Pride in London, I'm heterosexual but.......

Yesterday was “Pride in London 2014” and I took to the streets to see what all the fuss was about. Friends and colleagues had attended these rallies for years and somehow, I had always been busy. This year I decided to go along and see for myself.

Positioning myself in Piccadilly, I was struck by the extent of the crowd. I was also struck by the diversity. Onlookers were not all gay; far from it. There were heterosexuals all over the place – families, couples, siblings, friends and me.

Me.

Am I heterosexual? Because I’ve been kissed and fucked by a woman, does that make me bisexual?

Recently, I contacted a charity for advice and support. They asked me if I would mind doing a quick survey. I agreed.

What is your gender? – Simple to answer. What is your age bracket? – Another easily defined response. What is your sexual orientation?

What is my sexual orientation?

I paused.

My response was that I was heterosexual but……. 

The person at the end of the phone waited for a more complete response. Was the “but” big enough to call me bisexual, we were both thinking although not saying? Eventually, I just left it at that; I was heterosexual.

But this answer was and is incomplete.

I like women. I love big, natural boobs. I like looking at cleavages accompanied by fulsome tits. I love the shapeliness of women. I love kissing, and whether the person I am kissing is a man or a woman is irrelevant if I am turned on. And I am turned on by women but I am far more turned on by men. I’m a person who would prefer a WILF (Willy I’d like to fuck) rather than a MILF.

If I was looking for someone (which in itself is a pathetic phrase because I don’t exactly go out looking)  to have a sexual relationship with, I would certainly prefer men. If I were to join a dating agency, it would be men I wanted. Yet I’d probably want to have sex with men that would revel in my enjoyment of women too. I’d want to spend time enjoying looking at other women – maybe on pornography sites, without necessarily wanting to fuck them. I’d want to share erotica with any sexual partner and I wouldn’t want him to be disturbed by my interest in other women.

I look at women in the street. They are beautiful. I look at them and see a beauty that isn’t always sexual. They are just beautiful. I find myself looking at women, possibly more frequently than men, but that doesn’t mean to say I want to fuck them. I want cock!

So am I heterosexual? Or am I bisexual? Or am I actually as gay as gay and deluding myself that I want willy?

In truth, my sexual orientation is “without label”. I’m a non-person as far as the survey goes. I’m a heterosexual woman who likes tits but I don’t necessarily want to have them in my mouth, and I don’t necessarily want to get down and offer some cunnilingus. I just like looking at women, and yes, I’ll readily wank myself off when doing so.

Yesterday, at Pride in London, there were plenty of beautiful women – stunning women, who happily marched down the streets of the capital city, declaring that they were gay or bisexual. They were proud of their sexuality and they were demonstrating their pride with others.

That was, and is, admirable. And whilst I didn’t join in the march or parade, I wanted to be walking with them with my label-less sexuality there for all to see. I wanted to walk with a banner saying “I am heterosexual, but…..” without having to explain the “but” - because that is who I am.

In the same way, I have never wanted to be labelled in a relationship either. I’m perfectly happy to be in a relationship. I’m perfectly contented to be called someone’s “woman” without the connotations of what that might mean to others. What is important is what the relationship means to one another – the two (or more) people in a relationship. And yes, I want to be the most significant because that is what I deserve, after putting so much into a relationship. But I don’t really want to be called a partner or a lover or a wife or a friend with benefits. I just want to be me – a woman; a heterosexual woman, but……

Yesterday, I watched all these beautiful people (and some more beautiful than others) walking by – laughing, smiling, dancing, chanting, skipping, loving, being.

It was a celebration of gayness, yes of course. However, what struck me most was that it was a celebration of being a sexual human being.

There they were, demonstrating to the world, that they liked being gay but within that broad word there was an underlying statement that they liked sex. They liked being sexual. They celebrated their sexuality. Some even flaunted it.

Lucky, lucky buggers.

And here’s my Utopia. Once we live in a world where people are free from discrimination due to their labelled sexual orientation, then shouldn’t we see “Pride” as a rally of sexuality, where people like the “heterosexual but….” could join in the march too and tell the world that they are sexual beings, that they love sex and that they want everyone to know the importance and value of sex in their lives?

The vivacity, the honesty, the emphatic and constant smiles said it all yesterday – “I am an actively sexual being and proud of it”.

I wish I could have joined in with that label alone.

Erotic Capital

My dear Tanya. You’ve got me all going again on a fine Saturday morning but not necessarily in a positive way.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/28/tanya-gold-media-ignores-feminism

Ms. Gold is fed up. She is quite right to be so. She complains that women are still not getting a fair deal. She explains that there is still a 15% pay gap between men and women which cannot possibly be right in the 21^st century. She cries in pain at the failings of the feminist movement and the fact that there seems no spunk (excuse the pun) in their activities. She says that the media is to blame for frothing women into nothing but consumers whilst simultaneously filling our minds with trivial irrelevances. As someone recently stated, there is an off button if you do not want to watch crap, and there is a choice for all not to read rubbish in the press.

Which brings me carefully back to Ms Gold’s article.

When oh when oh when are women going to stop bickering with one another and get on with the job in hand (I’m doing well with me innuendos so far)?

I am serious. And so is Tanya.

There is plenty wrong with the way that women are treated and portrayed in life, in the media, in the home.

Women do not earn as much as men for a variety of reasons. Firstly, there is an inherent misogynism in this country. Our world is ruled by men, for men. They have the ultimate power and until women realise their own worth, not as a man but as a woman – collectively – this is not going to change.

Secondly, women are paid less than men over a lifetime because they have time off work for having babies. Not only does this interruption halt their pay for a period of time, but it prevents them from climbing the professional ladder at the same pace as their male counterparts, unless they are a particular type of woman who is probably playing the game as a misogynist in tights and a pencil skirt. Thirdly, women do not have the confidence to use their erotic capital – and more of that later.

There are lots of other reasons why women do not earn as much as men but these are just three to be going on with at the moment and, as Gold points out, there are other factors to do with women being more prevalent in caring professions or public sector, therefore they are feeling the punch of redundancy more than men at present.

What Ms Gold and many feminists fail to appreciate, however, is that we are failing so many women by not empowering them with their own minds and their own bodies.

And that is the biggest tragedy of all.

Ms. Gold opened her comments with a snide hit at the new BBC television programme which appears to be a cross between Mad Men and the Virgin advert that had a group of gorgeous women marching through an airport. She is fed up with these images belittling women and putting them down as nothing but a sexual commodity.

Here’s the thing, Tanya, and I say this as a woman who is deeply committed to the feminist movement. We are a sexual commodity and we should damn well celebrate the fact.

Catherine Hakim recently wrote a book all about the subject which I believe I have referred to before.

http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781846144196,00.html

“Why do some people seem to lead charmed lives? They are attractive, but also lively, friendly and charismatic. People want to be around them. Doors open for them. The answer, this book shows, is in the power of erotic capital - the overlooked human asset that is at the heart of how we work, interact, make money, succeed and conduct our relationships.Catherine Hakim's groundbreaking book reveals how erotic capital is just as influential in life as how rich, clever, educated or well-connected we are. Drawing on hard evidence, she illustrates how this potent force develops from an early age, with attractive children assumed to be intelligent, competent and good. She examines how women and men learn to exploit it throughout their lives, how it differs across cultures and how it affects all spheres of activity, from dating and mating to politics, business, film, music , the arts and sport. She also explores why erotic capital is growing in importance in today's highly sexualised culture and yet, ironically, as a 'feminine' virtue, remains sidelined.Honey Money is a call for us to recognize the economic and social value of erotic capital, and truly acknowledge beauty and pleasure. This will not only change the role of women in society, getting them a better deal in both public and private life - it could also revolutionize our power structures, big business, the sex industry, government, marriage, education and almost everything we do.”

Ms Hakim was understandably defensive about her work every time I saw her on the television. She debated with many people who I greatly respect, for example the capable Laurie Penny, who writes so well for the New Statesman and occasionally the Guardian too. Zoe Williams had a terrible run-in with her over lunch and in my opinion, missed some important points in Ms. Hakim’s work.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/aug/19/catherine-hakim-interview

For Ms. Hakim is trying to highlight an important issue even if that point was not particularly well made in some people’s minds.

And it is this.

As women, we have erotic capital. We have the natural curves and kindness that enables us to have something to offer that no man on earth can. We have sexuality in our tits and in our pussies, in our legs and the way that we cover them or leave them bare. We have the ability to dress confidently and courageously without looking as though we are the local slapper. We have the opportunity to enhance our already beautiful features with an array of products or just plain soap and water, if we are sensible.

Women are beautiful. The female form is the most stunning thing known to human life, both men and women, and we are not capitalising on this and never have.

Feminists had a vital role to play throughout history. They were fighting important battles; for recognition, for enfranchisement, for equality in the workplace, for opportunity. And I for one am eternally grateful for their efforts.

However, as I have stated on more than one occasion, they did it at a cost. The feminists of the 60s burned their bras quite rightly because they wanted to make it perfectly clear that they were not at the beckon call of men. They were not mere sexual objects that could open their legs whenever a man desired as if this was their only function in life.

But what they forgot was their own enjoyment in all of this, or perhaps they had never actually found it.

Women are sexual beings and are as entitled and capable of enjoying sex as much as any man.

And we have got it! They haven’t.

Which is why I hold a slightly different view to Ms. Gold.

When I see that photograph of the actresses cum trolley-dollies in their bright red Virgin outfits, I stop and stare too. Admittedly, I am not so keen on the idea that this array of beauties prevents me from getting on with life or becoming interested and empathetic to the Miner’s strike or any other political story of the time, but I sure as hell look and I sure as hell get excited, not just for their beauty but for the fact that these are confident women, using not abusing their erotic capital and getting what they want, not what Mr. Branson or any other capitalist man wants.

This is true feminism; a woman empowered through her own body to aspire and to achieve, to be confident with her own body to ensure that she gets the things in life that she wants. Yes, she is sexy. Yes, she is stunning. Yes, she may well be using her looks to gain access to a professional ladder that may well not be there without them but why shouldn’t she?

But it is she that is making the choices.

If I looked as good as these women, I’d use my erotic capital.

This thing about choice is really important. In the past some feminists have suggested that whilst women think they are making a choice, in actual fact all they are doing is fulfilling the dream of the misogynist.

Let us take these Virgin flight attendants as a point in question.

There is the suggestion from feminists that the women here have made a choice in their career but that choice and even that career is solely there for the purpose and at the discretion of men. The only reason that they have this career is to titillate and excite a man as he travels across the Atlantic in is power-driven world, offering a kindly release from meeting after meeting. The choice of them being there is man’s and all the stupid women are doing is playing into their hands.

Well, yes, there is a possibility that this is partly true or certainly was in the past but we need to move on. We need to ensure that the choice is right back with women and that there is every possibility that some women choose to be a flight attendant because a) they want to travel to interesting places and b) they like their bodies, they are proud of their looks and they get a little sensual or sexual excitement from others appreciating them too.

It is the most subtlest of shifts that is required and like a tipping point, if all women would stop this talk of a misogynist take-over, then we could really start empowering ourselves for ourselves rather than it having anything to do with men whatsoever.

Recently, I attended a Burlesque evening. What made me so utterly content was that there were these women on the stage who were not necessarily the most beautiful girls in the world. They were not the smallest women, they were not the typical perfect size and yet they were there, performing and being exceptionally proud and delighted in their ability to be themselves. They were performing for men and women alike but most importantly they were making a statement to say, “Yes, I have something. I have something that is good and natural and I am celebrating it, in front of you all, and I am happy to do so. I am doing it for me, not for you, though if you enjoy it too, so much the better.”

They were using their erotic capital to good effect.

They were using their erotic capital not to get the better of anybody but because they were simply enjoying being a woman, and this is something that some feminists appear to want us to ignore.

Tanya Gold is right. We need more women in parliament. We need equal pay and not this ghastly gap between men and women, but we also need women to be women and to be proud of the fact. We need women to be sexual beings and ensure that there is as much right to be sexual as a woman as it is for a man.

There is no competition. We just need to lose this idea and get on with being who we are.

And when it comes to erotic capital, well even this phrase is slightly wrong.

Yes, we want women to capitalise on their womanhood, and yes, this sometimes means expressing their sexuality to the point of being erotic, but really, in most cases, we just want women to enjoy being women just as men, I hope, enjoy being men.

Men and women are different but we really have to get over this issue we have about the possible exploitation of our sexuality by men. In some ways we are doing more exploitation by not accepting the fact that we have this erotic capital. We are preventing some women from being who they want to be.

And one final little gripe, Ms, Gold. You mention how deplorable it is that women are seen as mere consumer fodder and then you add a sentence like this.

“When the Chartered Management Institute (CMI) polled 34,158 male and female executives in the private sector last year, they learned the average pay gap between men and women doing the same job is £10,031, and the average woman will, as such, be cheated out of £330,000 in her lifetime, which is a lot for a feminist, and also for a consumer.”

 which I assume suggests that you think that some of the £10K shortfall would be spent on consumer products should fair pay exist because that is what women do!

Be careful.

We can twist and turn any argument and any sentence and my point in doing this is to emphasise that we need a little conformity here. We need to unite and not fight. We need to accept the difference between men and women but most of all we need to empower women to be women and part of that means reclaiming their sexuality and stop pretending that this world is full of misogynists intent on having pussy all for themselves and their own purpose.

It is time for women to capitalise on being a woman and being themselves without any glaring snarls from feminists or misogynists alike.

The Brits, the French and Sex

I really don't like stereotypes. They are crass and never tell the whole story. There are always exceptions to the standard, and they can be cruel and hurtful.
Having said that, they also have their uses. As a starting point, a generalisation can be a useful tool. So I apologetically am going to use stereotypes in this short piece of writing.

Obviously it is sex related, as that appears to be my theme!

I want to explore attitudes really, and particularly attitudes towards sex from both sides of the Channel.

There is an assumption that, in general, British folk are not that interested in sex. I think this attitude was pretty much borne out in the recent Observer survey, where it certainly seemed that I had more monthly sex and more sexual partners than the average. The chosen questions told a story in themselves. No questions about orgasms and certainly none about female ejaculation. No questions about pornography and only one timid little query about whether anyone has used sex toys with or without a partner. There were no questions about what made people aroused, no questions about group sex, only one question about bisexuality and nothing at all about different 'styles' of having sex.
I like to think that a similar sexual survey in France would be slightly more explicit. Because really, I don't just want to know whether people are 'at it' and how frequently. I want to know people's actual feelings and attitude to sex. Do they know about female orgasms? How long do they like foreplay? What do they do during foreplay? How often can they/do they cum during a 'session' for want of a better expression? Have they ever considered having sex with someone of their gender? What do they have fantasies about?
Surely these are far more inciteful questions to ascertain what we really think about sex. And of course, there are many more. Maybe I ought to think about developing my own survey on the subject.

The French, on the other hand, are given the stereotype of being very interested in sex. We are told that they are open and frank about their sexuality and that sex is an integral part of their lives. They wouldn't have questions on how frequently you have sex in a month, but how frequently you have it in a week.
But is this a myth too?

In reality, there are some extremely sexual Brits and I am sure there are equally some French people who have a total disinterest in fucking. It is not as simple as putting some gross stereoptype onto millions of people, assuming that they are either frigid or frenetic according to the country of their birth.

Yet you cannot get away from certain facts and there certainly seems to be a more sexualised society in France, even down to the way that they 'allow' photographs and pictures of semi-naked women in the streets, on billboards and shop fronts in a way that we would never consider.

Yesterday, I was walking through the streets of Paris and I came across three Lingerie shops that were screaming out sexuality in the way they had dressed the window. I was dying to go in and try on the clothes, as I knew that they would make me feel extremely horny. All I could do, due to certain constraints, was stare into the window and imagine being stripped of these delightful lacy garments, after I had let my sexy juices dribble freely over the delicate black thongs laced with creamy edgings.
There was nothing sordid about these shops but there was certainly an openness about the purpose of setting out the garments in this manner. Essentially, they were selling these products because they were sexy. That was their purpose. They were inviting you to think and feel sexy. They were asking you to imagine having sex in these clothes. You don't really get that with an eyeful of M&S!

Another example is in the way that the French are overt about nudity. There I was standing in a chain hotel of renowned status. Four Star hotels tend to be somewhat of a type, with flock wallpaper and casual, countryside paintings, certainly in this country. But there I was looking at the entrance to the hotel, and straight away, I was 'confronted' with not one but five images of women's boobs. Would this even be allowed in this country?
Over the doorway to the hotel was a huge fifteen foot brass model of a woman, and not a skinny one, lying down with her head on one hand displaying her sexuality for all to see. Her breasts were magnificant (and her tummy was not shrunken). Her pubes were carefully moulded, covering the obvious lines of her pussy. And she lay there quite happily being appreciated by people who walked in and out of the hotel underneath her.

As you stood in the doorway to the hotel, you could see a glorious picture of a gilded mermaid that dominated the stairwell. On closer inspection it was a collage of buttons and knobs and pieces of string, all done in the style of Gustav Klimt - a really beautiful piece of work.

To the left, there was a lounge area containing three nude pictures - full frontal, explicit and beautiful. There was even a nude, doll-like figure dangling from the ceiling, floating around with the clouds in her birthday suit. Really quite wonderful.

If this was a British hotel, I am sure you would get some Mary Whitehouse type of character coming along and suggesting that it was improper and inappropriate to have such explicit images on display in such a public place. But in France, it seemed perfectly natural and right to see this overt sexualisation.

And yet, there is still something missing from both French and British society. Where are the cocks? As a feminist, I still struggle slightly with my enjoyment of both male and female bodies. I do worry about exploitation and I know that there is a strong possiblity that some of the people that I am looking at do not want to be doing what they do. Also as a feminist, I am rather annoyed that it is perfectly acceptable these days to have images of aroused women but not men. I know there are many feminists who would want to ban pornography once and for all. What I want is equity. If women fondling their breasts are allowed both in art and porn, then why can you not have a man holding his erect cock, clearly ready to enjoy either a partner or a good old wank?
If a man is allowed to 'get off' by looking at images as he passes through the doors of a hotel, then why am I as a sexual woman, not allowed the same - assuming of course that I do not get off on tits. I am sure you know what I mean.
The point is that even in France there appears to be a lack of equity around sexuality. Men can enjoy and women display.

Some may argue that the male form is not as beautiful as that of a woman, and I have discussed this before. But I DO want to see cocks of different shapes and sizes, and it is up to me whether this turns me on or not.

Getting back to the theme - are we really very different, us and the french? Well, I think there is certainly something more sexual in the French.
You rather get the impression that these ladies dress to BE sexual. They look fantastic. Some of them may not have the most beautiful faces but they really know how to dress to reflect and emphasise the quality parts of their bodies. And there is a sexual confidence about them that is sadly missing from most British women, including myself.
I think there are lessons to be learned here. Maybe we Brits should be thinking about dressing more sexually without looking tarty - for that is a mistake that some make. I often look at the girls when they are off out, and whilst they look good, they also look available in a slightly too obvious way - not sexy just available. I am not sure that I am really explaining the difference very well, but in essence there is a huge difference between dressing to be sexy and dressing to get laid!

Anyway, the women are chic. Goodness knows how they remain so thin and petite, when they seem to scoff as much as food as their English counterparts. I looked around at some very chic looking, slender French women of similar age to me whilst away. They were piling their plates crammed full of cheese, croissants, bread, doughnuts and gobbling it all up, whilst I was sticking to fruit and yoghurt (well for the first day anyway - the multitude of pain au chocolats got to me in the end!). They just don't seem to get fat, whereas all I have to do is look at the shop window at the Boulangerie to pile on the pounds, despite walking and cycling further than normal.

There are certainly more places in France where topless bathing is the norm. Here, it is pushed to a relatively small amount of beaches dispersed across the country. Again, another expression of France's comfort with the human form. Of course, this may not be related to sexuality. It is merely a comfort with bodies rather than a desire to be sexual. But this in itself is an issue. Surely, if you are more comfortable with your own form, then you are more aware of your ability to arouse another and are more at ease with your sexuality? Who knows? Just a few thoughts.

Anyway, back to my stereotype. I want to be French, or do I just want to be sexy? I want to be, and am comfortable with nudity. I am getting more comfortable with my own nakedness and am beginning to accept that my body is attractive and can be arousing for others. But it is more than this. I want to ooze sexuality without trying. I just want to be a sexy being, and I am pretty sure that my fellow women across the water do far better at this than my counterparts over here.

Stereotypes are revolting. They do not tell the whole story and I am pretty determined to be an exception to the rule, if the rule remains that Brits are not sexually developed.

PS........................................ as I have discussed before, I have a real desire to have energetic, all consuming sex in the open air, in an open environment, totally liberated and free from concern - just as nature intended. Cycling around, I found many places where I would like to return with a beautifully erect cock in hand, leading into dunes and forests and fucking like bunnies. Mmmmm!