Category Archives: Sexuality
When Sandra Fluke testified at the Women’s Health and Contraception hearing before Nancy Pelosi and members of Congress, she began by specifically stating that her testimony was “on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation,” thereby making clear that she was not there to address any sort of personal grievance or request. She was not there, for instance, to ask members of Congress that she be “paid for having sex.” She was there to praise the President’s new proposal that insurance companies take care of women as well as men. To promote access to birth control. To stand up for women’s rights to full healthcare.
It’s a wonder that we are still discussing such an antiquated topic as “equal insurance coverage for women,” but, here we are, talking about the gender-dividing stuff that the “humanists-not-feminists” regard as outdated issues. And while they go on about how advanced our society is now and how many rights we should be grateful for, after-all-we-don’t-live-in-Saudi-Arabia, and how feminism is now rightly deceased since we no longer need it, the Republicans gleefully chime in with, “Why are you having sex in the first place?”
Despite the common knowledge that Republicans are no fan of science or evolution, most should at least be capable of recognizing that sexuality is quite the permanent and relentless component of our human DNA, without which our species would die off. But instead, without the guidance of evil, feminist science books, they insist that abortion is the one act likely to cause the extinction of the human race.
The follow-up question might then be, “But who needs abortion when you have full access to reliable birth control methods?”
And the unnecessary-but-informative feminist replies: Unfortunately, even 99% effective birth control pills and latex contraceptives can sometimes fail, not to mention the fact that miscarrying mothers may need abortive services along with victims of molestation, rape and incest — but the compassionate, Christian God already knows that darn well, so let’s move on.
So. There are Republicans and then there is Rush Limbaugh. Amirite? Um… unfortunately, no, not really. Rush Limbaugh represents the majority of Republicans and it’s obvious by the tepid Republican response to Limbaugh’s offense against Fluke that they agree with him in some way or another. The “well-I-wouldn’t-have-used-those-exact-words” schtick is reserved for when someone you admire and agree with is taking heat and you simply can’t politically afford to full-on agree with them right now. Amirite? Yeah, I’m right. Moving on.
So, as I was saying, there are Republicans and then there is Rush Limbaugh, their glorious, fat-headed (meaning idiotic, not in reference to his body weight) leader, who thinks it makes perfect sense to whine and cry about “Obama’s” gas prices and the hefty penalty he pays just to take his Hummer out for a spin meanwhile slandering college students for daring to request health services from their own insurance plans. Rush Limbaugh preaches that sexual abstinence is the answer to Fluke’s financial difficulties; however, the idea that he might ride a bike or take the bus to avoid higher gas prices has never occurred to him. And, without reminding our audience that Fluke specifically addressed at length several other medical conditions which require hormonal birth control pills to regulate (such as endometriosis and polycystic ovarian syndrome), Rush has absolutely no idea how birth control pills work anyway.
Rush: She’s having so much sex she can’t afford her birth control anymore!
Rush: She gives the numbers – three thousand dollars worth of birth control pills worth of sex!
Rush: Not one person says, “Well, did you ever think about maybe backing off the amount of sex that you have?”
Obviously, without a Feminazi© to guide him, he has no idea that women do not, in fact, take a birth control pill each time they engage in sexual intercourse. Birth control pills are actually a preventative measure that women take to regulate their periods, govern their hormones and ward off cysts. Oh yeah, and rapist’s babies. Because the reality is that you never know when you could be raped, no matter how high your morals , or your neckline, may be.
We need feminists to remind us of these kinds of things from time to time.
We need feminists to piss people off and rile them up and to speak out against injustice and to applaud measures for equal rights. Like Sandra Fluke did.
Because the only people who are being quiet now are the Republicans. And that’s how I like them.
Feel Free to Sign a Petition or Two:
And Tweet Your Thoughts on the Big Jerk: #FlushRushNow
and Thank The Sponsors Who Stood Behind Women and Flushed His Show:
@JohnDeere, @Allstate, @AOL, @Sears, @ProFlowers, @Carbonite, @LegalZoom, @QuickenLoans,@Geico, @JCPenney, @Netflix, @CapitalOne
It’s iPhone madness here in the virtual world of gay-bashing. [Edit: This week, news broke that Apple was getting a little heat from receiving commission from links to anti-gay organizations. But that’s really no surprise.] The one and only rainbow-clad-fruit company has found ways to approve several hurtful, stereotypical and derogatory apps aimed squarely at the GLBT community. Their Manhattan Declaration app was intended to encourage a community cult comprised of people who are anti-women’s rights, anti-gay-couple-adoption rights, anti-extramarital sex and anti-gay marriage to sign an inner-circle petition which expresses these tenets. In this “declaration,” they also voice their disregard for man’s law in favor of “God’s law.”
They respect laws, they say, as long as they go along with their personal Christian dogmas:
“Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required… Unjust laws degrade human beings. Inasmuch as they can claim no authority beyond sheer human will, they lack any power to bind in conscience.”
As an example of “inspiring” civil disobedience, they cite the abandonment of orphaned children by a Catholic Charity… as a good thing:
“After the judicial imposition of “same-sex marriage” in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching.”
In regards to proponents of gay marriage, they state, “They [couples who fall outside of the heteronormative categorical] fail to understand, however, that marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman, and that the comprehensive, multi-level sharing of life that marriage is includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit… If [marriage were redefined], it would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation…”
I mean, if this ain’t a forward-thinking, positive, socially-mobilizing app, I just don’t know what is!
But that’s not all! If you liked the Manhattan Declaration, you’ll LOVE Exodus’ “Gay Cure” app. This app is for unsatisfied cocksuckers and rug-munchers who wish they could pray away the gay! The Exodus project is described as “a therapeutic, clinical process that operates under the premise that men and women dealing with same-sex attraction are attempting to restore broken familial relationships in an insufficient, unhealthy way.” Right. I probably like vagina because I was breastfed as an infant. Or something.
Back in the real world, even schoolchildren can check biology texts for more cohesive facts. Thankfully, these morally reprehensible programs were pulled off the market once those iGeniuses realized that one rotten app could spoil the whole barrel.
In response to their app being pulled, Exodus International’s Senior Director stated, “We want to ask that there would be fair and equal representation of religious belief on this platform as is already existing. We would like the spirit of diversity and tolerance that is so valued within the LGBT community.” Yes, of course. All they want is the spirit of tolerance that will allow them to freely condemn innocent people as hell-bound sinners for their sexual orientation and brainwash them to feel irreparably-destructive guilt about their natural sexuality. I mean, isn’t that what Jesus would want?
I was recently reading an article about Eva Longoria’s lesbian love scene in a new comedy, “Without Men.” My blood really started pumping when I thought about Eva and some other beautiful woman trading lipstick in the name of old-fashioned, gratuitous, girl-on-girl, softcore-for-the-mainstream visuals… but then my lady-boner was knocked down with this statement from the Huffington Post:
“It was a little difficult as the two girls are both straight so they were very nervous and laughed a lot,” the film’s director, Gabriela Tagliavini, told Fox News. “But I think that just made it even lovelier. [Female audiences] don’t want to watch porn, so it was all very sensual, both are very beautiful women aside from being incredibly funny.”
First of all, I don’t see how two straight women kissing is lovelier than two women who might actually want to kiss each other. Secondly, what?!? I’m a woman and I find myself absent-mindedly browsing the web for naked ladies and fantasy material on a regular basis. Besides, the Internet makes porn so readily accessible that it’s practically impossible not to get sucked in (no pun intended) to look at something naughty, even when you’re not really looking for something naughty. When a person says something like this, what are they really saying? Are they saying women don’t have a sex drive? Are they saying women don’t masturbate?
I keep hearing how “men are more visual than women.” Since I am neither a scientist nor an omnipotent being, I can’t attest to the validity of this statement. However, I do know that when I’m staring at a dick (or a vagina, for that matter), or even when I’m looking at someone attractive who has clothes on, I’m usually revved up and ready to go. I refuse to believe I’m the only female on the planet who is sexually stimulated by visual input. Besides, how do you explain all of these women who fall for good-looking jerks? Obviously, women are sexually aroused through visual stimulation. Why aren’t they watching porn? Who says they aren’t?? A scientific poll?
Many women don’t want to be seen as “sluts.” Because of this, they are less likely to explore something like porn for fear of being caught… and if they do explore porn, they probably don’t fess up to it.
Do women watch porn? YES. Don’t be naive. Do they constantly broadcast it or wear t-shirts and buttons that advertise their appetites? Um, no… well, unless they’re me 🙂
1993’s Demolition Man had promise at first glance. One of the lead characters was an adventurous female with Kung Fu moves, perfect aim and, best of all, a hint of bloodlust. She plays a futuristic law enforcement cadet who is fascinated with the 20th century (now, the “old days”). She has a sort of dopey, clueless charm but maintains an air of personal tenacity and proves she has nothing short of a titanium backbone.Wesley Snipes was a psychotic criminal who gave the audience the vicarious pleasure of brutally – and with flair – outsmarting the super-whitey police force and its overlording white establishment.
What could possibly go wrong?
Well… let’s begin with Snipes’ character (Pheonix) who, despite being a bad-ass criminal way back in the 20th century, is only now “truly intimidating” due to physical and mental enhancements bestowed upon him by a white man during his incarceration in ice. The capper? Even with these upgrades, Pheonix is incapable of defeating our hero, white guy Stallone. Our warrior cries against the inhumanity, the injustice, the prejudice, the abuse, the oppression, the corruption and the racism of the white establishment are drowned in Pheonix’s unfathomable death at the hands of our hero, white guy Stallone.
Unfortunately, that’s not where the travesty ends. After Bullock’s character (Huxley) proves herself to be a first-rate marksman, the audience’s excitement builds in anticipation of her certain role in day-saving. Wrong again. Right before our hero, white guy Stallone fights the evil Simon Pheonix, he renders Huxley unconscious, promising her it’s for her own good. He then goes on to save the day alone, once again restoring white male order to the universe and defeating the evil, however somehow still inferior, black criminal. When the dust settles, Huxley actually thanks him for keeping her out of the big finale. This statement is particularly bewildering since she has heretofore shown no signs of shying from danger and has enthusiastically plunged into any and all peril with gusto and drive. An integral part of her character’s motivation was her dissatisfaction with her mundane life of order and safety.
And the cherry on top: despite her forward sexuality in an earlier scene (she outright asks Stallone if he wants to have sex), the white male order is once again restored to the universe when he literally sweeps her off her feet romance-novel-cover style and plants one on her. And she didn’t even make it on the cover.
So… yeah. Whatever.
It’s just another disappointing caucasian male ejaculation on the summer dress of egalitarian potential. Boo. Damn, I really hate the good old days.
It was recently brought to my attention that there are A-sexual individuals who populate this world right next to us indiscriminately leg-humping horndogs. I hadn’t previously considered the fact that there were people out there who had no sexual attraction to others or that there were those with zero sex drive who weren’t interested in sex at all. Once I realized this, I thought myself very narrow-minded and self-focused to never have contemplated this possibility but I tried to forgive myself because most people don’t become aware of things in a vacuum; they have to expose themselves to outside sources and influences in order to become educated and informed. That’s what reading is for. That’s why human contact with a variety of people is necessary.
Back to the point: here on this little blue marble, there is EVERYTHING, ranging from full-on “sexual addiction” to A-sexuality and ALL of it should be respected. However, use of the word “slut” points toward the complete avoidance of voluntary female sexuality. Female sexuality is only acceptable as a passive acceptance of the inevitable penis which must invade our helpless vaginas, because it is the way of things. Amen. However, if a female is utterly and completely uninterested in said penis, she is considered a deficient anomaly to be similarly dismissed and marginalized as “abnormal.”
To make things worse, our culture pushes emphasis toward the sexual median and forces all of us to walk a fine line between harlotry and frigidity, asserting that neither “extreme” of sexuality is acceptable. If we are completely uninterested in sex with others, we are defective and have issues. If we are too enthusiastic about sex and relish the opportunity to engage in every available casual encounter, we are overzealous and have issues.
If a “slut” is a promiscuous woman, how do we define “promiscuous”? By church-going, Republican-Baptist standards, promiscuity is pretty much defined as any extra-marital sexual engagement. Even a quick rub-and-tug. By free-loving, debauching, Liberal-atheist standards, promiscuity is alleged when you don’t know their first name. In the adult industry and swinging community, promiscuity isn’t a term that’s really even taken seriously; it’s considered laughable and ridiculous — however, this phenomenon is due to the commonality of casual sexual encounters and has little to do with tolerance of others. Those same adult communities ridicule those who choose not to participate with multiple partners.
The intolerance of diverse sexualities plagues our nation, with everyone attempting to shame everyone else to sexual practices that are more like their own. Don’t be gay, be straight. Don’t be slutty, be abstinent. Don’t be straight, be gay. Don’t be gay, be bi. Don’t be A-sexual, be a slut. Everybody’s human. Why can’t we just hump when we want to?
Just in case you don’t know the answer to this question, it’s PATRIARCHY. (Again.)
Why is that? Well… because that’s how oppressive, insecure men prefer their women: compliant but not too eager (lest a woman’s sex drive cause her to find a better dicking somewhere else.) And the Patriarchy is the system under which oppressive, insecure men set the cultural rules. If our cultural norms reflected female perspective, men would be similarly shamed for infidelity and promiscuity. But under current rule, there is no shaming word for men who like to fuck. There also isn’t a comparable word to the stigmatized “frigid” for men, either. That’s because men get to fuck who they want when they want – and don’t fuck who they don’t want to fuck – and they refuse to be shamed by their preferences.
Unfortunately, part of the problem is women themselves. Women help pass around the word “slut” and “whore,” eagerly slandering and belittling each other with the weapons that men happily wield against them. This is not because “women are naturally competitive.” Men are naturally competitive, too. If we lived in an oppressive Matriarchy, men would turn on each other in the same way women do in order to compete for validity. But here we are, clawing our way through the crowd to prove our sexuality and denounce our whoredom, therefore affirming our validity in a Patriarchal world. We’re truly pathetic.
Why can’t we just like ourselves and wait for the person who likes us back? Let’s stop buying into the degrading makeover reality shows and be ourselves for once; do we really believe that men will forever deny us? Are we really that convinced that we have to make out with our best friend to score dick on the weekends? Let’s fuck who we wanna fuck, labels be damned, and laugh in the faces of those who would try to insult us with meaningless references to our conquests. Let’s be proud of our sexuality, whatever it is, and deny the Patriarchy the right to shame us for what we do with our own vaginas.
I realize that I might be accused of being a decade too late for this discussion, but looking back at 1995, the Star Trek writers did a truly phenomenal job of painting a flawless portrait of our first female captain, (Elizabeth) Kathryn Janeway.
In my teens, I’d skipped the Star Trek Voyager series entirely. I took the attitude, as devoted TNG Trekkie, that nothing could ever be like The Next Generation, so why bother? Now, at age 2*, as I finally embark on a journey of self-discovery and feminist theory, I find that I am eager to discover strong, female role models to admire. Loneliness frequently haunts my voyage and sometimes the weight of despair about the state of our world and its ingrained sexism engulfs me. But if I can find evidence of egalitarianism and show proof that sexism needn’t be present in all fictional depictions of women, it becomes easier to revitalize my hope and faith in a positive future.
Janeway very much revitalizes my optimism. I’ve watched the complete first season (I’m partway through Season 2) and I am utterly satisfied that her character was invented and executed with incomparable equity and sensitivity. She conducts herself professionally while retaining charm and personality. Her mind – and wit – is sharp at all times. She exudes strength and perseveres heartily through adversity. The other characters relate to her in a respectful manner (or else they learn to do so in short order) and she even has a sense of humor. Neither too harsh nor too soft, she stands up for herself and others when injustice or disrespect rears its head. She speaks for those who have lesser voices and maintains high standards of personal integrity.
There are millions of unwanted stereotypes that could’ve crept onscreen, such as:
- A complete absence of sexuality
- Overdone harshness
- Overdone sexuality
- Exaggerated youthful appearance
- Heavy makeup
- Skimpy or cleavage-accentuating uniform
- Obsession with her body image
- Emotional vulnerability (not to say she lacks sensitivity, but she consistently conducts herself as Captain.)
- Obsession with her age
- Competitive attitude toward other women
- Subservience toward the second-in-command male
- Control issues
and much more… but these things haven’t surfaced. And as I continue my journey into the great unknown, I am comforted with Janeway by my side. If she can do it, maybe all of us can.
To those who claim that men and women are “already” equal, I pose this query: Why can’t I take my shirt off on a hot, summer day? Seems a perfectly rational question; however, some people launch themselves straight into lunatic ravings and bug-eyed convulsions when posed with this particular dilemma. Why? Well, it’s the same old reason every time: questioning gender roles is oftentimes like questioning someone’s religious beliefs. It’s just too uncomfortable for some people. Boys are blue, girls are pink. Boys are tough, girls are weak. Boys are hunters, girls are moms. That’s how it’s always been. That’s how it has to be, or we’ll all explode.
Today, we will discuss the most common arguments against female toplessness. (If you have any arguments against female toplessness to add, please feel free to put them in the comments section and I will answer to them.)
1. Female breasts are sexual; male breasts are not.
Obviously, this is a fallacious argument, as it is entirely dependent on whom you consult. As far as gay men and straight women are concerned, breasts are non-sexual (and sometimes utterly icky.) In addition to that, I’m sure most straight women and gay men would find a bare, male chest to hold similar seductive value (see picture left.) Tell me that ain’t a sexy pair of pillows.
If a man was walking around topless, he wouldn’t be blamed for a car accident had by some poor woman; she’d be faulted for not paying attention. Please place the blame where it lies.
3. It’s immoral. What about modesty?
If your religion or beliefs prevents you from walking around topless, don’t do it. Next.
4. There would be more sexual assaults if women were walking around everywhere naked.
I’m sure the puritans were spewing the same crap when bikini bathing suits first came out. Does anyone realize what bathing suits used to look like? Well… they used to be actual dresses that covered a woman’s entire body, from head to toe. (Obviously, there wasn’t much swimming happening in those things.) However, if sexual assault were A) related to sexual interest and B) the victim’s fault, I would agree – but it’s neither. Men don’t lose control and attack women because they are wearing bikini tops – it doesn’t even happen routinely in strip clubs, where women are fully nude. Men are human too and able to control their sexual urges, just as women are. If a sexual assault occurs, it is due to the defective mentality of the perpetrator – NOT EVER the fault of the victim.
5. Women’s breasts won’t be as sexually interesting or powerful anymore if they become “equal” with men’s chests.
I beg to differ. It will become more routine to see them exposed, but they certainly won’t lose any of their charm. (See LEGAL male breasts, top.)
6. What about the children?
This is pretty much the last argument people make when they run out of things to say. Well, if everyone is concerned about the children, why aren’t they forcing men to cover their nipples as well? You’d think that female breasts would be more acceptable to be seen in the open, as they are utilized for feeding… and, if men and women are equal, what’s the difference between male and female breasts?
7. Women’s breasts “stick out.”
So do fat men’s breasts. But they never get arrested.
8. It’s just not realistic. It’ll just never happen. People aren’t ready for it. Old people would have heart attacks.
This is pointless, defeatist thinking. Period.
9. You can’t have everyone walking around naked! You don’t see guys with their dicks out, do you?
Genitals are sex organs. If breasts shouldn’t be exposed, then get men to cover them up. If they’re okay, then make it equal. That is all.
Anyone else got something to say? Say it! I want to hear from you!!
(BTW, the only organization I found when I searched for Topless Rights was this one: TERA. It is, of course, a Canadian organization. If anyone knows of any other ones – that aren’t headed up by crazies or just plain nudists – that promote EQUAL rights, not NAKED rights, please comment below and direct me to them! Thanks!)