next »

[t_r_b]

http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i42/42b01401.htm

I liked this article, especially how the author draws connections between age-old efforts to police female sexuality:

Throughout history, societies have attempted to control the bodies of girls as they became women, for reasons ranging from protection to exploitation. And although we're not locking chastity belts, binding feet, or corseting waists any longer, our interest in what we see as girls' new sexuality is as intense as ever.

and contemporary feminist efforts to chart a more liberating course, suggesting that such efforts may produce less than realistic benchmarks for "the good sexual life":

Feminist researchers in psychology and education, however, have been theorizing about the kind of sexuality girls ought to have. They're not afraid to investigate morality and what makes a good life. But while they — and I include myself in this group — explore the meaning and cultural context of girls' sexual development, the good sexual life they describe may be an elusive ideal that, in the end, is not very helpful to girls in the real world.

But I get stuck on this comment, buried early in the article:

Unlike boys' sexuality, generally ignored by researchers because it seems simple and straightforward, girls' sexuality is viewed by feminist scholars as a suppressed story that needs airing.

This sounds like a gentle criticism of researchers' neglect of boys' sexuality ("seems simple"). Also, the author also seems to suggest that the feminist scholars being described have perpetuated the pre-feminist habit of treating girls' sexuality as a mysterious problem to be solved. Of course, "mysterious problem to be solved" is a step up from "dangerous force to be controlled," but you've still got a dichotomous discourse that takes boys' sexuality for granted while stigmatizing girls' sexuality as something in need of study and repair. An interesting and provocative critique.

The thing is, an article entitled "The 'Right' Sexuality for Girls," that focuses almost exclusively on the experiences of girls and the findings of researchers who study them, replicates exactly the dichotomy that (by my reading, at least), the author seems to challenge. "We shouldn't be telling girls to strive for x," she seems to say, "instead, they should strive for the more realistic goal of y!" But the conversation is still centered on what is wrong with the sexuality of girls in particular, and what should be done to fix it/them.

Only at the end of the article, when she proposes an alternative approach, does the author shift from the subject of "girls" to the non-gender-specific subject of "teens":

When we tell teens about the kind of sexuality we hope will be theirs, we ought to be careful to guide them toward something that is achievable. For instance, turning away from the subject/object dichotomy and the notion of authentic desire might lead teens and adults to develop ways of being sexual that are more individualized and satisfying than simply accepting what the culture and the media think is sexy, or an idealized alternative. And an emphasis on mutuality could redefine shame, attaching it to the mistreatment of others rather than to the violation of social expectations.

Teenagers will always have their own definitions — both idealized and realistic — of good sex. But if researchers can show them achievable goals that include fairness and mutuality, we may be able to help young people form relationships that help them and their partners flourish.

Only here do we get even a hint - and only a hint - that boys' sexuality might be in need of "fixing" too: that achieving "the sexual good life" for girls (at least the hetero ones) will only happen when boys are playing the same game (or at least in the same ballpark). After all, fairness and mutuality don't get you very far when they're not reciprocated.

Teaching girls that healthy sexuality is not about passivity and objectification is good. But it's equally important to teach boys that healthy sexuality is not about demonstrating dominance and masculine prowess, no? And important not only for the well being of girls, but for that of boys as well.

[polly_mer]

As Nanny Ogg says, "And always be sure to get the young man's name and address."

What I think a lot of the problem is that no one really wants girls to be sexual (except the teenage boys who are thinking in terms of "getting some") because of all the risks associated with sexual activity that do fall more heavily on the girls.  Yet, at some point, girls become wives and then, of course, those same female people had better be sexual, in the right approved way, tout suite.

I agree with TRB that there is a disconnect in thinking that boys' sexuality and girls' sexuality are separate issues.  While homosexuality wouldn't have that problem, a substantial fraction of the general population is heterosexual.  I'm reminded of a not-so-funny story that my middle school teacher friend shared with me.  After a class on sex ed, one of her male students said to her, "How could you have told X that sex can be fun for the girl?  Girls don't like sex."

How much do you want to bet that student was perfectly willing to pressure some girl into having sex, indeed expected her to have sex if he spent enough time and money on her, and yet he had no expectation that she would enjoy it?  Scary. 

[t_r_b]

I agree with TRB that there is a disconnect in thinking that boys' sexuality and girls' sexuality are separate issues.  While homosexuality wouldn't have that problem, a substantial fraction of the general population is heterosexual. 

Actually, I suspect that these issues do affect homosexuals. It's not only that boys and girls are taught to be sexual in different ways, it's that they are taught to be sexual in ways that are very hard to square with an equal sexual partnership. I can't imagine that a gay boy raised to consider sex = domination is any better prepared for a mature sexual relationship than a straight one. Ditto for gay girls and passivity, etc. Maybe gay kids, on average, have an easier time getting past these sexual norms than straight ones, on average, or maybe not. But it's hard to imagine that they aren't a factor.

What I think a lot of the problem is that no one really wants girls to be sexual (except the teenage boys who are thinking in terms of "getting some") because of all the risks associated with sexual activity that do fall more heavily on the girls. 

One of the reasons I liked the article, actually, was its focus on feminist researchers who really do want girls to be sexual, in safe, fulfilling, empowering ways (or who recognize that girls are and will continue to be sexual, and want that sexuality to head in a safe, fulfilling, empowering direction). I liked how the author put these prescriptions for girls' sexuality into the context of more longstanding and disempowering prescriptions: everyone is telling girls how they're supposed to be (or not be) sexual, and the new prescriptions aren't necessarily any more realistic or helpful than the old ones, so girls split the difference and we get the curious mix of agency and objectification that is "Girls Gone Wild."

I liked her idea of replacing the messages of "this is how you should feel" and "this is the kind of person you should be" (in both their traditional and feminist forms) with something like, "this is how people should relate to one another": fairness, mutuality, etc. I just think that it's at least as important to get that same message to boys as it is to get it to girls.

One of the reasons I like this shift in message, by the way, is that it gets us away from the zero-sum model of sexual power dynamics. The feminist conventional wisdom on this goes something like, "girls are socialized to accept a subservient role in their sexual relationships; boys are socialized to take a dominant and exploitative role. Therefore we need to find ways to empower girls so as to even out the playing field." Empowering girls is great, but empowerment in itself doesn't necessarily help them build more functional relationships (there are plenty of highly empowered spoiled brats out there, male and female). If we can teach both boys and girls to relate to others in more assertive (rather than aggressive) and respectful (rather than deferential) ways, then we'll be getting somewhere.

[polly_mer]

If we can teach both boys and girls to relate to others in more assertive (rather than aggressive) and respectful (rather than deferential) ways, then we'll be getting somewhere.

Assertive and respectful are two words I seldom associate with sex.  I agree with your point, but I am amused by the use of those terms.

[t_r_b]

If we can teach both boys and girls to relate to others in more assertive (rather than aggressive) and respectful (rather than deferential) ways, then we'll be getting somewhere.

Assertive and respectful are two words I seldom associate with sex.  I agree with your point, but I am amused by the use of those terms.

Assertive: "You know that thing you did with your tongue last night? I need you to do that again right now."

Respectful: "Yes please!"

[polly_mer]

If we can teach both boys and girls to relate to others in more assertive (rather than aggressive) and respectful (rather than deferential) ways, then we'll be getting somewhere.

Assertive and respectful are two words I seldom associate with sex.  I agree with your point, but I am amused by the use of those terms.

Assertive: "You know that thing you did with your tongue last night? I need you to do that again right now."

Respectful: "Yes please!"

Ah, I can get behind something like that.  I should have known that you wouldn't subscribe to the handbook method of requiring permission for every step and requiring a proper answer.

"May I touch that?"

"Mmmm."

"No, the book says I need a firm yes before we can proceed."

[t_r_b]

If we can teach both boys and girls to relate to others in more assertive (rather than aggressive) and respectful (rather than deferential) ways, then we'll be getting somewhere.

Assertive and respectful are two words I seldom associate with sex.  I agree with your point, but I am amused by the use of those terms.

Assertive: "You know that thing you did with your tongue last night? I need you to do that again right now."

Respectful: "Yes please!"

Ah, I can get behind something like that.  I should have known that you wouldn't subscribe to the handbook method of requiring permission for every step and requiring a proper answer.

"May I touch that?"

"Mmmm."

"No, the book says I need a firm yes before we can proceed."

"Yes, damn you, yes."

"Hmm, I'm not sure what the book says about the use of profanity in affirming consent..."

"Touch it right now or I'll leave a big hickie on your neck for your on-campus interview tomorrow"

"Whoa - there's no way I'm consenting to that"

"Mmm. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I heard a yes."

[polly_mer]

If we can teach both boys and girls to relate to others in more assertive (rather than aggressive) and respectful (rather than deferential) ways, then we'll be getting somewhere.

Assertive and respectful are two words I seldom associate with sex.  I agree with your point, but I am amused by the use of those terms.

Assertive: "You know that thing you did with your tongue last night? I need you to do that again right now."

Respectful: "Yes please!"

Ah, I can get behind something like that.  I should have known that you wouldn't subscribe to the handbook method of requiring permission for every step and requiring a proper answer.

"May I touch that?"

"Mmmm."

"No, the book says I need a firm yes before we can proceed."

"Yes, damn you, yes."

"Hmm, I'm not sure what the book says about the use of profanity in affirming consent..."

"Touch it right now or I'll leave a big hickie on your neck for your on-campus interview tomorrow"

"Whoa - there's no way I'm consenting to that"

"Mmm. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I heard a yes."

Written records.  It's the only safe bet.  The sad thing is that I can remember college orientation where some admin drone actually suggested keeping written agreements.  We freshmen were so stunned that we just looked at her.  Since she heard no dissent, I guess she assumed we agreed.

[t_r_b]

Written records.  It's the only safe bet.  The sad thing is that I can remember college orientation where some admin drone actually suggested keeping written agreements.  We freshmen were so stunned that we just looked at her.  Since she heard no dissent, I guess she assumed we agreed.

You mean she didn't demand a written record of your agreement? Surely you had to sign a statement to the effect of, "I, polly_mer, incoming freshwoman at Way Cool U, do solemnly swear not to exchange bodily fluids with, explore the orifices of, or stimulate the erogenous zones of any fellow students except where the consent of all parties to such exchange, exploration, or stimulation is formally recorded, signed, and dated in triplicate, with at least one copy deposited in the office of the Dean of Students to satisfy the Dean's prurient curiosity."

[polly_mer]

Written records.  It's the only safe bet.  The sad thing is that I can remember college orientation where some admin drone actually suggested keeping written agreements.  We freshmen were so stunned that we just looked at her.  Since she heard no dissent, I guess she assumed we agreed.

You mean she didn't demand a written record of your agreement? Surely you had to sign a statement to the effect of, "I, polly_mer, incoming freshwoman at Way Cool U, do solemnly swear not to exchange bodily fluids with, explore the orifices of, or stimulate the erogenous zones of any fellow students except where the consent of all parties to such exchange, exploration, or stimulation is formally recorded, signed, and dated in triplicate, with at least one copy deposited in the office of the Dean of Students to satisfy the Dean's prurient curiosity."

Apparently, silence sometimes implies consent.  I suspect that this woman was new and didn't really understand the culture at the school.  One of our fondest sayings was "SchoolX: where the men are men, the women are men, and the sheep are nervous."  It's pretty obvious at alumni events who are clueless hired admin staff and who are alums who got roped into hosting.

[t_r_b]

Written records.  It's the only safe bet.  The sad thing is that I can remember college orientation where some admin drone actually suggested keeping written agreements.  We freshmen were so stunned that we just looked at her.  Since she heard no dissent, I guess she assumed we agreed.

You mean she didn't demand a written record of your agreement? Surely you had to sign a statement to the effect of, "I, polly_mer, incoming freshwoman at Way Cool U, do solemnly swear not to exchange bodily fluids with, explore the orifices of, or stimulate the erogenous zones of any fellow students except where the consent of all parties to such exchange, exploration, or stimulation is formally recorded, signed, and dated in triplicate, with at least one copy deposited in the office of the Dean of Students to satisfy the Dean's prurient curiosity."

Apparently, silence sometimes implies consent.  I suspect that this woman was new and didn't really understand the culture at the school.  One of our fondest sayings was "SchoolX: where the men are men, the women are men, and the sheep are nervous." 

Were the sheep not covered by the written consent policy? That's quite the loophole.

Oh dear - how far this thread has fallen.

[polly_mer]

Written records.  It's the only safe bet.  The sad thing is that I can remember college orientation where some admin drone actually suggested keeping written agreements.  We freshmen were so stunned that we just looked at her.  Since she heard no dissent, I guess she assumed we agreed.

You mean she didn't demand a written record of your agreement? Surely you had to sign a statement to the effect of, "I, polly_mer, incoming freshwoman at Way Cool U, do solemnly swear not to exchange bodily fluids with, explore the orifices of, or stimulate the erogenous zones of any fellow students except where the consent of all parties to such exchange, exploration, or stimulation is formally recorded, signed, and dated in triplicate, with at least one copy deposited in the office of the Dean of Students to satisfy the Dean's prurient curiosity."

Apparently, silence sometimes implies consent.  I suspect that this woman was new and didn't really understand the culture at the school.  One of our fondest sayings was "SchoolX: where the men are men, the women are men, and the sheep are nervous." 

Were the sheep not covered by the written consent policy? That's quite the loophole.

Oh dear - how far this thread has fallen.

Ah, but not quite far enough.  Does it help to know that a proper sheep for sexual purposes is green?  No, probably not.

[t_r_b]

Okay then: we've established that the right sexuality for girls and boys involves fairness, mutuality, assertiveness, respect, the creative use of one's tongue, oral and/or written agreements except when you've got something better to do with your mouth and/or hands, and green sheep.

Did I miss anything?

[polly_mer]

Nope, you appear to have all the bases covered.  Now you are in charge of the pamphlets to hand out to teenagers.

[t_r_b]

[Sigh]

I can't believe I hijacked my own thread. Those are the perils of staying up late with polly, I guess.

Anyone else care to comment on the actual Chronicle article?

If not, feel free to offer more examples of assertiveness and respect in bed (or on tabletops, behind the bushes, in the stacks, whatever).