Sexy Demonstrations and Celebrations

Sod the SlutWalk! I’ve just come across something far more arousing.

Don’t worry girls. I am only joking. As I have commented before on this blog, I am totally in support of the celebrations that took part in London on Saturday and wished to goodness that I had been able to be there. I was, however, disheartened by the amount of coverage this got in the press. Take the Guardian, for instance. It had spent the month prior to the SlutWalk talking it up in the paper, commenting on it at least 20 times within the month. And when it came to looking at the Observer on Sunday morning, there was barely a comment, other than a small photograph and a factual statement that the event had taken place.

This is probably the best of the bunch as far as recent articles on the matter, but note that this was written before the event and the photograph featured is of similar action in Glasgow not London.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2011/06/women-sluts-woman-erotic

I have to say that there are some issues with the SlutWalk. Perhaps the absolute reason for the rally has not been made clear. I mean is it a walk against rape? Is it a re-appropriation of words that have negative undertones for female sexuality? Is it about empowering women in their right to be sexual beings? Is it simply a celebration of the female form by females? Is it an amalgamation of all of these, and if that is the case, what is the key message that the organisers want to portray to the awaiting world?

I would like to think that the SlutWalk was the start of many such celebrations and demonstrations about a woman’s right to choose, a woman’s right to display their sexuality, a woman’s right to be a sexual being. This may be a wholly inappropriate comment but perhaps its message might have been clearer if they had removed the rape issue. One would hope that everyone in society could accept that rape is abhorrent, even dear old Clarky boy. No does mean no and sartorial provocation should not make any difference to that fact. Clearly we have not yet won this argument but everybody knows that it is there.

Perhaps, the SlutWalk would have gained more coverage and more following had it concentrated on this whole realm of celebrating female sexuality. That in itself covers the issue of rape. If women are seen as more confident about their sexuality then perhaps rape might diminish, especially if you couple this with some proper sex education for men and women (Nadine Dorries – are you hearing?).

Please note that I am not for one minute suggesting this is the simple and only answer. There are some fuckwits out there, and far too many of them, who seem to think that if a woman dresses in a certain way then they have the right to impose their arousal on the subject. That is wrong, clearly wrong. But should we not look at it all in a different way?

Empowering young, middle aged and old women to know their sexuality and to celebrate its ingenuity and delight has to be the way forward. If women feel in control of their sexuality, they are more likely to be assertive, and abusive, infantile men will see that this female sexuality is a force that is far greater than they could ever have imagined. Isn’t the celebration of sexuality, therefore, one of the most positive ways of letting the world know that abusive and unwanted sexual behaviour is not ever, ever to be tolerated. Yet simultaneously, women have as much right to celebrate, enjoy and delight in their sexuality than a man with his stiffie in hand.

And I cannot stress enough that I am not wishing to remove anti-rape messages from this or any other demonstration. But the issue is within that word; demonstration.

This word implies something to moan about rather than something to celebrate. I will happily and readily march and protest about any laws that diminish the rights of the victim in rape cases. Rape is rape, and yes there are differences in different cases, but it is still rape!

But this event was supposedly responding to a stupid man saying stupid things about how a woman dressing in a slut-like way could in some way invite inappropriate sexual advances. He was dismissing a woman’s right to dress how she wanted. He was not saying anything specific about rape, although it was implicit. He knows that rape is a crime. But maybe the organisers should have responded directly to his stupidity whilst also keeping the rape issue implicit but not the main purpose of the walk.

Ultimately, as Laurie Penny quite rightly points out, this is not about sex, it is about sexism – according to her. I would go a step further and say it is about sexuality, and it is time that such events were repeated all over the world once more with women dressing how they like, using words like ‘cunt’ and ‘slut’ in the most positive of ways and reclaiming their right and value and fortitude in being sexual beings.

.................................................................

But what of the other event that caught my eye? How I really do wish I had been in London to excite my other naughty part of my sexuality – that of voyeurism.

And in some ways this does link to the issue above.

There was a naked bicycle demonstration. I hear you ask, how can a bicycle be anything but naked, as an inanimate object with no apparent sexuality other than a bar to hurt your balls?

Well it was a naked bike ride, protesting about the lack of courtesy and indeed space to ride freely and safely in our capital city.

And apparently, this isn’t the first time it has happened. This event was a repeat of one held at a similar time last year. How did I miss it?
I totally applaud the demonstrators’ determination and guts. I also applaud their stance. I, for one, would happily cycle around much more frequently if I felt safe in doing so.

 And what a fantastic way to get noticed.

But there is also an element in me that would have been hugely aroused by seeing all these naked bodies. I confess to being impressed with the male and female form to the point that seeing lots of them together tickles my fancy or fanny quite significantly.

I appreciate, for instance, that Spencer Tunick is an artist but I also love looking in detail at his work. I adore the fact that we are all so different in form and seeing a mixture on naked bodies together really does turn me on as well as the fact that it is something of aesthetic beauty.

I love nakedness. I love looking at uncovered tits and dangling cocks, even if the collective gathering is not supposed to be for the benefit of my libido.

And here is the issue. Just seeing all these beautiful bodies does not give me any inclination to jump and ride a bare buttock or two. Just seeing a collection of naked tits does not make me want to reach out and touch them; touch myself, yes, but not them. Just seeing a load of cocks of different shapes and sizes does not make me want to reach out and grab their balls for a rumble and a tumble. I am simply enjoying looking.

I am simply enjoying the simplicity of the nakedness. I am simply looking and I am simply delighted in the bravery of these people.

And let us also face facts, some of the naked bodies aren’t particularly pleasant, just as there are some faces that are less attractive than others.

So are they being provocative in what they are not wearing? Should they shy away from the fact that there will be other people out there who are looking in a slightly lascivious manner?

No! Like it or not, they are displaying their sexuality, and I embrace it. Even if they do not think of themselves as sexual beings, it is there for others to see that they are, even if they are not active or actively aware of it.

They are wearing nothing and they should be able to do so without fear of suffering inappropriate sexual advances. And I personally do not think a controlled bit of voyeurism is inappropriate sexual behaviour.

And guess what, the same applies for women. If a woman wants to display their sexuality, they should do so without fear of suffering inappropriate sexual advances whilst also recognising the fact that there may be some people out there who delight in the beauty of their sexuality. There is a huge difference between getting aroused at the sight of someone and behaving inappropriately because of it.

Everyone ought to be capable of containment at some point in their sexual lives but it does not stop them being sexual and acknowledging their sexuality.

Had I been there on Saturday, I would not have been the only one ogling. Perhaps I might have been one of a small percentage of people who were prepared to admit that they were enjoying an eyeful but that is because I feel free to openly embrace my sexuality and do not have any concerns about telling the world that I am a sexual being, and quite frankly, it might seem rather odd if I was not aroused by such a delicious sight.

Through all of this there is a giggle. Dear Victoria Coren, through Twitter announced, “Too far away from the exact vehicles, but that’s the last time I’m using a Boris bike without a packet of Wet Ones”.

I’m still giggling. So funny.

But Victoria has, feasibly subconsciously, made an important point. The cyclists themselves may have been rather aroused in seeing all this nakedness. They didn’t pop off their bikes for a quickie. They just celebrated their nakedness and possibly their sexuality whilst also ‘using’ their sexuality to make a very important point about other vehicles ensuring that they are aware of the passing cyclist, even when they are fully clothed.

But excited they might have been, and Victoria has realised that they could have been so, and that there is nothing wrong with that, and that there might even have been some juicy emissions from such an arousal.

Clothes or no clothes, we are sexual beings. It is about time we recognised the fact and lived with it appropriately, imaginatively, honestly and with respect to everyone for who they are.

Hysterical Sexuality

As the week has progressed since Stephen Fry made his ‘sex’ announcement that was then retracted and then counter argued and then reviewed and then analysed and dissected and rebuked, there has been an abundance of writers, both professional and amateur, making comments about the subject matter and the National Treasure’s right to open his mouth on the subject.

I include myself amongst them as I too made comment immediately after Stephen had done his business.

I started that blog with “Oh Stephen, Stephen, Stephen” and to an extent, I still stand by this exasperation but possibly not for the same reason as others have protested. I happen to think that Stephen is onto something. I happen to think that there are women who do not like sex. I happen to think there are men who feel that their women are only having sex with them out of duty rather than desire.

I happen to think that because I know people who do just that.

However, where Stephen and I part company is the reasons for this sexual inertia, or even whether this sexual inertia exists.

I also happen to believe that the reason some of these women do not like sex or are indifferent to it is because they have never had the opportunity to explore their own sexuality. I happen to believe that if women had been enabled to enjoy their sexuality generations ago, then we would have had a much healthier regard for sex in this country and certainly would not be in a situation where a gay man could even question a woman’s love of sex.

As if by magic to back my thoughts up, there are appeared in the paper today a reminder of how treatment for the sexually hysterical was developed in the late 1800s; something that Zenpuss wrote about over two years ago.

http://zenpuss.blogspot.com/2008/05/hysteria-stress-and-knowing-your-body.html

Or is it ‘by magic’ that these things appear?

If there is one thing I would certainly like to congratulate Mr. Fry on is his ability to be the Zeitgeist. Perhaps the ‘hysteria’ article only appeared so prominently because of Stephen Fry’s intervention last week. Admittedly, the article is about a film that would be appearing in our cinemas with or without the National Treasure’s comments but female sexuality suddenly seems to be the flavour of the month.

Thank goodness.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/nov/07/vibrator-victorian-women-film-hysteria

The story is about a Dr Joseph Mortimer Granville who “accidentally” invented the first vibrator whilst treating women for hysteria, depression, stress, sleeplessness and an unwillingness to go coital with their husbands. The patients submitted themselves to this electronic stimulation which resulted in “hysterical paroxysm” or orgasms to you and me.

1880 folks and we still cannot fully acknowledge the presence of a vaginal orgasm!

“There is something about that time in the 1880s, and just how strict the cultural codes were, that makes it funny” states US director Tanya Wexler. “Everyone pretended it was a medical thing, not a sexual thing, or rather, they really believed it”.

As I said, 1880 and how far exactly have we travelled.

Personally, Ms Wexler, I find it highly un-amusing that the strict cultural codes were in place and to some extent are still so today.

For example, how many “couples” do you think are going to see this film together, squirming in their seats as they worry about whether their hidden vibe is about to be found or whether there is a hidden vibrator at all, or indeed why there isn’t a vibrator that they are using together?

Mr. Fry could not possibly have made his comments if there was enough knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the female orgasm and female sexuality. He can only say such things because of the huge amount of ignorance that veils this all important subject. So it is far from amusing in my opinion.

And whilst we are on the subject of combining Fry, hysteria and sex let us consider one other aspect of this cohesive little story.

Stephen Fry, by his own admission, suffers from depression; manic depression in fact. He has been diagnosed as bi-polar. This is a debilitating illness where sufferer’s inertia invades every aspect of their lives. Left untreated it does not seem to be able to self-correct or disappear. However, with the support of drugs, the patient can improve.

But it is not just down to drugs. Lifestyle changes can also help the sufferer.

Is it possible that Stephen Fry is less “hysterical”, calmer and more contented now that he has embraced his sexuality and called time on his years of abstinence?

Please do not misinterpret this. I am not suggesting that the only way that manic depressives can improve is by having large quantities of sex, but it may just help. After all, the Hysteria work of Dr. Granville was successful. These women were allegedly cured of their hysteria once they had a regular dose of the vibrator.

Makes you think doesn’t it. I know that my own hysteria, of which there is a plenty, is certainly placated by a healthy dose of sex. I know that my own stress levels, paranoia and emotional unsteadiness are grossly exacerbated when I have not had regular orgasms, and I would even go as far as to say regular vaginal orgasms.

I need sex. I need healthy, regular, fully orgasmic sex. I need it now, I needed it yesterday and I will need it tomorrow. Fact.

But that is just me. I’m not a raving nymphomaniac as much as I would like to think I am. I am just a woman in her forties who has embraced sexuality and the need and desire for sex in her life. I need love and consideration too, and healthy relationships but that is almost another matter. What I definitely need is something that triggers that entire glorious serotonin rumbling through my systems. I need to be transcend the physical and be blasted into a surreal perfection of blissed out loveliness that only comes from damn, fine fucking, or making love, if you prefer.

Which brings me to my next extract.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/07/stephen-fry-sexuality-victoria-coren

Talking of National Treasures, Victoria Coren is fast becoming one.

In this article, Victoria states that the fact that sexuality is such an individual thing. In her typical ‘hysterical’ and amusing way, she suggests that some of us might like to go cruising in the nude on Hampstead Heath (taking her scarf with her because it is November!). She also suggests that some of us might be interested in introducing pineapples into our sexual encounter but you could have two people who come together and both want sex involving a pineapple, only they have completely different ways (and ends – ooh er) of using the pineapple.

Sex is very individual.

To that extent, she argues, that Fry was both right and wrong, which is why there are so many opportunities to agree and disagree with him. There are women who don’t like sex. There are men who worry that their women do not like sex. There are women who have sex because that is the price one has to pay for the lifestyle that comes with it.

But there are equally women like Victoria Coren and I who might like sex and might like it to be a little kinky.

“What I think I want is to do filthy and disrespectful things with someone I love and trust. That's not a moral code; I just think it's sexier, to unlock the hidden and forbidden with someone you also talk to politely at breakfast and watch being a civilised grown-up on social occasions. Conveniently, love also gets stronger if you share every dark secret. That's real intimacy.

But I'm wrong, because some people define intimacy differently. I'm wrong because some of you now think I'm a slut. I'm wrong because I'll never know how much more filthy, or how much less, I'd be without the billions of influences on our suggestible little brains, including those from centuries before we were born, that built the culture in which we live."

Aahh Victoria, Victoria, Victoria – I love you!

No Victoria, you are not wrong. You are absolutely right.

We have an abundance of influences on our sexuality, and some of us have to remove some insipid ones that have been instilled over years and possibly generations. I suspect, for instance, that those Victorian women who were treated for their hysteria were not my foremothers. I suspect this treatment was for those who could afford the astronomical prices for such indulgences.

I do not know what my grandparents and great-grand-parents sex lives were like but I further suspect that there certainly wasn’t much concern as to whether the woman was sexually liberated and enjoying it all.

But of course she is also wrong!

Victoria concludes with this lovely paragraph.

“But for anyone to say that Fry is "right" or "wrong" in any general sense is madness. As his clarification spelt out, he was just throwing around ideas about the incomprehensible. There's no point trying to find the truth of desire with anyone but your partner. There is no "women" or "men" or "sex". Sentences beginning with any of those words are usually meaningless. There is nothing but an infinite number of vibrating particles, and love.

And in saying that, of course, I'm probably wrong.”

“There is no “women” or “men” or “sex””. That is correct. One cannot make sweeping generalisations about sexuality. However, we have to have a starting point and therefore there has to be statements such as “women can ejaculate” or “women can have vaginal orgasms”.

Once we have got passed those little hurdles, then we can start considering the type of individual sexuality that Coren describes so perfectly.

Sleeping with the Teacher

Sleeping with the Teacher

There is an article in today’s Observer by Victoria Coren, whose writing is usually entertaining and often stimulating. A short aside – is such ability genetic?

This week she was writing about Helen Goddard, the attractive bisexual woman who has recently been sent to prison for having sex with a fifteen year old student at her school.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/27/helen-goddard-teacher-victoria-coren

There are some bizarre commentaries about this case, and the case itself brings about a range of questions and comments. The most peculiar issue is that the judge sent her down for a crime that she committed but allowed her to remain in contact with the girl with whom she had sex.
As Coren says, would a judge sentence a burglar to a couple of years in the nick and then tell him/her that she was free to have a little break-in on the side once he/she was released?

I want to get one thing clear from the outset.
I actually think it is wholly inappropriate for a teacher to have sex with a pupil at their school. There was good reason for introducing this law and I hope that it has protected many innocent and naïve young men and women who could have been emotionally scarred for some time by the experiences.
However, it is not quite as clear cut as that.

What happens if you actually meet someone that you really care about through this type of relationship? What happens if the teacher and pupil are both emotionally stable and mature, and they actually genuinely care about one another so much that it seems the absolute right thing to do?
Making such a clear cut rule is probably the right thing to do but the judgment also has to take into consideration a range of other issues.
Even as I write this, I am unsure of my thoughts on the whole issue.

Then again, I have to say that I was possibly emotionally scarred by having a relationship with an older person when I was seventeen. The emotional abuse was quite obvious to all around but because he wasn’t a teacher at my school, and because it was before this law was introduced, there was nothing that prevented the abuse from happening. I was over the age of consent – nothing could have stopped him doing what the hell he liked to me.

The irony in my particular case was that there was another man in my life at the time, a very beautiful man who cared for me enormously and looked after me. He talked to me and treated me with the uttermost respect. He nurtured my intelligences and enabled me to develop the self-confidence and worth that I needed. If I hadn’t have had him in my life at that time, then I think I might have been a permanent gibbering wreck due to my sexual relationship with the boyfriend of the time.
Of course, this other man was a teacher at my school.

I think at the time, if I had told my parents that I would like to have a sexual relationship with the teacher rather than the abusive swine I was actually sleeping with, they would have run to the nearest church, raised their hands to heaven and shouted, “Hallelujah!” despite the fact that the teacher was married with three kids.
Like so many things in the world, and particularly the sexual world, nothing is as straightforward and clear cut as it seems, and sometimes strict legislation is not the answer.

One commentator on Coren’s piece has made an interesting point.
A seventeen year old who has sex with a fifteen year old is committing a crime, admittedly, it would hardly be pursued in the courts but by the statutes of law, it is a criminal act. An eighteen year old who has sex with a sixteen year old is free to do so and nobody would bat an eyelid.
The commentator went on to say that in essence, this is a little ridiculous. Putting a mandatory age-related cut-off point is somewhat pointless when the real issue is about the emotional and social maturity of the people involved. There are some fifteen year olds who are possibly mature enough to cope with sexual activity and there are some 23 year olds who are simply not ready!

There were calls in the press on the weekend about lowering the age of consent.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radio4/2009/09/iconoclasts_age_of_consent.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mrd9g
The crux of the matter though was that this Dr. John Spencer from Cambridge was suggesting that the age of consent should be lowered or indeed eradicated completely. He was saying that there is a real issue about criminalising consensual sex in an attempt to prevent abusive sex. He is not advocating a specific age of sexual consent but he is trying to determine the differentiation by outcome, i.e. that each case should be on its own merit, or lack of merit – whatever way you want to view it.

The delightfully right-on Peter Tatchell also contributed to the debate saying that in essence it was about human rights, i.e. the right to have consensual sex and the right to be protected from sexual abuse and that the law as it currently stands does not reconcile these two issues.
As I discussed in a previous blog, I am not sure there actually is a human right to having sex and whilst I would like there to be the opportunity for all to have sex if they want it, there is a huge danger in such a right regarding the abuse of it.

Tatchell then went on to say that it is really about good relationship education and another contributor came up with the classic line “Wearing a condom does not protect from heartache”.

And this is really the issue with both the age of consent and the particular case of the trumpet teacher and her young lover.
There is no law that protects against emotional responses and abuse. One could argue that the age of consent should remain precisely where it is for there is the outside hope that a sixteen year old is less likely to suffer from emotional abuse through sexual activity than a thirteen year old but it is never that clear-cut.
In fact, the more I think of it, I think I would ban sex and marriage until there are definitive signs of emotional maturity and security! Having said that, if this was the case, then I could still be a virgin!

So back to Tatchell.
It is about good quality sex and relationship education with a heavy emphasis on supporting young people to delay sexual intimacy with another until they are completely confident that they have the emotional capacity to deal with the negatives as well as the positives, and I am not sure that this can ever be legislated for.

Good sex is intimate. Good sex is deeply engaged in feelings that go well beyond the physical. Good sex takes you to a higher plane than anything else this world has to offer. Even as a person who has experience of teaching sex to young people, I cannot even begin to imagine how I can possibly get this across to young people. Sex is so bloody wonderful when it is all encompassing that really you shouldn’t even want it without all elements. But then again, how will you know what is perfect about a really all-encompassing sex if you haven’t experienced a quick shag that is just about the instinctive urge to fuck?

The papers are all out to condemn Helen Goddard, or even worse, to assume her own emotional immaturity in being attracted to a fifteen year old girl. But sometimes, attraction comes and knocks on our head and hands and heart and there is nothing that can be done to stem the desire and the passion. It is simply there.
Whilst I would advocate a certain amount of restraint, particularly in this case when Helen Goddard was the responsible adult, you cannot legislate for feelings. You cannot have laws and legally binding documents that mean that you can simply turn off the thoughts and ignore the intensity of an attraction.

I am genuinely not saying that it was perfectly acceptable for her to do what she wanted. She was in the wrong and she should have restrained. There were other ways of maintaining the relationship and being honest with the girl, even if necessary to say that there could be a future sexual relationship without putting herself in such a tenuous position.
I am just saying that sometimes, you cannot ignore the feelings.

There is, of course, another issue about this story.
I suspect that the coverage would not have been so great if it Helen had been a bloke. The intrigue is exacerbated by the fact that this woman is a bisexual woman and that her ‘victim’ was a female.
The other most recent case of the teacher in the docks for having sex with a pupil was another woman but she had sex with a boy. I am sure that there are plenty of other cases where a male teacher has had sex with a female pupil but quite frankly such cases are not as sexy for the press. That is almost a given!

It is yet again an example of the double standards in this country regarding sexuality. There is acceptability to a point. The irony of this story is that it has come to the forefront because it is so abhorrent that a young 26 year old woman would want to have sex with a 15 year old girl, yet it is precisely the titillation of such a story that warrants its coverage. As a society, we are appalled by this sexuality yet also enormously intrigued at the same time.
We want to be all moralistic about bisexuality yet we want to know more about it and read about it, thus proving in my opinion that we are actually interested in it.
Admitting that is something that people are not prepared to do.

Obviously, this is only my opinion. There is also the idea that this woman is too beautiful and too sexy to waste herself of bisexuality or lesbianism. How many times have I heard women say that it is “such a waste” when they see a gorgeous gay bloke? But it is not a waste at all. It is their choice and they are not wasted if they are experiencing the sexual excitement that they desire.
This woman is clearly someone who is a sexual being and all she is doing is recognising that fact, albeit in a legally inappropriate way. If she wants to swing both ways, then good luck to her!
I just wish I could get such a good looking woman with similar interests into bed with me and mine (proverbially speaking) so that we could enjoy the swing of both of her directions.

And on that note, I am going to have some beautiful thoughts, recognising both my sexuality and the sexuality of others. Nobody can legislate for that either. I am an evolving person, as all should be, and for now, this is my sexuality. I can look at a woman and think some very positive sexual thoughts. I can do the same with men.
I just wish that our society could be a little more honest about their love of sexuality and not live up to this prudish anachronism that is so prevalent in our unsuitably named Great Britain.