do we still comply with systems that undermine us and our interests?

Her answer: Protection. It protects us from having to be fully independent, fro having to form identities of our own, from being afraid of the Other Men who might hurt us worse, protects us from having bad reps if we just listen to and follow the sexual norms....it goes on and on.

Or is she wrong? What do ya'll think? Her theory immediately rang true with me: as a senior, facing down the future (although I did just get a job!), it is somewhat tempting to imagine a world in which someone else would plan it all for me, would tell me what to do, have convenient answers waiting for my tough questions. But then I remember I love being in control of my life and the course it takes, tempting as the promise of having someone else worry over the details may be.

Much love,
The Sheriff

linkslinkslinks

Smith's It Gets Better video. Made me tear up. I'm so proud to go to school with such incredible people.

Own your beauty is an ongoing thing at BlogHer and this piece is particularly great.

Gender identity debates at single-sex colleges.

A NY Times writer asks: Can we make it “manly” (or even better, “gender neutral”) to spend a day with a child, or earn less money but have more family time, or be the only parent at a parent-teacher conference because your wife has a meeting?

Much love,
The Sheriff

the highway to a healthy body image

I'm taking a lovely dance class called Tribal Fusion with a woman who is the closest embodiment to a goddess as I have ever met. She is funny, down to earth yet regal, takes up her space and does not apologize. I am simultaneously enamored with her and intimidated. But I digress.


Tribal Fusion is essentially the non-derogatory term for belly-dance, which conjures up all sorts of over-sexualized images of half naked women wearing glitter and grinding their sinuous tummys all over the place. Being a Smith College dance class, there is no glitter and no over-sexualization, but just a roomful of women (and a trans man!) shaking our buts and undulating our stomachs and generally enjoying the bliss of movement. There are times when I glance around the room and just beam at how awesome it is to have 30 plus people in a truly body-positive space, doin' their thing without self-judgment.

It was actually something of a risk for me to take this class. I'd danced since I could walk until high school, but it fell by the side as college and multiple part-time jobs took over. And to have me, with my inherited stomach neurosis, practicing a dance form that's all about getting in touch with that feminine curve? I was terrified the first day. But it has been nothing short of incredible. It's the first time in my life that I've moved, felt my booty and hips reverberate and have reveled in it, not just lacking the usual harsh judgment but moving with real joy. This, this incredible elusive sensation, is what healthy body image feels and looks like. And it's a fucking shame we don't give women and ourselves tools to find this on their own.

I almost titled this "the highway to a normal body image," but then I realized a "normal" body image entails mental and physical torture, a constant inner dialogue of trash talk to your body, and generally hatin' on yourself. And that should NOT be accepted as "normal." But you do have the power to do something about that, at least for yourself. Operation Beautiful your own bathroom. Shut up your friends when they start with the fat talk. Point out unfair beauty standards whenever you see them. Treat your body like the gift it is, with proper sleep and fuel and fun. Read this list and give a few a try. Is some of this cheesy? Maybe. Worth it? Absolutely.

Much love,
The Sheriff