responsibility

On the Difference Between Taking Interest and Taking Responsibility For Our Partners' Enjoyment in Bed

Posted by figleaf | Tags:
Mon, 2010-03-01 11:37

Cinnamonsticks of Christian Nymphos tackles a stealth issue in patriarchy, pedestals, and the no-sex class.

We hear from a lot of women who aren’t satisfied in the bedroom. Some have husbands with a low sex drive. Some have husbands who don’t know how to be good lovers to them. Some have a hard time achieving orgasm. For whatever the reason they are not happily enjoying a fulfilled sex life with their husband.

...

What I want to do today is take the time to specifically focus on and discuss the importance of not transferring our part of the problem to our husbands. What often happens is that if we perceive that our husband is doing something that is keeping us from being sexually satisfied, we become so focused on his contribution to it that we forget that we are actually the ones who are primarily responsible for making sex what we want and need it to be.

She said it here.

One of the limits of traditional gender relations has been that women are given “gatekeeper” rights over only one thing: to open the gate. Everything else is held to be up to the man. Including her satisfaction. Including her disappointment.

As Barbara Eherenreich and Dierdre English, Rachel P. Maines, and others have meticulously documented, society has sometimes gone to extraordinary lengths to insure that women remain as passively dependent on their partners as humanly possible. Even in the sexually “progressive” 1970s the whole “she comes first” movement (endorsed by 2nd-wave feminism and Playboy progressives alike) held men more accountable for their partners’ enjoyment but… no less responsible for it.

In terms of heterosexuality one of the coolest things about the advent of the so-called “third wave” beginning in the 1980s was the then seriously radical idea that sex wasn’t just something that men had. There had been vibrators, yes, but they were still mostly seen (but not shown to partners) as substitutes when men weren’t around or… to “finish the job” after the man had gone to bed or gone home. But starting somewhere in the 1980s women began actively asserting ownership of their enjoyment rather than expecting their partners to provide it for them.

In many circles, both traditional and (perhaps surprisingly) progressive, this shift from women as audience of men’s performance to women as their own agents has gone over poorly. Resisted in a way that, say, tipping hats, opening doors, paying all expenses for dates, or even men leading in ballroom dancing hasn’t been. But the resistance is still an obstacle to parity.

Bottom line is it’s really (really!) important to take an active interest in our partners’ pleasure during sex. Important for men because historically we haven’t been terrifically attentive, and when even when we’ve been attentive we haven’t necessarily been very realistic. And important for women too because historically, if inaccurately, there’s been that assumption that once a partner says “yes” men can handle the rest themselves. But while it’s important for all of our partners to be actively interested in our enjoyment it’s also important that we not hold our partners responsible for our enjoyment either. So good call by Cinnamonsticks.

Repost or Like this

Locating Expectations and Responsibility

Posted by figleaf | Tags:
Wed, 2009-07-15 07:13

Bridget Crawfor of Feminist Law Professors, commenting on what she feels is thin-gruel anti-prostitution legislation in Rhode Island, says

Want to stop prostitution? Publish the names of the customers.

She said it here.

While I don’t agree that anybody should be prosecuted for uncoerced transactional sex I do agree that if you want to get serious about stopping prostitution, as constituted, then you have to start holding buyers responsible instead of sellers. You have to stop blaming the providers (enough of whom are not coerced to make “blaming the victim” an insufficient construction) and start blaming recipients.

And so, by all means, if they’re serious they should publish the names of the customers. (Not that they are.)

The point isn’t that men, the primary customers, are to “blame” for sex work. Nor, I think, should men be punished for seeking it. (Really, seriously, I believe that: sex work as constituted is a product of a social paradigm of sexual scarcity for men. Therefore whatever the solution is it’s not adding to the perception that men must be willing to put themselves at risk to find sex.)

It’s just that one of the big consequences of the heteronormative, androcentric view of the world is the assumption that men’s social/sexual activities are physical, inevitable property of the universe like gravity or the speed of light. With the result that we tend to lament men’s behavior, and fulminate about it, and devise and impose various behavior-modification schemes to try and subvert it, and oh boy do we create layers, and layers, and layers of customs, conventions, rules, regulations, and blame, blame, blaming of others to try and cope with it! But setting and upholding actual, useful, affirmative, non-punitive expectations? Not so much.

Repost or Like this

Examining Ethics, Morality, Judgment, and Responsibility Through Beer Goggles

Posted by figleaf | Tags:
Fri, 2009-03-20 14:07

Karen Rayne of Adolescent Sexuality by Dr. Karen Rayne says

Early on in the conference, I was at a bar with friends.  One lovely man was flirting quite nicely with one particularly lovely woman.  They are friends back home, and here they were away from the daily constraints.  When the man went to get another drink, the woman confided in me that he had been interested in her for sometime, and that she wasn’t very sure about it.  The evening ended and everyone went home alone, more or less drunk.

Read the quote in context here.

I’m not going to wreck the story, which is cool and turns out not the way you might expect. Even if you think you know what to expect.

But I am comfortable quoting from her analysis

Alcohol clouds judgment. Many bad sexual choices come about when the participants are intoxicated. The people in my story are in their mid-twenties and thirties. They have experience drinking. And yet they still get high holy drunk and do things they wouldn’t do sober…

...

I am frustrated by the cavalier attitude of people around sex and alcohol. So go talk with your friends, your family, your children about how alcohol has the capacity to change how you think about things and how you act. Talk about ways to drink responsibly – not too much and preferably with a sober friend along to watch your back and do the driving.

It’s a seriously cool story with a couple of morals. Including, importantly, an interesting illumination of men’s response to conflicting social pressures when intoxicated.

But the main thing is that people’s responsibilities (not just men’s, not just women’s) are altered by alcohol in ways that, as in Rayne’s story… usually are agreeable and inconsequential. But also as Rayne points out, who we all are while drinking can be markedly different from who we are when we’re sober.

—-

Another point about the man’s behavior, by the way, is that it illustrates just how close our drunken and sober sensibilities can be. And same, though it’s a bit less clear, with the woman’s. Resulting in strong evidence that we really don’t need to get roasted before doing the sensible… as opposed to proper thing to do.

Repost or Like this

Alcohol Bender: *Women* Shouldn't Drink? Wait a Minute...

Posted by figleaf | Tags:
Thu, 2009-02-26 13:56

Long as I’m wearing the full-on prudish libertine hat, who, exactly should we be warning not to drink if we’re concerned about sexual assault? Because while there’s certainly evidence that alcohol can make potential victims more vulnerable to sexual assault but… but… there’s even more evidence that alcohol makes potential perpetrators waaaaaaay more likely to, well, perpetrate sexual assault!

And yet we tell women to stay away from bars. We tell women to stay away from parties where alcohol is served. We warn women to call cabs instead of walking home alone from clubs.

Because… what? Men in bars, at parties, and outside clubs are all sober, confident stalwarts sipping ginger ale and herb teas waiting for an opportunity to strike? Um, yeah, that happens but I don’t think it happens a lot.

See, the problem with making gendered men the standard against which all humanity is measured is that we don’t consider what policies might alter men’s behavior. And the problem with accepting the anti-feminist ideal of gendered men as ravening, uncontrollable, bestial, irresponsible, incapable, juvenile, undisciplined, dick-following, fart-lighting, dangerous (but, for some reason, also inherently superior?!?!?!) who’ll fuck anything that moves… or just moved recently… is that we don’t consider what policies might, y’know, chill us out a bit.

No, instead it’s all “ooo, them ladies orta watch what they drink or they’ll get what’s coming to them for not being more careful.”

Yeah, how’s that been working for, oh, the last 3,000 years? Not so great?

I don’t have numbers at hand but I think there’s evidence that where women are persuaded to reduce alcohol consumption and/or otherwise drink “responsibly” rates of sexual assault drop by about 10%. And I don’t have numbers at hand because as far as I know there aren’t any but I’ll give you a nickle if persuading men to reduce alcohol and/or otherwise drink “responsibly” rates of sexual assault would drop by, um, a lot more. Not 100% and maybe not 80% but, yeah, more than 60% so…

Repost or Like this

After Effects Affectations

Posted by figleaf | Tags:
Thu, 2008-08-28 16:22


Photo by Flickr user lylamerle. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Mark Kleiman of The Reality-Based Community addresses the popular meme that Senator McCain is above criticism because he was a prisoner of war (POW.) While you’ll want to read the whole post here are some points relevant to topics we discuss here.

McCain was a former POW when he cheated on his wheelchair-bound wife and then dumped her for the younger, prettier, able-bodied heiress to a beer fortune.

...

McCain was a former POW when he said (as a “joke,” of course) “You know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? Because Janet Reno’s her father.” And he was still a former POW when he apologized to Bill Clinton but not to Hillary Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, or Janet Reno.

McCain was a former POW when he screamed an obscenity at his wife in public.

...

McCain was a former POW both when he denounced the “agents of intolerance” and when he embraced them.

McCain was a former POW when he denounced Swiftboating and attack ads, and remains a former POW as he embraces them.

...

McCain was a former POW when he reversed his positions on abortion, tax cuts for the rich, and immigration reform.

He said it here.

I’d add that it’s not John McCain’s post-POW responsibility that members the press prefer ride on the tire swing at one of his estates (the Sedona one I think) instead of taking him to task. That would be their responsibility.

Repost or Like this

What do you say to a naked lady? Uncle vs. uncle

Posted by figleaf | Tags:
Tue, 2005-09-06 16:00

About 25 years ago now I used to ride a bus to school. You know how there always seems to be one person on every bus who knows all and tells much to everyone in general? On my ride home there was always this woman who editorialized about her high morality and the degeneracy of pretty much everyone else. I tuned her out most of the time but she said one thing that’s reverberated since: she was so glad laws are so strict because otherwise she’d shoplift, steal, and assault people all the time.

I’m an optimistic man but not an entirely naive one. I think she was mistaken. I thing that, under normal circumstances, most people don’t need laws to do the right thing.

I’ve seen several posts over the last year that have reminded me of that.

First, there’s this one from the extremely creative Phillip at hotaction.ca

I’ll get back to writing in a few days. I kidnapped a beautiful heiress and I’ve been holding her for ransom. Here are a few photos I took today, deep in my forest hideout.

[He includes six photos of a partner handcuffed in the woods including

this one. —fl]

Then there’s a photo ThatGirl of [the now-dark] thatgirl’s life took around the time of her own trip into the woods.

[now-unavailable image of erstwhile blogger ThatGirl bound to a tree by the chain connecting her nipple clamps]

And, on a similar theme this afternoon, Ruby Princess of [also now-dark] Paths, plights, and perils posted the following

you get to catch a glimpse of my evening bound to the bedpost. do tell me, what you think of my predicament? you wouldn’t take advantage now, would you?

[now-unavailable image of now-dark blogger Ruby Princess partially dressed and chained to a bedpost]

The funny thing (not really even that funny) is that like most people if I found a naked woman tied to a tree in the woods or chained to a bed I’d go all boy-scout, unbind her, wrap her in a blanket, call 911, try to secure the area as best I could, the whole straight-arrow, true-blue, what-can-I-do-to-help routine. Unless she said “thanks, I appreciate your offer to help but I’m in the middle of playing a scene with Phillip,” and even then I’d almost certainly apologize and withdraw rather than take advantage of her situation.

On the other hand it would excite me terribly to play a scene like that with someone who’d bound herself voluntarily. (Allowing me to surpress my involuntary boy-scout reflex — but with the emphasis on “allow to supress”.) Under those circumstances I’d walk up behind her, whisper in her ear “Don’t say ‘uncle’ unless you want me to stop…” and after a decent pause to let her back out, I’d absolutely take advantage of her generous offer.

Questions, assuming you’d put yourself in this position voluntarily: If you were blindfolded would you want to remain blindfolded or would you rather be able to watch my hands reach around you, touch your collarbones and then move purposfully downward? Would it make a difference if you knew how much it would turn me on to make you watch? Remembering you could always say “uncle” would you prefer to be treated gently or roughly? Would you prefer that I treated you as if I was your captor, with the full dominant/submissive subspace experience, or would it be even more intense if I was a rescuer who, despite his best intentions, succumbed to temptation — maybe accidentally touching your breasts as he reached up to untie you or maybe noticing how aroused you were as he bent to unchain your legs? (Mmm, the more I think about it the more I like that reluctant-ravisher/irresistable-ravishee bottomed from the top scenario.)

Repost or Like this

User login