Oh dear! It seems as though there is a whole mass of confusion in the world of sex again today that could be remedied so simply by finally acknowledging that we are the animals that we are and sex is as instinctual and necessary as eating, drinking and sleeping.
Do we really have to continually battle with the notion that sex is some sort of power game, with men perpetually using sex to get the better of women?
Of course, we do have to because this actually does happen; far too frequently.
However, it doesn’t have to be if people would only get to grips with the world of female sexuality. If only people could see the equity in sex, and the right or that equity there would be so many resolutions to a vast array of social, emotional and indeed international problems.
And I am afraid to say there are some sisters in this world that do not help the cause one iota. By perpetuating the idea that women can be sexually manipulated by men instead of being more sexually positive about female sexuality is almost, and I say this with much trepidation for fear of miscomprehension, becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Men manipulate women ergo women are subliminal in all things sexual.
NO! No and more no’s.
If I want sex I am damn well going to make it known that I want it. If I do not want sex I am going to be equally assertive. It is my body and the sexual pleasures that I indulge in are for me as well as my partner, I hasten to add. Guess what? There is equity because both of us appreciate the desire and need of both men and women in the adorable game of sex, which is no game at all.
I’m beginning to get rather angry about all of this.
I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not condoning or denying the existence of manipulation. Neither am I saying that there is one easy answer to the problem of sexual predation.
But I am suggesting that a sexual empowerment for women, a love of their sexuality, a right to delight in their sexuality is a significant step in the right direction.
Yesterday, there was an article in the newspaper about some poor sod in Canada who said the most inappropriate thing as part of a talk to students on keeping safe.
He suggested that if women stopped dressing in a slutty way, then they would be safe from the unwanted advances from sexually desperate men.
Fucking idiot!
His actual words were, “I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this – however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised”. The fact that this comment was predated with the glorious phase “I think we’re beating around the bush here” says it all. Ooh er missus!
Well honestly! The man, whose name incidentally is Michael Sanguinetti (not quite so sanguine after the speech), is completely naive if he thought his comments were going to be ignored or responded to with some flippant riposte. The women were outraged as well they might.
And thus was borne the Slutwalking movement of North America that is allegedly going global.
Basically, the women who were present at Mr. Sanguinetti’s talk, all ten of them, were a little displeased – unsanguinetti!. The Tipping Point was reached and soon there were “SlutWalks” planned for many of the main cities in Canada and the USA. This has now spread to other countries including the UK.
The tagline for the marches is “Yes means yes and no means no” but one of the key factors in the naming of this movement is to try and re-appropriate the terminology used, i.e. to prevent the word “slut” from having the negative undertones that it does.
There is also another underlying issue that these women want to point out; that inappropriate sexual behaviour from men is unacceptable full stop whether a woman looked as though she was asking for it in the choice of clothes that she made or not.
Rape is abhorrent. There is nothing that can ever excuse a man forcing themselves upon a woman or another man. It is disgusting and denigrates sex to the most shallow and hollow of things, something that sex should never be.
Rape is abhorrent. There is nothing that can ever excuse a man forcing themselves upon a woman or another man. It is disgusting and denigrates sex to the most shallow and hollow of things, something that sex should never be.
But these women are tackling it all in a different way. They are being sex positive. They are saying that they have a right to dress how they like even if that provokes some low-life idiot into thinking that this is an open invitation to fuck them. And that if that provocation leads to action, saying no should be respected and complied with. End of.
However, these women are saying that they have the right over their bodies, and how to dress their bodies. That is exactly how it should be.
A woman should wear a flimsy shirt if she feels like it. A woman should proudly dress her derriere so that she feels good about herself, and if this is sexual to others, then she should be allowed to celebrate the fact that she is a sexual being. It does not mean that the voyeur has a right to throw himself or herself upon her but perhaps they may both enjoy the sexuality of the moment.
We are sexual beings.
I empathise with this. Decades ago, a fellow worker of mine told me that I was “asking for it” by wearing tight mini-skirts and high heels.
I wasn’t. I just felt confident in my twenty year old body to dress it in that way. In fact, I was so sexually unconfident that the thought that someone had responded in this way to my sartorial arrangement angered me profusely and nearly sent me to the nearest burka.
I wasn’t. I just felt confident in my twenty year old body to dress it in that way. In fact, I was so sexually unconfident that the thought that someone had responded in this way to my sartorial arrangement angered me profusely and nearly sent me to the nearest burka.
I wish I had been strong enough then to do something radical like get my tits out on display for him and say something like, “Guess what honey, I am still saying no. You can look but this does not give you an open invitation to get your cock anywhere near me. This is my choice, my sexuality and an imbecile like you is not getting a look in, so fuck off with your misogynistic claptrap!”
Sadly that was over twenty years ago and we are still living in an unenlightened world where women are afraid of their sexuality and seemingly not empowered to proudly accept the reality of their natural state of sexuality.
It is time to re-appropriate the language of sex because without doing so a woman’s right to eb a sexual being is never going to happen. If you are constantly called a slut or a slapper or a bicycle because you wear your sexuality explicitly, if you are constantly and derogatively called a nymphomaniac for acknowledging that you are a sexual being who like a fuck, then you are never going to get the sexual equality that some of us dream about, and men will continue to dominate in the world of sex.
In some ways, and I say this with care, women have allowed this to be perpetuated by not re-appropriating such terminology sooner.
I am a nymphomaniac, and I am bloody proud of it. But by definition currently, this would imply that I would have sex with anything that walks; man or beast, which is patently not the case. I am actually very choosy about who I have sex with and how I want to express my sexuality but I rather like being a rampant horny one that likes having sex at any given opportunity when the right cock and the right person is standing in front of me.
Surely this makes me a bit of a nymphomaniac, i.e. a woman who loves sex. But does this make me a slapper? Or am I a slapper because I indulge in occasional bouts of porn viewing? And am I a slut? Or am I not a slut because I currently restrict my love-making to one person? Or am a I slut because I choose to fuck men that I am not married to?
But I’m not a bicycle because I won’t ride everything. And what is the differentiation between a bike and a slapper?
All of these words need re-appropriating, not just the ‘slut’ word. Any word that is deliberately used to disrespect the value of being a sexually affirmative female, in my opinion, needs re-appropriating because I am fed up of women who are sexually assertive being seen as something tasteless in society, something that is almost freakish and given an array of revolting words that currently have the most definite of negative afflictions.
I want to be a goer and a slut and a slapper and a nymphomaniac and I want all of these terms to be a positive reflection of me as a sexually proud and delighted woman.
So well done young Canadians. Sisters like you are worthy of the label.
Unlike others.
For we then have the delightful Nadine Dorries, MP, who this week tabled a debate about abstinence lessons for girls. Oh yes, dear reader, for girls!
Whilst this whole episode warrants a blog of its own, I felt it was important to contextualise within this blog on empowering women to win back their sexuality, because quite frankly, Ms. Dorries, nobody is going to gain from “just saying no” and if anything could further the power of men’s sexuality over women’s – well guess what, this is it!
Take your pick of these wonderful articles from the Guardian this week.
The whole idea of abstinence and the fact that Ms. Dorries is excluding men from the sex education and abstinence programme, which incidentally is an oxymoron, will merely further the notion that sex is the domain of men and women can merely say no to their beautiful bodies being subjected to the whims of men in this most horrible of manners. How the hell does this empower women to accept their sexuality and make informed choices about what they want to do and what they don’t want to do?
How can abstinence equate with any sort of equity when the assumption there is that men ask or do and women agree or don’t.
It is topsy turvy and plain wrong.
Every single piece of research that Ms. Dorries and the other 66 twats who voted for this ten-minute bill (as if you can discuss the entire requirements of sex education in that time) suggests that abstinence not only doesn’t work, it encourages unsafe sex and culminates in high levels of sexually transmitted diseases and increased levels of teenage conception rates. In the USA when the silver ring brigade were at their peak, all these teenagers signed up to the pledge of “Just Say No” only to find that they wanted to fuck after all, and when the rings came off, they spread themselves around like wildfire, oblivious to the problems of multiple sexual liaisons because they had never been taught about them. Thus rates of Chlamydia and Gonorrhoea went through the roof.
A fabulous solution Ms. Dorries!
But more importantly, it is not a sex positive solution for either sex. It is not telling young women that sex is such a patently wonderful thing that they ought to consider waiting until they are physically, emotionally and spiritually ready. It is not saying that sex is as much a female pleasureland as it is for men. In fact, quite the reverse, by implication, it is suggesting that it is a man or a boy that takes a lead on sexual behaviour and all a woman has to do is be a part of that without a real vote in what takes place.
I’m sorry. At first, I laughed out loud at her idiocy and now I am nearly at the point of violence, which for a pacifist is quite something.
Sex education in this country has not worked because a) it has not been taught properly, b) it has not been sex positive c) it has had to compete for time with the standards agenda that I am sure Ms. Dorries is massively in support of d) it concentrates on the biological, e) it does nothing about looking at the intricacies of relationships e) it has only come into existence under the constraints of a male-dominated notion of what sex is about f), g), h), zz) ................. I could go on but I will save that for another day.
The point is that Ms. Dorries, just like Mr. Sanguinetti, doesn’t get the fact that women have as much responsibility in the world of sex as men do. Furthermore, if women want to flaunt and provoke excitement in men, that is their prerogative and that does not give an open invitation to fuck. Furthermore, if women want to dress in a certain way because they feel happy with themselves in doing so, irrespective of whether that is deemed to be sexually provocative, then they should damn well be allowed and enabled to do so without repercussions of name-calling, unwanted advances and so forth.
And it is not just the likes of Ms. Dorries that should wake up and smell the joys of sex. I am afraid many feminists should do the same and rejoice in their sexuality rather than try to speak for the rest of us who revel in the opportunity of getting a favoured cock up our cunt.
Here is another masterpiece of feminist over-reaction that has come about because they still see sex as a man’s world.
This man, reporting on a piece of research that was carried out in 2002, suggested that sperm was good for women and made them feel rather good after having it loaded into their pussy.
Well, yes, I think one can safely say that is the case.
It went on to say that those women whose partners wore condoms and thus did not release semen were less enamoured by the whole proceedings and did not get the natural delight of this dose of oestrogen and prostaglandins, both of which apparently naturally lower levels of depression.
So Prozac or penis? Mmmmmm, having had both, let me think about that......... for less time than it takes to tap out the dots of implied consideration!
But the poor man who wrote about this for a Valentine’s Day report made the fatal mistake of suggesting that a shedload of semen might be a better February 14th gift than chocolate.
"So there's a deeper bond between men and women than St Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there's a better gift for that day than chocolate” said Mr. Lazar Greenfield
Oh dear! Our feminist friends didn’t like that, despite the fact that I would have thought this was good news indeed, especially for those of us who like a decent swallow as well. Intravenous happiness? What more could a girl want?
But no, they objected to the notion of a man being able to give his spunk like that as though he was gifting it, and they objected to the fact that.......... well, to be honest, I am not sure what they are objecting to. In fact I am pretty bored by people’s inability to see sex for what it is, i.e. natural, enjoyable and should be encouraged.
If they were objecting to the notion that the man “giving” and the woman “receiving” is a bad thing, then I can understand that a little because my idea of sexual perfection, as I have stated earlier, is an equity in need and desire with plenty of giving and receiving from all involved.
But really, I think their main objection is that it is about sex and an assumption that women want to be wooed with chocolate........ as I said, who knows what their objection is.
But it is yet another example of people misunderstanding, misconstruing and misrepresenting any comments about sexuality and a sexual world. We have hidden for so long from its existence that we melodramatically overreact to people’s perfectly valid fascination in the subject.
Mr. Sanguinetti and Ms. Dorries should not be able to make their foolish statements if women were equal in sex, and if female sexuality was fully appreciated and acknowledged as the mass force of nature that it is. We should be proud of our sexuality and we should be happy to be called a raving nymphomaniac if that is what we happily are. Mr. Greenfield should be allowed to publicly acknowledge the additional positives of love-making and the juices that flow without being lambasted for trying to spread a little happiness in this doomed world of ignorance.
But most importantly, women have got to take the lead, like the students in Toronto and declare themselves glorious sexual beings with a right to love sex and a right to choose how they want to majestically celebrate their sexuality.
No comments:
Post a Comment