Me trying to navigate Sex and love

If I was to describe the current condition of my sexual and romantic life I, would describe it as pretty consistent and rather delightful. I’m quite fond of both the excitement that I experience when developing a new liaison, as well as the calm comfortable connection that I feel with a partner that I’ve already been sleeping with for a while. I’ve also grown to become better at coping with the hardship of heartbreak, which has helped me in recent months to be a little more courageous in my endeavours than I‘d otherwise be. After leaving a rather long-term relationship earlier last year I have come to identify mostly as a non-hierarchical polyamorous person, or an ethical slut as Dossie Easton would say. These terms try to give words to my experience that is characterised by me enjoying sex and relationships to quite an extent, while I’m also trying my very best not to be a dick about it. So in conclusion: I’m really relaxed around sex and have grown to enjoy experimenting with it the more I’ve had it.

Pretty weird to hear that from me so openly huh? I’ve been thinking for a while about writing this article but was unsure whether I’d be brave enough to publish it with my name. I knew that I wanted to talk about my insights on sex and about the larger culture that I am part of, but I have always been a little fearful of broadcasting my desire all too much and making myself a little too vulnerable. After all I’m a child of the culture that I’ve grown up in and have internalised a lot of ideas from society about the ways that I am supposed to embody my sexuality. However, this is I suppose where a big problem lies. Many of us have sex or want to have it, but from my experience we are a little squeamish about owning this by talking about it and sharing our experiences in non-flowery and actually helpful way. Why is this problematic? Because it hinders us to develop the skills to navigate our desires, to learn more clearly about our boundaries and needs, to lose the shame and superficial knowledge around sex that we’ve collected over the years. In other words, not embracing our personal reality of sex in a honest and vulnerable way may hinder us to develop a positivity towards sex that is so desperately needed if we want to have healthy sex lives and encourage the people around us to do so too.

I want to start this exploration of my experience of sex and sexuality with a small disclaimer: I am very well aware of the fact that there are loads of people who do not have sex. This article is intended to be for them too. There is this illusion that young people in their twenties are supposed to be on this intense ride of sexual self-discovery full of casual hook-ups and multiple partners. But this does not reflect the reality of me and my friends’ experiences all too accurately. Many of my friends have rather little sex (and I used to too before I became a slut), and there is nothing wrong with that. Some people are too busy with studying to even think about it, some are waiting for the right person with whom things will feel as comfortable as they should, some prefer porn over the messiness that is getting naked with a living, feeling, other person who might have expectations and the sorts. Additionally some people simply are not interested in sex or relationships, being asexual or aromantic are sexualities that we unfortunately acknowledge way too rarely in our culture where coupledom and sex are idealised.  

 

The myth that everybody has spectacular amounts of sex is moreover not reflected in quantitative research into the topic. Rachel Hills (who has written a great book about the topic of the sex lives of twenty-somethings) highlights in this regard that a representative study in the US has shown that the most common number of sex partners for 18- 23 year olds in one year is one person (39.1% of men and 49.7% of women), closely followed by 0 sexual partners (24 % of men and 22.6% of women). So if we talk about sex and sex positivity we also have to acknowledge the lack of sex people in everyday life have, and create the space that embraces the different ways that sex may influence our lives.

Back to me now. Since becoming single a year ago it took me a bit to find my own space within which I could navigate my own sexuality in the light of a perceived culture of casual hook-ups and tinder, and considering my own fear of abandonment and insecurities around my own self-worth. But despite of the infrequent hiccups of drama in my life, I’ve finally come out of this process with a decent amount of insight. In this regard I want to share my experiences and thoughts.

One of the most important things that I have learned relating to sex, regards how I view myself in the light of my sex life. For the longest time I’ve held on to ideas of what kind of sex I was supposed to have. When I didn’t have sex, I thought I was supposed to have sex that included more people than just me. After I wasn’t in a relationship anymore, I thought I should have sex in monogamous contexts where feelings necessarily needed to be present (I can imagine that others also experience pressures to have more sex, be kinkier, or to have multiple partners). Summarised, these views reflect an inversion of Oscar Wilde’s observation: “Sex is about everything except for sex.” There is a great deal of clinging on to the identities that we construct around the ways that we have sex. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with sincerely exploring our own preferences and likings. However, I learned for myself that I have to be weary of the instances where holding on too tightly to how I am supposed to be, hinders me from truly connecting to what happens in the present moment, hindering me from connecting with my most immediate needs. In this regard then sex positivity means for me to let go of the normative power of the words with which I frame my experiences. Words like prudish, kinky, inexperienced or slutty can both be sources of great empowerment as well as great shame and we need to be conscious of the ways that we allow these words to limit us.

Moreover, next to letting our egos over-determine the meaning of the sex that we have, there is also the problem of connecting sincerely with our partners. In my head these two conundrums are reasonably interrelated and work in similar ways. I for myself have had instances where I slept with people as a mean to stroke my own ego, losing in the process the ability to see the other in their full complexity. Similarly to the way that we aim to hold on tightly to the way that we ourselves are supposed to relate to our sexuality, we tend to also develop expectations in the ways that our partners are supposed to be once we engage with them romantically or sexually (and also just generally). These expectations create distance, hinder us to appreciate the other despite of their flaws and to create the intimacy that so many of us crave.

This is not to say “everything goes” when it comes to relationships. Our wishes to be treated in a certain way are absolutely valid. This is particularly a lesson I had to learn in regards to casual hook-ups on Tinder. Even if it’s not a long term thing and both of us want to keep it “suuper cas’” both of us still have the right to be treated decently and are allowed to voice our concerns if either feels disrespected or end things if there is no considerable change (check out in this regard the relationship bill of rights by Franklin Veaux and Eve Rickert, they highlight all the basic rights we should be allowed to demand from our partners).

However, there is a difference between having boundaries and manipulating the other person into disrespecting their own boundaries (for more information Brute Reason’s article called “Are All Boundaries Valid?” is a great resource). Warsan Shire notes in one of her poems that “ we emotionally manipulated each other until we thought it was love”. I do not think that this is a great way of approaching relationships. It’s a very hard pill to swallow, but sometimes things are just not the way that they should be and the other person is not able to meet your needs. Clinging on to an idealised version of how things were if everything was different, without owning our own decisions and the boundaries of the other person, are very understandable sentiments but also a little imbecile. The only thing we can try is to connect sincerely with our partners in this very moment, celebrating the moments where life is sweet, and growing from the moments where life is bitter. I for myself have learned that being heartbroken and getting more comfortable in that feeling has helped me to be less afraid of trying again and again to connect with people, for I know that even if I run against a wall it will be survivable and worth so much more than not trying and growing at all.

Lastly, I think that if we talk about the culture that surrounds sex we have to go beyond the things that go on in our own heads and the way that we relate to our partners. In this regard it is important to mention the way that we talk about sex with our friends, the way that these conversations can be harmful or empowering depending on the circumstances. Since starting to talk more openly about my romantic and sexual endeavours I realised a bit of a change in conversations I had. Sometimes I felt judged. Sometimes I felt shameful. I understand that some people want to keep the private private, that they are uncomfortable with the vulnerability of talking about sex or find it awkward, that they have their own boundaries in what they are comfortable hearing and disclosing. These reasons are valid. However, I would love for all of us to challenge ourselves to take some steps towards being more empathetic towards the plurality of experiences of sex, to maybe find a little of comfortability in what seems initially uncomfortable. That we try to create a space where all of the kinksters, and virgins, and sluts, and those who have experienced abuse, and those who are pretty vanilla, and those who are demi-sexual, asexual, queer, or poly can come together and embrace the plethora of different experiences and preferences. And let’s just be a little awkward and embrace the delicious ambiguity.

 

 

By Sophie Schulz

Everything is Sex / Sex is nothing.

What comes next might seem obvious to some. But like all obvious things, it gains some profound and deep meaning when it is actually experienced rather than just known, like the fragility of human life or the fact that we all see the same moon at night. In that sense, I’m not sure why I write this article. Definitely not to teach anything to anyone. Anyway, here it goes:

I grew up in a normal german household – working class parents, small house in the suburb of a working-class german city, working-class friends, all blond and healthy and completely clueless. When I became a teenager, my world changed drastically. It was as if suddenly, someone had planted the weird expectation into my head that every social interaction might, or should, somehow, result in sexual intercourse. You might of course attribute this development to simple biology – young men, as it goes, always experience this kind of hormonal confusion as soon as they reach a certain age. However, I think differently about the whole thing now. I think that this weird sexualization of human relationships (that some readers might identify with) at a certain age is more than just based on biological predisposition. I think that it is part of a much more systemic issue that reveals quite a bit of modern societies’ obsession with sex that, more often than making people happy, makes them very lonely.

Just like with a lot of my friends, my developing libido was met with a mind-boggling porn-consumption. During puberty, porn was my bread and butter. In this confusing phase of becoming an adult and of dealing with crazily complex emotions, it provided an almost too-good-to-be-true answer to my questions. Every possible desire could be satisfied by a few clicks on the Internet. I see this phase now as a kind of mental bootcamp. It planted the idea deep into my brain that the incredible complexity of human emotions could be solved by means of a simple and attainable thing – sex. An incredibly limited perspective. In addition, the kind of sex that is taught by the internet is not one that is based on real emotional proximity, on consent and mutual enjoyment or on love, but an artificial, one-sided, ‘oh yeah give it to me baby’-kind of sex that is not just limited, but completely unreal. This kind of perspective is an easy answer, but it leaves the individual completely disenfranchised – it (the individual) becomes an unparticipating member of its own potential emotional development that plays along somewhere in the background of its consciousness, like some sort of mental elevator music, while the individual is too involved in ‘getting pussy’ to notice what is really going on. I will not indulge in descriptions of my loneliness, but let’s say I was pretty lonely and kind of angry with myself during that time, because I felt like I was somehow manipulating myself, which, retrospectively, I was.

I think what I wanted during that time was love and trust and sex, but what I ended up getting was only sex, which is honestly pretty destructive without the former two. When you enter relationships with an emotional illiteracy that is facilitated by our way (or at least my way) of entering into adulthood, you are doomed to end up lonely, and will remain lonely until you recognize the complexity of your (and others’) feelings and desires that can never be satisfied by means of a simple thing such as sex. I think what I want to say is that young men in their twenties that I see in clubs, or bars, or at UCM (!) often seem unable to recoginse that the answer to all their questions about human contact, about friendship or love are too complex to be answered by what society teaches us about these things. Loneliness is endemic to our modern way of living and it takes some serious decision-making against society to be happy. At least for me.  

 

By Sebastian Hühne

 

Footnotes to Plato

The Western Philosophical tradition is heavily indebted to Plato, so far that Alfred North Whitehead is credited with having quipped that “The safest general characterisation of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of footnotes to Plato”. Plato was so inclusive in his discussions that he did not only touch upon ontology and education, but even advertised a conception of how reproduction within a just republic should be organised. The most basic sketch of this sees those with the highest merit (intellectual as well as fitness) and within the correct age come together once a year in an orgy like setting, where they would be married for a short period of time in order to beget a child. This process shall ensure that the best genes are given to the next generation and also that all children are born around the same time in the year, so that they can be easily taken away from their parents and raised as children of the republic. For the rest of the year sex was without much taboos, as long as it would not result in pregnancy. So if we do go with Whitehead’s characterisation of Western Philosophy, then it begs the question what are the footnotes on sex that later philosophers might add.

Kant’s Categorical Imperative

This one depends a little bit on your preconceived ideas of the morality of sex in general, but is otherwise very straightforward. Would you think it good if everyone would be doing it when they wish to do so? If no, don’t do it. If yes, then there you go, just do it.

Rawls – Traditional Romance

One cannot help but think that Rawls, who compares love and justice, and highlights our willingness to be vulnerable in love is not a romantic. And whilst he would never ask you to follow this particular conception of the good, he does repeatedly stress the importance of starting in the original position.

Hegel – Kinky Dialectic

On the face of it, the founder of the dialectic might seem to simply advocate the old proverb “opposites attract” in order to achieve successful procreation. However, if you only look slightly deeper you will find that Lordship and Bondage is where Hegel is truly in his element.

Marx – Abstinence for the Revolution?

Religion is the opium of the people. This might have been true in the 19th century, but it seems surpassed in the 21st. By now a better characterisation might be stemming from Frank Underwood, who said: “Everything is about sex, except sex which is about power”. Taking this to its logical conclusion, Marx might find himself a surprised advocate of abstinence and a few supporters shorter.

Marcuse – False Needs

If it’s 3am and you find yourself ashamed of your browser history, you might want to ask whether the liberation you sought was truly the liberty to fulfil your desires or rather liberty from sexual desires.

Levinas’ The Other

The recognition of the Other, Levinas writes, ordains us and leads to the feeling of utmost responsibility for them. An appeal to think of the needs of your partner, but before you wholeheartedly embrace this selflessness, beware that Levinas explicitly states that you should not expect any reciprocity.

Wittgenstein – There is no private language

If you now decide to wish for something more selfish, you might not want to remember Wittgenstein. According to him everything exists in a shared form, as language dictates what exists, and language needs to be public. So without a private language there cannot be self- harm, but also there is little room for masturbation.

 

By Louis Ray Leary

DumDum Doodle on Sex

I know I look odd. People say I have a head, but no body. But they are wrong. My head is my body. I wouldn’t even know the difference. In my view, no one has a separate head and a body the way people think they do. But for people, it’s different. Maybe it is because they think so much. They mistake their head for their mind, and all that matters is what’s going on in their heads. So they need excuses for everything that is not about thinking, not about the mind. They are torn between being embarrassed about even having a body, and their constant desire to pleasure it. Because in the end, that’s what they want, as much as any other beast.

 When people serve their carnal needs, there will always be an explanation. It is never just because. So fighting is a way to defend ideals or to pursue loftier goals, or a form of art. Food is culture, great food is cuisine. And sex? Sex is love; or so the story went. Reserved for one and one alone; caring and caressing. But not anymore. Love has been relieved of its burden of being lust’s scapegoat. Like mind and body, love and lust have been officially declared divorced. And nowadays, sex may well be the highest expression of freedom: to have sex without consequences or restraints, without love. Because it is our inalienable right. Yes, we can – said reason to the beast.

 So sex will set you free. And that’s just fine, even though my head is my body and I never have sex. Yet one thing does not seem right to me. I have this eerie feeling that something is askew. All the symbols of freedom, on posters, the covers of magazines, and the moving images that accompany bits and pieces of contemporary popular music show the liberated bodies of women only. Are they free, more than men? I don’t think so. And I am quite happy with my head-body. At least no one can steal my body away from me and make me call it DumDum Power.

Film Review: In the Mood for Love

This movie by Wong Kar-Wai is set in the socially conservative Hong Kong of the 1960’s. When Su (Mrs. Chan) and Chow both decide to rent a house in Hong Kong, they become neighbours. They both live in apartments with ever-present landladies and Mahjong-playing neighbours but nevertheless they often eat alone in their rooms. Small daily encounters form most of their social interaction. However, when Su and Chow come to the conclusion that their often-away partners are having a secret affair they want to reconstruct and re-enact what has happened. Moreover, Su helps Mr. Chow with writing a book. By doing so they develop an intimate but platonic connection. Their love is shaped by indirect signals, re-enacting their spouses, and cryptic conversations. Their ever-present and ever-suspicious neighbours, and the shame of lowering themselves to the level of their spouses, withholds them from truly admitting and acting out their love.

This is surely one of the most aesthetically pleasing movies I’ve ever watched, with beautiful shots, stills, compositions, and colours. Of course 1960’s Hong Kong forms a handsome scenery. Every screenshot could form a postcard. Moreover, there is this wonderful underlying tension; no people dying or hanging off cliffs, but only very subtle yet intense gestures. There is a lot of love and sensuality present, but not much romantic action. One could say that Asian values are important for the way the love-story acquires its shape; faithfulness in your marriage and community values weigh heavy and form reasons for the characters not to chase their love. In that regard, it’s the opposite of, for example, The Notebook; the ultimate Western love-story. In this movie, love is chased despite of what the parents and the community want. ‘Always follow your heart  and chase your love’ seems to be the Western ideal.

Moreover, with regards to sex, it is in this movie definitely true that the lack of physical action makes every subtle gesture, such as touching hands, very tense and important. The lack of sex makes you very sensitive to small interactions, which makes the felt desire become even more burning. In a way it can be said that this movie manages to illustrate love, tension, longing, and desire without using the usual tools of romantic action or explicit conversations. It is impressive how Wong Kar-Wai can make love a desire so visible and burning on screen without the presence of a single kiss.

Maybe this means that sometimes actions are not necessary to keep sensuality and tension present but might actually break it. In that regard In the mood for love is very similar to French movies as Fanfan or La Tendresse. The lack action makes that there is no discharge of tension; the desire is more burning and the sadness is more heart-breaking. Wong Kar-Wai is the master of subtlety. This subtlety makes everything very tender and vulnerable. Is this type of movie preferable over movies such as The Notebook? It surely leads to wonderful silences (made even better by the good use of music), intense connection, beautiful body language. In the end, I think I can conclude that this movie is amongst the most sensual and tender ones but it’s also amongst the most devastating and truly heart-breaking.

For everyone who became curious while reading this article: the movie is on YouTube, and thank god it’s with English subtitles.

 

By Camille Straatman

Why is Female Sexual Pleasure Still a Taboo?

‘Let’s talk about sex baby, let’s talk about you and me’.

Who does not know the famous lyrics of this musical piece of art? Sex is an intriguing, arousing, sometimes embarrassing topic. But we talk about it. A LOT. Now…having a chat about girls’ sexual pleasure seems to be a more complicated and sensitive matter. Since the 1960s, women are said to be sexually liberated, but are they really free in the expression of their emotional and sexual needs? Despite living in a hypersexualized society, female masturbation or that magical button, the clitoris, are not appropriate subjects of discussion, even among girls. Why and where does this taboo come from? Observing the need to bring the issue on the table, it seems important to first shed some light on the tumultuous cultural history of female sexuality. Looking at the role of sciences and education allows for further understanding of the existing veil that has been placed upon female pleasure. Lastly, the article takes a slightly different turn with the suggestion that pleasing that body of yours is a way of resisting dominance and control over our bodies.

An eventful history and a short ethnology

Historically female pleasure has known much turbulence, but in varying degrees according to the world region. Researchers in the humanities think that psychosocial variables have greater influence on whether certain women reach orgasm than physical variables. In most societies that have developed on this planet, women’s discovery of their sexual pleasure has been cluttered with numerous prohibitions. In the Paleolithic age, the worship of femininity is widely dominant, but between 20000 and 10000 B.C, agricultural practices emerge, people become sedentary and the degradation of women’s status seems to ensue from these changes. Almost everywhere on Earth, ethnologists observe that the phallus then becomes a dominant representation. In a large US study realised in 1957, about 577 societies all across the world were examined and 75% were polygamous, 24.3% monogamous and 0,7% polyandrous. This illustrates that men enjoyed a wider access to sexual partner whereas women’s room for sexual exploration was ipso facto limited.

Additionally, numerous rites support female’s genital mutilation for symbolic, religious, aesthetic or yet hygienic reasons. Nearly all human cultures put a break to women’s sexual aspirations, either by keeping them away from a typically masculine public space (at home, the gynoecium, harem, is locked up in chastity belts) or by reducing their sex drive (by means of excisions or by imposing moral norms that exclusively allow sex in certain circumstances).With these rites and customs, unfortunately, also comes the collapse of women’s capacities to explore their own sexual pleasure.  

Our good old Western society is no exception. With Christianism, the sexual act was considered impure. In the Bible already one could find a degrading portrayal of Eve, seen as a sub-product of her conjoint. She, the one who committed the first sin, embodies the weaker sex. Women were thus considered as sinful temptresses, who under the pretense of being reserved, nurtured a powerful sexual ardor. On the side of men, it had become accepted that their uncontrollable nature was incurable, because the ejaculation of sperm actually required one to orgasm. The Church thereby attempted to regulate sexual desires by condemning anything that did not serve the purpose of reproduction within marriage. There was one erroneous belief however, descending from Hippocrates, that female orgasm and ejaculation was necessary to procreate.

In the Middle Ages, this belief carried on, and young women were actually encouraged to masturbate but only for reproductive purposes. However, the Renaissance brought back ancient models, and affirmed that only the emission of males’ semen brings pleasure to women. What is good for men must be good for women. It is also during the Middle Ages that the Inquisition took place. A 1486 guide for finding witches indicated the clitoris as the ‘devil’s mark’. Finding this tissue on a woman meant she was a witch, and justified the elimination of about 9,000,000 women over two centuries. From the beginning of the Christian era to the 18th century, one’s sexual pleasure was censored except when obligatory. And in the 1800s, scientists discovered that ovulation was completely disconnected from female orgasm, which sent the latter to oblivion, leaving women only the role of offering their fertile womb and fulfilling their husbands’ sexual needs.

All throughout history, women’s bodies have been marked, mutilated and labelled by a group who saw this violence against the other as legitimate. History sets a context of a masculine hegemony in which female sexual pleasure mainly remains taboo, and thereby under control of the patriarchal social order.

 

It’s all about losing

On the educational and scientific sides, female sexual pleasure is still highly absent. From a scientific point of view, the question of the purpose of the clitoris still causes debate today. Just one generation ago, doctors thought that women could not experience orgasms. The clitoris was completely absent from anatomy books, which would equate to teaching mechanics about the engine without mentioning the accelerator. Today we still do not fully know about all the nerves (similar to a man’s gland, the clitoris contains 8000 nerves) the blood irrigation, erectile tissues (did you know that a woman will have four to five erections of 10-15 minutes per  night?) and not to forget, the enigmatic G-spot.

In the past, doctors in fact saw women’s sexual desires as a disease. Each society shapes its own sexual realities based upon values and visions of how best to be human. Unfortunately for female pleasure, “Western culture equates human with being male”. At the end of 18th century, drawings of women’s skeleton had smaller skulls and larger pelvises, supporting evidence that “nature intended them not for thought or leadership, but for motherhood alone”. A respectable woman should not have dared to move a toe while having sex and women who expressed unfulfilled sexual desires were diagnosed with ‘hysteria’, which was a medical condition only doctors could take care of. All throughout the Victorian era, doctors would then massage women’s genitals to provoke a ‘hysterical crisis’ which resulted in draining a thick fluid out of them, which was nothing else than giving them clinical orgasms. By offering medical relief to hysteria, one simply avoided questioning the dominant androcentric system that normalised men’s pleasure and alienated women’s. It is only in 1952 that female hysteria was erased from medical vocabulary.  

Freudian theories had a disastrous impact on the study of female sexuality. He considered it normal that a little girl played with her clitoris, but a mature woman was supposed to solely have vaginal orgasms. A woman who could not reach vaginal orgasms was to be considered ‘frigid’, an infirmity for which their male partner had neither responsibility nor power to solve. Faking their orgasm became routine for the many women who feared being labelled as ‘frigid’. In 1954, a study purported that 80-90% of women are still frigid because they are incapable of reaching orgasm only by penetration. It did not seem problematic to consider that 80-90% women were abnormal or that the coitus scenario is the normative model.

Fear and oblivion of female sexuality does not just belong to the past. How many of us had sex education that actually prepared us for a healthy sexual life? Sex education is not even always delivered owing to social restrictions and taboos, and is still marked by notions of shame and guilt, from which sexual pleasure is absent. Masturbating, for example is extremely shameful, and though when one grows up, it may become more normalised, it is yet something to be kept secret and especially in the case of women. Moreover, teaching about sex today is teaching individuals that they are ‘going to lose something’, or that they are ‘giving away something to somebody’. In this sense, one’s sexuality is about someone else, and not about themselves. This is highly problematic because, because once grown-up, they do not know what they truly enjoy or how to ask for it. One is not taught that through any form of sexual activity they could actually reclaim their own sexual being and body, their own desires and sense of pleasure.

 

Enjoying your own body is revolutionary

By establishing key elements of the history as well as scientific perceptions regarding female sexual pleasure, it becomes easier to see how social and cultural forces define our perception of a woman empowered by her own sexuality. For centuries, women’s sexuality has been objectified and under control. This control has simply taken other forms through slut-shaming and the establishment of a rape culture which point at the masculine hegemony. The media is overloaded with hypersexualized content, so why does female pleasure remain widely stigmatized? Most people turn to the media to learn about sex, but this is problematic for women’s sexual pleasure, because the sexual practices portrayed are of androcentric nature. Mainstream culture produces images mostly made by and aimed at men’s pleasure, intending to offer them ‘sexual flattery’.  

These images additionally use pervasive means in order to convince women to alter their image for the liking of the ‘stronger sex’, but their desire, arousal and satisfaction, let alone their emotional needs, are very rarely part of this picture. ‘Sexual flattery’ is a phenomenon by which men are convinced that their power and privilege is legitimate, while it depletes women’s wellbeing as they feel obligated to keep the pretense that they are satisfied. This process is mostly unconscious; aggressive or violent sexual behavior that objectifies girls and women is not even always recognized as such. This ‘unconsciousness’ is a typical trait of the hegemonic masculinity and underlies heteronormative narratives.

The fear of not satisfying the male ego reminds of the belief that a woman who does not reach climax ‘is broken’. More than often, a sexual intercourse is in majority defined by a ‘penis-into-vagina’, and the act successfully finished with the man reaching orgasm. In this definition, a woman’s pleasure does not have much weight but merely considered as an extra bonus. We talk about the orgasm gap, a sexual asymmetry in which a significant number of women experience much fewer to zero orgasms than their male counterparts. The pressure of societal norms makes it difficult to talk about female sexuality today as it is charged with the male gaze. Does a woman enjoy certain practices because it comes from her own impetus, or does it come from a male partner, an androcentric society telling her that this is something she should like?

A woman acting upon her own sexual desires is considered as abnormal, but so is a woman who does not reach orgasm through penetration. Once free in her own sexuality, she is to be perceived as a threat to a heteronormative society because it disturbs the patriarchal social order. Through masturbation for instance, a woman is self-reliant for her own pleasure. To escape alienation and domination would translate into pursuing one’s own sexual pleasure, exploring one’s own sexual desires without having to pretend. Recognizing the clitoris as an agent and object of power could for instance transform women’s experience of subjectivity.

Every time a woman has sex because it feels good, it is revolutionary. She is revolutionary because she is pushing back against society’s insistence that she exists simply for men’s pleasure or for reproductive purposes. A woman who prioritizes her sexual needs is scary because that means she prioritizes herself. That is a woman who insists to be treated as equal. Women’s sexual pleasure is taboo because it is absent from our everyday lives. Its’ absence ensues from very little knowledge about our bodies and scarce communication on the topic. It is therefore necessary to rethink our perception of one’s sexuality into different practices that are alleviated from feelings of guilt and of shame. And lastly, it is not about you having to masturbate or having to reach orgasms, but it is about you deciding what makes you feel good and what you are comfortable with.

 

By Alizée Huberlant