English Club Chatter

I''m always a little weary of accepting this chain of events. That is, the culmination of our bass-ackwards society is a sexual depraved and akward individual. I know it's always useful to accept the fact that my opinion is really only based on my experience, but in hearing your summary, I realize that I'm definitely included in that upbringing. I had a winky and plenty of 'say no to sex' propaganda. And my geek self was most assuredly sexual excluded for quite awhile, we'll go with 22 years...not to say that's a real figure.... Anyway, despite all that, I am rather comfortable with sex and sexual situations. Why is that? Was I desensitized to violence and sex through games and movies? Meh. Definitely the internet has a factor in making sexual things commonplace, I don't need to go into details. Did a lack of religious upbringing stifle the amount of 'Sex is bad' speeches that I heard? Is my education a factor in overcomming those taboos and realizing the commonplace of it all? I don't know, and yet I find it really hard to believe that I am some stray or abnormality (at least in this case). I guess I would argue that those taboos we grow up with concerning our human body aren't necessary, but are easily overcome by puberty and long showers and dad's stash of magazines and first girlfriends and all sorts of factors. I think most of us are willing to embrace sex as readily as it's available, we just don't show it to others.

Ok, I didn’t get to attend his event but I do have one thing that I would like to point out, while I basically agree with Sarah, to call the US sexually repressive strikes me as kind of funny when I see women wearing Burquas (ok I have no idea how its spelled) and other theocracies that still exist. Do I sound like I’m defending our attitudes towards sex in this country? If I do its only in comparison with the majority of the world (remember Europe is only a small part). Oh well, I hear the presentation was good, maybe I should attend some of these lectures or maybe even actually show up at one of the English Club events…oh well, life goes on.

Boys Have Weiners and Girls Have Muffins!!

I guess this is part of what we see in our country as not a desensitizing element, but it commands more thought of morality and legality here in the U.S. As someone else began to touch upon, Europeon countries have less censorship on topics of a sexual nature, but it plays more of a role and makes more sense in those countries because men and women marry much younger there. The age and importance of sexual expression and knowledge is much younger in those countries. Our country has founded it's societal value in being an adult. For the majority of us, that does not happen until we at least turn eighteen. But, even at eighteen we still have to refrain from alcohol, and can get killed fighting for our country. But, on reflectivity of societal values and trends in the U.S., society should see the necessity and importance of decreasing the "age" of adulthood. Our children are maturing much younger, the numbers of teen pregnancies is on the rapid rise so what does that say about the "dumbing" of our society towards sexual education and expression. If society does not offer the necessary eduaction and availabilty for sexual freedom and education, then where do the children get it? If a parent has difficulty in being quite frank and honest with their child, then in my opinion they are asking for disaster. However, if our children are made aware of there sexual prowess and understand the premises and consequences of sexual freedom and expression, we as parents at least have a chance that they are armed with enough information to make an educated decision.

I can't say I went 22 years to learn on my own, but my parents never took the opportunity to explain anything to me. I would base their inadequacy on the generation that they were raised in. It was taboo to openly talk about sex when they grew up, so they never found the importance in a sound explanation. Beyond that they never took the time for the simple "birds and bees" talk. Quite frankly, I would not have listened anyway. However, since becoming a parent on my own, I am able to identify societal problems with regards to sex. Unless, we change some of these "taboo" issues, some of the problems I mentioned previously are going to worsen.

My 2 cents

-In remembrance of "PROOF" RIP

-I done touched on everything but little boys, and that's not a stab at Michael,it's just a metaphor I get a little psycho with my rhymes.

Eminem

I really dont think its ever a good idea to decide how right or wrong you are based on what someone else is doing. So, instead of basing how the US deals with sexuality on other countries, we should probably first come to all those difficult decisions individually based on what we feel to be "right" for ourselves, and then perhaps work on it as a society when we are strong enough in our own views to not be persuaded from our values but also to listen to what others have to say and adapt when shown a "better truth."
That rant being said, here's another convoluted one...

Shame and guilt in the mirror. Silver cross hanging above exposed cleavage, or lack thereof. Why do I have to cover what I have been given? Because someone might like it? Might not be able to control themselves? Why do I have to wear an underwire padded strap of discomfort? Because media images show me I don't have enough of anything?
Silver cross hanging on a body shared with people I cared for, at least a little bit. Whether they understood the gift or not. A body that responds to real things. Not what it's told: attractive successful male only, attractive optional proportional to success. Why do I have to keep what I believe is a gift given to us to myself or I am a whore, unless I have a piece of metal on my finger? Why can't I appreciate physically what I care for mentally/emotionally?
Images of porn flash through the mind when there is a real person right here, but you can't see or feel him/her. It's not enough, you get bored, desensitized. Violence makes it more exciting and keeps you from connecting. How did we become living sex toys? Because orgasm is now a private sole goal? Because "variety" is now necessary to get off, and we just can't live without getting off?
Why do we have to conceal what we all have in some form, what we all do. Why are we ashamed of something central to our existence? Doesn't keeping it quiet, stifled, private, perpetuate deviance? How do all the good things we may experience in our minutes of life become polluted, weapons, addictions, means of control and debasement?
Why can't I stop avoiding mirrors? Why can't I see a silver cross against flesh with all its supposed flaws and graces and smile thankfully?

Reading Jessica's comment made me think about how different expressing sexuality is for men and women...we carry possible stigmas for our physical activities, choice of dress, number of partners, etc...while the taboos men encounter are, as Matt says, easily overcome. I would argue that this is because men get positive reinforcement for the majority of their sex related decisions from each other and us. Also, our society is geered toward making men feel great about their sexual authority, using us as vehicles of this, our pictures in porn magazines, our bodies exposed in our everyday clothes, and if we do chose to abstain from sex then our virginity even is a tribute--puke! That's why it's great that the lecture Tuesday was based on the female orgasm. Like Todd said, more knowledge and more dialog! Also, Jim B., Just because women in our country have less restrictive does dress not mean we have greater sexual freedom, in many ways we are just as sexualy restricted, if not more so, than women any where else, because of the objectification of our sexual needs and our bodies...

I'm not sure our society is in any way geared toward making men feel great about their sexual authority. Nor do I imagine that most men get positve reinforcement for the majority of their sex related decisions.
While it has been that men have been fooled into believing they have some sort of sexual authority, perhaps a lot of that stems from a need for that gender to compensate for its relative incompetancies as sexual beings.
There is also something at odds with this in our society, and that is the need for capitalism to insist that men are inferior sexual entities in order to keep pushing ego and other parts boosting compensatory products on them. Men and boys often have to lie about their sexuality in order to fit in. It's not easy to lie about other people you actually like and respect just because you get tired of peers giving you a hard time. Yes, some men can far too easily overcome the taboos, but I would guess not nearly most men come through it all comfortable with themselves and their sexuality. Especially if they have been told that masturbation is a bad, bad thing.

I really don't know what it's like to be a man or another woman for that matter, I just know what it's like for me and hoped someone could identify with that, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, or even religious beliefs. I think religion and such plays a bigger role in all of this than anyone realizes. I guess I believe that each of us have our own issues with this broad subject and our own taboos and problems and all that we have to overcome. I just think it would be nice if somehow sex and all it has to do with wasn't something that has gotten so misconstrued that we have to overcome it, making it one of those challenges that have to be mastered so we feel like competent beings, or the failure to master it making us feel less than human. Make love not war? Wouldn't it be nice if "love" wasn't a war? (yeah, cliches, but i like screwing with them)

I would think that patriarchal religion is the tool most widely wielded to repress both our physical, evolutionary, instinctual reproductive acts and also any sort of psychological, emotional, sporty or pleasureable attributes we have managed to fold into the mix.
Fear of getting it wrong is one of the strongest reason why sexuality isn't an open topic between many adults and children. Or avoidance or embarrasment. But kids ought to be aware of the realities behind what they think they are aware of and what they aren't quite sure they are aware of. And they ought to be made aware rather early in the game. I guess it's somehow easier on a society to say it's not all bad and it's not all good, here are the things to look out for, this is a condom, men only want one thing, nice girls don't do that, etc. and good luck; rather than just say, hey, you're gonna be doing some stuff, so here's everything I think I know.
But it's complex. So we break it down to what is natural and go from there, bending concepts to fit the needs of our daughters, who are still naturally ready to go at a pretty young age. And somehow marriage becomes invovled in this bending. But, you know, only natural marriages. Two adults; one male, one female. And hey isn't that fine for the reproductive elements of sex?
But, honestly, that isn't the sex that has us having this conversation. We're all about the 'what's wrong with recreational sex' sex. I'm intrigued that twentysomethings in this day and age still get called whores for having sex. Who is calling them these things? Is it still religious adults and petty, jealous types? Last time I checked, it was your body to do with as you see fit as long as you don't do anything illegal and you have some sort of willing partner(s).
Are we desensitized by all the sexual imagery? Are we more violent sexually? So many questions.

Well, let’s maybe start at the beginning with the big problem. Patriarchal Judeo-Christian rules have dominated sexuality since forever ago. It’s not my intention to force my beliefs on anyone, but, I love my androgynous God, I just hate what people do in his/her name. I’ll try to be as accurate as I can… There are theories that many Paleolithic and Neolithic cultures were either goddess centered or worshipped beings with male and female compliments. Role of provider and caregiver was often shared equally, which meant little power struggle. But the taming of the horse began around 4300 bc. Women couldn’t leave their children, so men became the providers, being able to travel farther, gain more stuff, etc. So, men gained power, gained patriarchy and with it, a male god. I also think that by taming one creature, the idea of taming another seemed lovely. Jumping ahead to the patrilineal glory of the Greeks and Romans. When the Romans took Jerusalem around 70 ad, they let the Rabbis keep sacred Hebrew books, but only after they censored them, eliminating references to powerful female figures. What was left over is our many times translated and re-interpreted Old Testament. The New Testament is the Greek version of what they thought Jesus and his apostles taught quite a distance away, and quite awhile after they had all died. Texts of early followers of Christ, gnostics, show Jesus as teaching men and women on equal grounds, strong spiritual women, and Mary Magdalene as the foremost apostle of Jesus. So, what is true, what is lie? Isn’t that just the question. All I know is that if my God is love, he/she would not make half of the population subservient to the other half, would not let someone burn in hell (if there is one) for being interested in someone that they couldn’t reproduce with, would not want all the stuff that makes this conversation necessary in the first place.

As a 19 year old Unix programing, anime watching, George Lucas worshiping, germaphobic, super geeky virgin. I guess my experience in the subject is limited, to say the least. I would rather read slashdot.org and play everquest than put up with some identity crazed college girl wanting to explore herself. (Just being honest) I have a couple problems with sex. In order to take part in a normal every so often sexual relationship, you have to submit to the "c" word. Commitment. On top of that, aids and VD are rampent... and I'm germaphobic. Anyone who says they're "sexually open", never mentions that we have sex to reproduce. Anyone who has had to raise a child, (Including me. No it's not mine.) understands how difficult it really is. Lastly, as a male.. I can have one oprgasim. I understand WHY you love sex. If I could have 3 or more in a row, so would I. Sadly though, in America violence is cool and sex is taboo. Yes the giant religious sect has everything to do with that. It's undeniable. I'm agnostic though, so that's not holding me back. Just everything I mentioned above. Anyways we're mostly built the same. (89% of women reach orgasim by clitoral stimulation. 99% of men have no "pleasure sensors" below the head of their penis.) Other countries are more open about sex, in America all a child needs is an anatomy book. Oh, and I plan on staying a virgin. Why? Because I'm poor and no girl is going to lock me down for 18 years. That, and germs totally make me paranoid. You should see how offended a 20 year old girl gets when you ask her to go to the hospital and get an aids test done. It's hysterical.

Wow, crazed college girls are the only people who contemplate who they are and who they should/would like to be? No male types ever do? And all this time I thought that the desire for personal evolution was inherent to human nature. Yeah, who would want to be around someone who explored themselves. Those are the especially suspicious types that you know just want to possess glorious you for at least 18 yrs by having your child. Complacency is much easier, it doesn't challenge your ego, and you can really be happier with it. Well, that's a relief. I guess I'll just stop thinking now and go avoid reality. Don't take this as a personal affront, just do me favor and think about it a minute.

Jessica,
I have thought about it, for a very long time. Constructive Criticism is just so fun. I don't avoid reality, I simply march to my own beat. As for "just college girls explore blah blah blah." Sorry, I was talking from a straight males point of view. I still understand where you're comming from though, lots of men and women who are fragile beings have to explore and find themselves. I'll never be politically correct, so put the axe to me. I don't really care. Some people are already comfortable enough within themselves and have already explored their "human evolution." We're happy as we are, there's always the need to explore and learn.. I for one though, don't count that as "evolving." That happens on a personal level. Anyways, you take 3 Xanex a night to go to sleep because you're so paranoid you rip your hair out. Then get back to me on this whole exploring/evolving issue. Some people have to be happy with where they are, to stay sane. I don't want anyone to commit 18 years to "have my child." I want someone to love me enough to give up having children. Is that selfish? Think what you want, I think it's nice. Anyways, I said I'd have a different point of view on this subject. (Didn't take any personal offense btw) Anyways "avoid reality", more like screw reality... I live in my own world. I would love to be a hermit, what a great life.

Save all of these and read them again in 18 years.

For anyone unsure or or unkowing, I'm not exactly what you might call a "moral" person when it comes to sex. I haven't crossed any lines that violate the taboos associated with animals or children, but (for whoever commented on the legality of sexual issues) I'm a sexual criminal when it comes to the U.S.. In most states (which includes Ohio, but excludes denial) sodomy is illegal. That means if you are like some arbitrary percent of the population then you are a criminal. Anal and oral sex are illegal in most states. Period. Those laws are usually only enforced in instantces of rape (statutory or not), but they exist. So, beyond the legality, lets talk about social norms. In a world in which you can see a "donkey show" or run a google search on pooping on chests, or find societies dedicated to the ideas of s&m, what exactly is "normal sex"? If we speak of the purely biological aspect of reproduction, guess what[?], we are overpopulating the planet and (excuse me for sounding like a nazi or eugenicist) most human beings probably maybe shouldn't chance the risk of possibly having a child.
Regardless, as far as the "female orgasm" I have always prided myself on (excuse the ego) seeking the feminine gratification before my own. While I am not always succesful in this endeavore, at least it is a concern. Man can get himself off anytime he wants, woman is an unknown to "us".
As far as recreational sex, it is perfectly legitimate and possible for human beings to engage in sexual acts that don't carry other weights or attachments with them. We shouldn't do this anytime it presents that opportunity to us, only when it doesn't pose a harm to another individual. Which means, thuo shalt not commit adultery. Otherwise, if you aren't committed f---whoever you want. (that is fREE them from whatever holds them from aknowledging that sexual interactions do not necessarily make tham a whore). I may be one of few males to admit that at one point in life I was whore (in every sense of the world), but that does not mean that I can not have a sexual interaction with another adult human being, so long as that interaction is not solely for the purpose of my own gratification). What is important is that when we screw, it is for some reason relatable to the idea of carrying on a conversation with another for the purpose of exposing ourselves to new ideas or experiences, rather than just to "get off". We can do that by ourselves, sex should be something that can't be replicated anytime we want, it should be something rare (even if occuring often) and non-duplictable when we aren't interacting with other members of humanity. Well, that's all I got in me tonight, time to go bust off some knuckle children in the privacy of my neighbors living room because I don't own a DVD player.

Tommy, sorry if you took my comment as something other than constructive, as that was my intention. 'Cause yeah, disagreements can be fun and enlightening and such if handled the right way. I obviously did a good job of that seeing as you took it so well. Yes, it's important to be at peace with who you are today, but it's strength, not fragility that allows you to question how to be a little better tomorrow; that allows you to even want to be. And lets try to avoid the idea that someone who disagrees with something we say must need medication. I love silliness, but I think we can do better than that.

Nic, I love the idea of sex as a form of communication between individuals who are happy with whatever the dynamics of their relationship are. Because, that's really what it's all about, connecting with another person on some level. That was kind of my point earlier, (and I'm seeing that I perhaps did not go about it so well) and that, like anything, if there is not that mutual and/or self respect and consideration and such, something pretty great can become damaged/damaging.
Well, I've pretty much exhausted the subject to apparently no good purpose; so I'll leave the rest to you all.

Hey Tommy,
Males are fully capable of multiple orgasms...but since this information is of little use to you, I’ll leave it at your discretion to research if you see fit...which I kind of hope not since you don't seem to care much about the female orgasm and would apparently rather masturbate your ego than anything else...I’m sorry if this isn't very constructive, but it doesn't seem that you care what anyone thinks about your rather sexist and degrading views.

Regardless what Overstocks.com wants you to believe, it's not all about the O.

Sarah, in what way is it beneficial to the conversation to degrade someone as an individual when they degrade a group. I understand that you take offense, but at the same time don't all of us present ideas which can at times offend others whether individually or as a group? I know I'm very offensive at times on here, but I try my best to be aware of what I am doing. Tommy is new here, and I'm sure you would prefer that I talked to you about this in person, I have a tendency to be short-sighted and reactionary in conversation. Here I can better think about and construct my argument. It seems to me that Tommy is merely expressing his opinions, and insultting him for doing so will only push him to be less involved. Assuming that he wants to be constructively involved, we can't criticize his views or opinions in a non-constructive way. Our goal in the English Club should be to reach out to and bring in new members. Last time, I checked the English Club was not an exclusive club. If it was, I wouldn't be involved. Shouldn't we be leading others within the club towards thinking about different views rather than just attacking them for having their own?

That said, Jessica, I re-read the posts and I think Tommy was speaking from personal experience (whether his own or someone close to him) about the "zannies". (If I'm wrong or misunderstanding either of your responses, then I'm sorry.)

Tommy, bravo on taking things so well to this point, even if we disagree. I understand completely the lack of interest in reproduction, and applaud the decision to remain a virgin (even if I don't understand or even agree with your reasoning completely). As I said before, there have been times in my life where I was not committed yet still active, and sometimes I think it's better to NOT know what you're missing.

Well, enough out of me, I might say something intelligent if I keep going, and I've got an image to maintain.

Nic, I understand what you are saying. And I suffered a great deal of remorse over my reaction to Tommy's post. It was just that--a gut reaction. I, like you, am a very reactionary person with strong opinions and a brash way of expressing them. Please post again, Tommy, I realize that you were simply sharing your thoughts and feelings, which is exactly the point of this blog and English Club in general. I am actually glad that Nic called me out because I have fretted over this for some time.

Also, Tommy, you brought up an excellent point about testing for AIDs, HIV, etc. Although I don't think this is anything to laugh at your partner about, I do think getting tested is a faucet of a healthy, respectful relationship.

Yes, I was being a meanie, speaking in anger and reacting without thinking, something that is never helpful and that I don't like to do. I have been concerned about the way I handled it. I think we should all be able to handle a discussion in which we don't agree on everything in a, um, friendly and respectful way and I apolize to Tommy, as well as everyone else, for being an ass. Tommy, I hope you post again and such as well; your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's. I'm with ya on the germs. And the anime. And George Lucas. I guess you can't be all bad (just a little joke).

apologize, not apolize. Craps, that was hard to get out I guess; Freud and such. No less meaningful though...

Jane, you ignorant ... I'm so sure I can't bring myself to type "slut". Language is interesting. For instance Sarah has "strong opinions and a brash way of expressing them" while she sees Tommy as "simply sharing your thoughts and feelings." Also, I'm confused as to whom "you" refers in her sentence that begins "I, like you, am a very reactionary person. . ." Is it Nic? And what exactly is a "faucet of a healthy, respectful relationship"? I'm not sure I can tap into it's meaning.

Also, I'm not aplogizing for the SNL reference which some of you may not get because you weren't alive then.
But I am interested in the gender-language apsects, not historically, but since, perhaps, the 80's. At some level, have girls been encouraged to become more assertive with their language, while boys have been sort of p.c.'d down a notch or two? Always questions.

I got the SNL reference and hope everyone else did too, every time Jane Curtain tried to assert herself, her male co-anchor would tell her to, "shut up you stupid slut." It was very funny. It's sad that often, even in our open-minded, all-excepting little circle, women are degraded and asked to construct our views in a way that compliments even those who seek to degrade us. It's especially sad given our topic, the female orgasm, a topic that was meant to open a respectful dialog about women's bodies and sexual fulfillment.

But as I said before, my response to Tommy was reactionary and I later worried that I scared him away with the harshness of my words. In a pervious response, the one Jim refers to, I said that "I, like you, am a reactionary person"--I meant that like Nic I have strong opinions and waste little time in expressing them. However, I do put thought into my reactions. And also, in another post I said that Tommy brought up an excellent point about testing for STDs and said that this act of testing is a facet--not faucet, haha--of any healthy relationship. (blogs don't have spell checks)

And all that said, I'm glad the conversation has moved on...and I think it's interesting to note that the majority of people who have shared their sexual histories on this thread are men--because they do have a greater freedom to talk about sex, free of stigmas, etc. Also, I would argue--and I think this thread is an example--that men cannot only express their sexuality freely, but also the strong, harsh opinions for which women (often me) are criticized.

Sarah Stevens

What I seem to be finding in here is more-or-less the answer to one of the original questions. Apparently we, as a whole, are not comfortable discussing this. While it may seem that the men might feel more free to discuss facets of their sexual histories, these are also some of the same men who will speak freely about many other aspects of their lives in this blog. What I wonder now is what makes some folks feel that they cannot or should not say what they want. I know how that works for me, so I'm not trying to be hypcritical here, but I really am curious about the self-censorship of others. Why do some people sense that it is not wise to freely discuss issues of sexuality?

I think that some people sense that it is not wise to freely discuss issues of sexuality because, in America alot of people care too much as to what others think about them so they are afraid that society may look down on them or think less of them.

Excellent point. It would be interesting to know to what extent the fear is founded, which is to say how damaging societal views can be for particular people and to what extent the fear is greater than the consequences. "Society" seems like such a daunting, yet vague concept or construct that I marvel at it being evoked so freely for what might best be considered personal matters. The notion of society looking down on one is a reality to many people, yet I can't imagine that for most of us it is more than a limited society that affects us.

One of the intriguing aspects of this thread is that it is public and therefore can be a dangerous place for people to talk frankly about sexuality. More men, I would imagine, have less fears of being stalked or physically assaulted as a direct result of their discussions of sexuality. In a room among friends, this would be a different conversation.

Sally: I'd like to talk about something that's important to me. I think there's a lot of issues that adversely effect women, as well as men.
Richard: I don't have any problems.
Sally: Well, are you aware that...
Richard: If you keep talking, I'm going to get angry.
Bob, or Sally's Conscious, whatever: You wouldn't want to make anyone angry, would you?
Sally: Oh, I'm so sorry. It doesn't matter. I like your fine hat.

But that's silly, that would never happen. So many mixed feelings about this language/gender thing. I don't like generalizing all women and all men, but it seems to me that guys feel so safe to say whatever and forget about it while girls worry over it and fear confrontation. This kind of thinking contributes to much more serious consequences. Like, oh I don't know, a 15 yr old girl feels obligated to have sex with an older guy and feels guilty for making him wait as long as she has because she has been taught to put the concerns of others before her own and has no idea how to assert herself. 6 mos later she's wading through protesters all alone to get into the abortion clinic. But, that never happens either, huh? Ah, I better hush before I get all pissy and say something I'll feel the need to apologize for later. Oh, I'll save us all the trouble and say I'm sorry right now; regretting it already...

Hey all. I'm jumping in here because my sister (jessica kilgore) and I like to team up on people and CONQUER THE UNIVERSE! ha ha . . .

Anyways . . . responding to Jim's question about why we censor ourselves
I think that for me, I don't always KNOW what I feel. Irrationally, I always want EVERYONE to UNDERSTAND everything about me. I don't know if this is a personal thing or if all women, or people feel this way. But it really bothers me when people think something about me that isn't true. So if one day I decide I wanna be an Amazon or a praying mantis/ man-hater I may just keep those feelings to myself because the next day I will be in love. Same goes for sex. I once thought love didn't have anything to do with sex and I made A LOT of mistakes based on this assumption. Now I am married and have a child (a little girl! talk about responsiblity! how am i gonna teach her not to be confused about sex when i still am?!?) I understand that, for me, I can't seperate the emotional, reproductive, or primal aspects of sex. To me it is all one and the same. For us it is a beautiful moment in our relationship, a stepping stone in building our family, and it just FEELS GOOD! Where before I just felt obligated or curious or whatever. But who knows what I will feel like tomorrow about it all. My husband may cheat on me and then we'll be back at square one and I'll have all these people thinking that I think sex is some glorious thing and I will feel very uncomfortable until I correct them. . . i'm sure that didn't make any sense but oh well . . .

To avoid trivialities, I'm sure she's sorry for joking about teaming up on people.

conscience, always mix 'em up.

I think that makes sense. I'd say perfect sense, but I think the issue at hand doesn't lend itself to perfection or absolutes.
This conversation is fascinating to me because I've been sort of working under the assumption that great strides have been taken to empower girls and to instill in boys that they don't have innate power. I would have hoped that this would have begun to filter through a bit, but I'm still hearing generalizations that insist that the perception is that men can say anything they want and not worry about it, while women face greater consequences. So, is there only a point to which empowerment can hope to be successful? Physiologically, women obviously have more at risk with sexual behavior, both on a personal and a societal level. Is that the great separator? Is that where the conversation will always stalemate?
Obviously in this country women have many better opportunities to be successful and lead economically sufficient lives without having to have a man than they have at any time in the past. Men, on the other hand, will have to find new ways to hold dominion. That is probably a flux we find ourselves in now. I don't know how things work psychologically for individuals or groups. Will there be a massive Fundamentalist backlash? I sense it. After all, if women can farm enough semen, what will they ultimately need from men? Yes, but they have appliances that open jars for you now.

I would rather know that I am not needed and that I don't need anyone. Because then, I know that if a mate keeps me around it's not because he needs whatever it is that I am giving him, but because he enjoys and appreciates who I am. At the same time, he will know that, because I can survive quite well without him but keep him around anyway it is because I care for him as a person.
Wouldn't it be a relief for guys not to have to worry about being "manly" because we don't need them to be. If there weren't commercials that show a car full of people heckling a guy for crying at a movie. If he only had to worry about being strong for himself (not to be confused with insensitive) and not someone else too.
Yes, we have come a long way and it's great. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to have this conversation. At the same time, a lecture on Female Orgasm wouldn't have been necessary if we had gotten it "right" by now. This lecture was interesting because to me what was very basic information was discussed but seemed to be something of a revelation for many people. We still have far to go.

Ok, I have come to find that in all relationships: family, friends, lovers, partners, male, female, etc.... that we should always be concerned about others to the extent that we don't cause harm to ourselves unnecessarily. That said, I personally don't have a lot of problems sharing bits and chunks of my past on here, because I really don't care to a certain extent how various societies judge me based on my past decisions. Every failing and accomplishment I have ever done has led me to be who I am today. If I hadn't lived such a large portion of my life (teen years) as a chronic liar, then I wouldn't have ruined so many friendships and probably would have hung around an entirely different group of people in high school. It's through experiences like these that I learned the negative consequences of trying to portray yourself or the world around you in a false light. Therefore I try to be a very "real" person. If that means that occassionally i choose to share something potentially negative about my history with you all, then I will.

Jenna, if you and Jessica succeed, can i have Rhode Island? Also, funny you mention that you want others to understand everything about you. I was just talking to a great friend earlier today about how no one can ever truly know, understand, or see another. No one will ever see everything about you, just as no one will ever completely understand me. When we think of another person, we think of them in conceptual terms (There might be a piece of writing [if what I do can be called more than mind vomit] wherein I declare that I am not a concept). The only things you have to identify with nic is what he writes on here, how he interacts with you in person, the stories he tells you about his life (and then you have to question those because he admitted to having a past as a promiscuos, chronic liar), and the things you observe him doing. However, you've never seen him giving money away to those who needed it more than him even when it would break him, just as you've never seen the extensive collection of azalea porn on his computer, or his many attempts for the Guinness record for kicking a puppy the farthest (let alone the collection of snapshots and hairdolls he put together while stalking Bea Arthur). So you have a concept of what you believe nic is. Perhaps you believe his egotistical rants without ever noting that most times he spells his name with all lower case because he has a deep seeded neurosis of inferiority. Perhaps you think he has an issue with you on a personal level because he jests with/about you.
(switching gears towards Jim's discussion, even though you can still read this stream of consciousness like, since I added this paranthetical portion post-writing)
What becomes irrelevant at a point is the perceptions others have about us that they force upon us. I've come to find that the more open I am in life, the more times judgement is passed upon me, yet the less room people have to speculate about me.<--(to the person I spoke with about speculation in the past 12 hours, this ain't about [or advice for] you) Anyway, Jim, I don't fully understand the apprehension humans have (in any of the societies we belong to) to share with one another. I suppose we would have to stop judging others for sharing part of themselves with one another before we became comfortable sharing certain aspects of ourselves with another.
Finally, Sarah, as far as being free from stigmas, if you recall I referred to myself with a derogatory term for a promiscuous person. My point is that men should not be free from these stigmas if women aren't. I made every effort to show that through sharing my experiences that I am every bit as susceptible to judgement from people. Any person who believes that my past actions or word choices are wrong (ethically, morally, philosophically, or whatever-ly), but that doesn't mean I am going to worry about those types of constraints. True freedom is in the mind. If we do not concern ourselves with the judgments of others then we can say whatever we like (hopefully whatever we want is not harmful or hateful language, but if it is, that is when the society police step in to take care of those people who aren't responsible with their use of language/expression).

On that note, I think I hear sirens, so i'm outta here!!

I wrote a poem that would be very appropriate for this discussion. It's actually mocking my ex though,but it does mention sex so it fits in with this discussion.
You told me you loved me.
You said you were true.
Then,you thought I was a prude.
All because I wouldn't give it to you.
Now,you're with that little, 17 year old, slutty,bitch.
So,let me tell you this.
I hope she gives you a funky little itch.

nic - ummm NO you can't have Rhode Island! Are you crazy?? Thats where we are going to farm semen! GOSH!

i know no one will every truly understand me which is WHY I want to make sure what I do and say represents what I actually feel or think. . . . if someone is gonna judge me based on 30 seconds of my life then i'm gonna make sure they don't screw it up! Then again sometimes it is fun to take advantage of the fact that no one really knows you.. . but there is that manipulative bitch side of me again . . .

Just wanted to let everyone know I have to announce my retirement from the Writing Center. I have just not been stimulated for some time. It was great working with all of you. Jay, keep your head up. Fran, just relax. Jesse, probably see you around Savnnah some this summer. Trish and Nic, I am speechless. I will be teaching at least one class at NCSC in the summer and they offered a full-time adjunct job for fall, so I will be around in some form. Everybody has my e-mail, use it but no little booby pics!!!!!!! It has been real. I will try to stay in touch. Sarah, keep sportin it sister, keep Austin on the up and up!!

ok last thing
women no longer have restrictions on what they can wear. Instead we wear thongs and jeans that are too tight and shirts that are practically pointless. This is uncomfortable for us but men i'm sure benefit from it. Yet if we stop dressing this way women and men alike will treat us badly. Just a FACT appearance matters if you want a career whether it should or not.

women no longer have to stay at home. Now they have to take care of their kids, their husband, their home, AND have a full time job. We are so lucky we fought for that. (Once again, benefit to the man who no longer has even the responsiblity of providing for his family. I know guys who pay a babysitter so they can sit on their butt at home while their wife is at work!)

women have more freedom when it comes to sexuality - all this means is we get hurt and its easier for a guy to get laid.

Just something to think about - i'm not really an active feminist and i will defend my marriage and say that ours is not an unequal one. We share all duties and responsibility. But I know we are not the majority.

But Jenna, I like pretend shirts! (tight jeans are aren't great) Not for attention (actually that's annoying to say the least) but because I don't like being cloistered under layers of fabric. I like feeling the elements. Plus, I just get hot easy. And I have been told that some people (not mentioning any names) with um, ample bottoms find thongs more comfortable and DEFINITELY aren't wearing them for anyone's benefit. So, WHEN we succeed, one of our laws must be that everyone must wear thongs and skimpy shirts so that they don't pay attention and make preformed judgements when I do. Nic if you are good and follow the dress code, you can visit Wisconsin sometimes. I think there's cheese there. There may be something that resembles a point amidst all my nonsense ramblings. Or not. I'll be the last to know what I'm talking about.

This is a really interesting thread. It seems to me you actually demonstrate that sexuality IS something that can be discussed -- at least by you folks. I'm not sure such a discussion would have happened when I was an undergrad (though of course blogs didn't exist then either -- we talked with cave paintings and smoke signals).

I hope it won't send anyone scurrying to have a prof. join in, but I wanted to ask some questions about the debate between men's and women's relative freedom and comfort in discussing sexuality. One thing no one has yet mentioned is sexual orientation, and it seems to me that in this area men are still much more inhibited than women. My experience in the classroom (obviously just anecdotal) is that women tend to be more comfortable with non-normative sexual orientation and behavior than men. Why is this? Again, I'm no expert, but it seems to me that men's sexuality, by and large, is a very fragile thing. We're large and muscular, we can lift heavy things, break rocks, charge into battle, shout others down, but when it comes to sexuality, we're all just tiny, nervous little guys who aren't sure who we are or whether we're doing the right thing or are properly equipped. Why are men so terrified of homosexuality, for instance? Why does gay bashing happen? Because we're afraid it might be "catching," or anxious that there might be some of that "feminine" stuff kicking around in our own psyches (and therefore eager to prove to others that all our chromosomes are Xs). Isn't that it? Isn't the stereotypical macho male behavior just a defensive act? (Even the word "macho" is dangerous, post-Village People.)

It seems to me human sexuality is vastly complex, and that we haven't really begun to understand it.

Any thoughts?

Rock On!

Back in the days of cave drawings, long before I understood anything about homosexuality, I sensed that it was something I never wanted to be if I didn't want my life to be miserable. Have we come a long way on that front? I was told by a young person recently that this is the first American generation to accept alternative sexual orientations, but I really don't see it. My guess is that it is going to become an even more dangerous choice than ever.
Again, in our society, so much of our behavior as young people is driven by a desire or a need to fit in, or at least to not be thought as strange as some. For many boys that becomes the macho-defensive posture, or at least an avoidance of the overt feminine behavior. I've run into a number of guys from my high school days who have come out over the years. About a few of these, I had no clue. My friends still make uncomfortable jokes about them, and we are middle aged.
So, my question still remains: what is the source of this fear? Is it natural or is it religious, or is it societal?

Well, I guess I should chime in once in a while...

First of all- Nic, you're a great friend and a great guy, so you should spell it NIC! shout it- NIC! NIC! NIC!

And, yes, I have to admit it. I act macho precisely because I don't want people to think I'm gay. Surprisingly, it doesn't seem to be working. Actually, I think there's a fairly apparent answer to Dr. Hamlin's question, but no obvious solution. I could get all academic here and throw some Foucault/power/discursive knowledge stuff around, but in the blogosphere it's ok to be reductive and just say that Foucault came up with a fancy way of saying 'thats the way things are and everybody pretty much just accepts it.' How do we change it? Slowly. I do believe that this is the first generation of people to accept alternative sexualities, but perhaps we don't see it because we live in a red state and because we keep seeing setbacks for homosexuals in the news. Not that I am saying there are no problems- I would never be that reductive- but strides have been made in the battle for tolerance. I guess what my tired brain is trying to spit out here is that compared to fifty years ago, feminine behavior in men is less constrained - consider men's fashion (A&F), 'metrosexuality,' men's growing interest in cooking and fixing up the house, etc. And the language of women has changed, becoming less demure and more sexually explicit (lord knows I say enough things that are 'inappropriate' for a young lady), and not to mention the gamut of options women have nowadays for careers, family, etc. Up until the 1950's, women were institutionalized if they didn't enjoy being a housewife! And I'm not entirely sure that men's stereotypical behavior is avoidance rather than conditioning. The generation before us of course still had strong prescribed roles for men and women and have raised their offspring as such. My mother tried her hardest to get me interested in cooking, and put me in dresses until I was ten. Turns out, it's really easy to look up a skirt when the person wearing it is climbing a tree. But she also taught me to not make assumptions about peple based on their race or sexuality- perhaps that's what some people today are missing. I don't know if this is at all insightful or if I'm oversimplifying...

HH, I'm so sorry to correct you but males are XY, females are XX. But whatever. Feel free to correct me any time and remind me that I don't know everything despite my inclinations to the contrary.
I wonder if female homosexuality is more acceptable than male because it does not involve allowing anyone into your body, so to speak. Maybe it doesn't seem like actual sex to some people? It takes a bit of submission to allow that intrusion. And if men are to be dominant, then this submission may be threatening to them or inconceivable to someone else. I don't know, just a thought.

Also, maybe one of the reasons female homosexuality is more prevalent is because it's encouraged by many young men as something that's 'hot'. Think 'Girls Gone Wild'. It seems (in those cases) yet another way for women to be submissive to men, and consequently is a step in the wrong direction for all parties involved in terms of embracing sexuality...

Very unfortunately true Trish. I wasnt sure if I wanted to bring that up but Im glad you did. I know of girls that feign attraction to other girls precisely to get male attention. This is not only disgusting, degrading and plain pitiful, but further invalidates not only women in general but also the feelings of women who genuinely do want female companionship. Reiterating what you just said I guess, but that can be flattering I suppose, so no harm done or something...

You SO want to be just like me. Admit it.

One last funny little story tonight... My bible thumpin grandpa from kentucky who believes strongly that woman are good for only cookin, havin babies and looking at (ah, one of my many sources of aggravation on this subject revealed) informed me earlier today that a girl from KY won the Miss USA thingy or something. I picked up my four month old niece and asked her (knowing Id get more sense out of her, though I love him dearly... sometimes) if she thought that the first woman president from KY would be of a little more merit. Confused, he says, well Miss Ohio was runner-up and she was really pretty. gosh!

Yes Trish, I bet you are going to be Miss USA soon (having no other aspirations you see)so hell yeah I want to be you! haha.

Oh craps... not that you couldnt be or anything... Im sure you know what I mean...

Which brings us to the difficulty of girls talking to eachother and why I just don't understand some of them, very sad. Underlying venom for the competition and all I think is the problem. I don't know you well at all but you don't strike me as the petty, shallow, envious type so I think we're OK...

Hot or not, it's likely easier for many men to deal with female homosexuality because it might be easier to imagine having that orientation if one imagines himself to be a female. If one has difficulty imagining oneself with a man (this is usually where proper English goes by the wayside; I ain't kissin' no man) or has no desire for that variety of sexual contact, it doesn't necessarily follow that he is against same sex partners in general. If he feels girls are sexually attractive, then he just might get that other women might think so too.

Concerning what jess broguth up earlier, might it not be the height of masculinity to be dominant or Top in a male-male relationship?

Interesting fact - - I lived with two homosexual males at the osu campus in columbus (one a good friend from high school who came out our junior year - all of us knew in spite of his attempt to date girls and cover it up) ANYWAY my point is even among this particular homosexual subculture my friends would make fun of other homosexuals who were "too gay" calling them "bottom-boys". So there must be some hierarchy of gayness (sorry if thats offensive to anyone i just don't know how to else to put it)even amongst homosexuals.

Thanks for the correction Jess. A sad story but true, I missed out on high school biology because of switching schools. Ah well. I think my point was clear enough anyway.

I think you're right, too, about the matter of bodies. But I suspect the male anxiety also has to do with what might be called the roles of predator and prey. What makes men intensely nervous is when they become "prey" (as it were). Two women having sex are not a threat (though there is usually the expectation, I think, that they would welcome a man at some point, joining in). A gay man poses a threat because he might see a straight man as a sex object, and straight men are not used to being in that role. Perpetrators of gay bashing or murder (as in the Matthew Sheppard case) seem often to express the sense of offense (real or imagined) that they were being hit on. Women face this all the time, but for some straight men, this is something unaccustomed and unacceptable. Maybe if gender roles in heterosexual relationships continue to equalize (away from the predator/prey thing), male anxiety will dwindle? We can hope.

On the roomate experience, it seems reasonable to think that there would be no greater homogeneity among gay men than among straight men (or women). I've known many gay men, and they have certainly been as mixed a bunch as the straight people I've known.

well i didn't mean to imply that ... i just meant that there is prejudice against homosexuals by homosexuals as well. There is always a line people won't cross for whatever reason . . .

the comment went along with the idea jess brought up about society thinking it is more immoral when you allow someone into your body . . . i was just saying that my particular friends felt it was worse to be the one on the "bottom" or the the recieving end. . .

Jan Ahmed Allen Gavin Charles Shawn

I guess the sad truth is that prejudice is a natural part of the human condition. People of all sorts are adept at finding others to look down on, even those relatively like themselves (at least from an "outside" perspective). It would be akin to Protestants rejecting Catholics as not Christian, or African Americans looking down on one another for having too light or dark a shade of skin, and so on.

The body thing is really intriguing. There's been a lot of work done on bodies in literary/cultural theory. It's interesting that we are so bad at talking about our bodies, when bodies is really what we are. People who study pain and suffering talk a lot about bodies, and so do those who study body images (connected to eating disorders for instance). We do seem to have a particular difficulty talking about what goes into or comes out of our bodies. Quite fascinating, since you could say this is one of the few areas of common experience among all humanity. But then I guess we do divide into "tabs" and "slots" (to borrow terms from paper dolls).

Hmmmm.

From an early age, many of us are told it is wrong to talk about a lot of the functions of our bodies. I can't remember the first time i used the term "fecal matter", but when I did, I'm sure it was just in place of "shit" as a curse word and not so much as a bodily function.
How do we go about affecting change in the ways in which important and factual information is disseminated? Where are our cultural rituals that are helpful, rather than implied? Anyone who has spent any time around sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth graders understands that this group lives in some bizarre mythological wonderland. For the most part, it is unrealistic to expect this group to separate useful fact from succulent misinformation and to get anything even close to right.
It is smack dab in the middle of all this puberty that so much damage is done. It is frustrating to think that so many adults want to keep things hushed and keep their fingers crossed. Will any generation pull the trigger on actual change?

On a totally unrelated note, just wanted to remind everybody about the English Club event tomorrow (Thursday) night at 7:30 in the Eisenhower student union. We'll be watching a film of Nic's choosing--(this fact alone should be enough of an enticement to draw a handsome crowd)--and enjoying each other's company...so if you like having conversations like this one, stop by, grab a seat, and make some English Club memories.

Alright, so I apologize for being so elusive these past few weeks or so. Perhaps I was collecting my thoughts. This morning I sat down at the computer in the writing center and read all of your posts thuroughly. YEAH ALL 64. And I hope if you start to read my post you finish it all the way through... I am sure some things I say are going to be revolting or offensive. But for some reason I feel the need to talk---perhaps its my generation.

The first thing that really stuck to me were Jims comments. Womens sociatial acceptance of their behaviors is still a touchy subject. For me it is quite the oppisite, of being overly sexuallized, (I suppose you dont miss what you never had?) I am mostly riddiculed for being such a "prude." this poses a problem in many ways: Some girls/boys (also) think that somehow i am looking down on them for the actions they take and for the things that they choose to do. Somehow, someone is always trying to desencitize me from "naive" ways. Somehow because I havent experianced something (yet) I SHOULD. It isnt very worldly of me to NOT want to have a relationship, or some nice sex al-a-carte ("Down With Love" refrence) Why do I think this way--religous values? Social values? moral values? Feminist Values? I'm a freak?

I dont think so. It is a way for me to respect MYself and MY body. (Yeah I said it) And just to explain that further--thats MY body, MY chioce. And I wont have sex until I am married. (Yep its like buying an ice-cream truck without checking out the various flavors) BUT an answer to my previous questions Why am I like this (religious? Social Values?Moral?)--Yes to them all. In my world God asks me to wait, he asks me to be patient. Its not because I am Chatholic, or protostant, or Lutheran or Budist (sp?) and thats what Chatholics or protostants etc do--its because I believe what the Bible says and acctually believe in walking the life. Religion is man made, what I have is faith. This alone blends and connects with my social and moral values. Thats me, that walk. And You can tell me that things will change in me, but this is one thing that never has, never will.

And as for the feminist side--How can I be a feminist? With all this talk about Jesus and the Bible? Well I believe that there is some sort of female power in not excerting yourself to certain sexual things. So many times women are made a fool to a man. (sorry boys but I had a rough morning and let me tell you about it) I dont think that "cat-calls" are at all alluring. At the gas station today while walking back to my car I recieved the luxurous call. Perhaps at another time in my life i would have waved back--Because I felt that being a feminist was playing with those men and haveing that power to do so. But its not, its haveing the respect for yourself to Choose to do so. I did all i could to refrain from calling back "Jackass" and flipping them off---yeah I bet everyone would have loveed to see that. But I didnt I went back to my car and thought--well what am I wearing. But the thing is I am not dressed "provocative or "alluring" My breasts arent popping out and my ass isnt showing---it was unwanted that call. I dont think that as women we should want such things.---this is perhaps a connection with the homosexuallity thing... also A way to keep women on the "bottom" What would have happened had I called those men out? Besides them not learning anything they would have immidiatly thought me a "bitch" because I didnt like there petty male mateing call?!

I guess I am just trying to assert alot of pionts brought up and BE REAL BE HONEST and just say what I think about all of this.... (I hope that I didnt sound preachy, thats the last thing I want) Somehow explainingg How I choose my life (not egzactly why) somehow explains some chioces of others. And I would like to end with this. Call me out if you want. push some buttons. Hopefully I said some new things that can be further pushed.

and im stopping--but I am full of other things.

Jesi/theyellowpoet

Harking back to one of the original questions in this strand, I would imagine there are many books and other references that offer suggestions on ways to handle the situation Sarah describes. As with most things, it is ultimately up to each of us to fill in the blanks once we have discovered that there are gaps in our knowledge bases. And as with most successful relationships, honest communication is the key to respect. Even the most painful observations are likely to be less so if they are not brought to the forefront in a moment of hostility or embarrassment. This is the easy answer, but I know things are always complex, uncertain, and unique.

Do I have to be handsome to come to the film presentation?

nope just human. So i guess you cant come. (joke, JOKE:)

I agree with Jesi,because, I choose not have sex until marriage too because of my moral standings and some people also try to pressure me into things by telling me things such as "these are the years you're supposed to enjoy life" and what not. But,I agree that while college may be the time of your life, you o not have to have sex or do anything else you do not feel comfortable with. I think that high school girls probabally are pressured even more now days,because there are so many teenage pregnancies now. For example, a family member of mine is now a 17 year old mother. Last year was my senior year of high school and I remember a freshmen that was only like 14 that was pregnant. It's so sad,how women let men pressure them into things. My motto is I don't need a man to tell me what to do,if he's going to make me do something I don't feel comfortable with,I'll kick him to the curb.

Wow! That's probably the fifth worst (best?) insult I've endured today. The other ones weren't so much jokes. Girls can be so mean.

nic is speechless. Well said Jesi.

Jesi and Ashley--wahoo choices! I love that feminism is not specific to any one type of woman or one particular choice. Good for you two and for the lucky (Godly) men you marry someday. I would never call either of you prude because I don't believe in trying to degrade people when they are making the best and healthiest choices for their lives. But I think your comments did bring us around nicely to the hymen issue. In our western Christianized society there is this ingrained idea that women are a more valuable commodity when our hymens are intact. Note that I said commodity. How much do we still buy into this? I will admit that partly because of my Christian/fundamentalist upbringing, I can't separate sex from love--and because of my own separate convictions, I wouldn't want to. But still there is this disenfranchisement from our bodies that I oppose...this idea of "not giving the milk away for free." It's immpossible to talk about virginity without getting into issues of commodification, value, and ownership. Don't we make ourselves a commodity simpily by speaking in terms of owning our own bodies?

Not that this is a poetry thread or anything, but it happens to be one of favorite poetry topics...and I know there are some other feminist poets out there with some pretty good stuff along this vein.

speedway
sarah stevens

you've got some pretty legs
little girl--heart speads up
double checking automatic locks
not sickening or startling
it's a rather revealing outfit
body inside no less mine
but heady gasoline nausea
smell of rusted semen pickups
not blaming me, or god, or them
just this mechanical wasteland,
tractor pull rodeo of male egos
thinking it's their place to say
little skirt auction block
except I'm not for sale

Sarah, your poem reminded me that Thursday i wanted to wear a skirt, and it is funny had I of worn it and gotten the "cat call" I would have thought that it was the way i was dressed--but luckily i just got to see that 'rednecks'--to be un-politically correct, can sometimes lack the same brain and muscle tissue of other men. but moving on...

I think we can separate sex from love. I mean in a relationship you can love someone before you have sex. And then the other way around you could have sex before you loved someone truly. I can see where you can think of co modification, value and/or ownership, but that’s not really where I am coming from. I think that if you LET people think this way--men or women that we are products, something to be bought and sold then they will. The idea of marriage as a trade has faded thanks to the earlier feminist movements. I mean, we don't have Dowry's anymore and we don’t need our parents permission to "tie-the-knot" While women are still objectified and treated with little respect sometimes, (cat calls, the wonderful phrases of --women belong in the kitchen, women can't do that) I'm not saying there are not men/women out there that still believe the Patriarchal Hype. There are. Also there are lots of girls/boys that have been taught this--but as Audre Lorde says, "Your silence will not protect you" We have to spread that this is the wrong idea--No people should be objectified.

And I don’t think that entering into marriage, or just waiting for the right person, enforces any of this patriarchal garbage. Christian beliefs say that women are loved no matter where they have come from. Christianity is more egalitarian than anything. Man-made religion, the churches we go to has taught us the "rules." They have taught people the feeling of entrapment. The churches have put a huge stigma on this and it is just a shame. Jesus taught that we are free with him and It is scary to think that we have in swerved so far away from this truth. (But this is getting to preachy, and that’s not what I want again. darn) Just furthering what I was trying to say.

Jesi

Jesus is an all right guy--have to commend the socialism, feminism, and humanitarianism he stands for. Aside from that, I totally agree that we allow people to objectify us, but to a certain extent we are acted upon by our society and are products of that society. We cannot silence rednecks at gas at gas stations, and we cannot force stereotypical assumptions out of American mentality. But to what extent does owning the fact that we allow ourselves to be objectified become us baring the soul responsibility for that objectification? We cannot blame ourselves for anyone else's ignorance...clothing is not a permission slip for degradation. The human body is beautiful in all shapes and ages and sizes, should we be forced to hide it? I think the ways we truly participate in our objectification are far more systematic and ingrained than simply showing a bit of skin. Sure, marriage practices in our society may be more bipartisan now, but the traditions still point to very crippling and objectifying ideologies. It's difficult to say that an institution designed to perpetuate patriarchy does not continue to do so. Personally, it disturbs me to see a young woman marched down an aisle in a white dress--not every marriage includes this virgin sacrifice march (as I have deemed it) and I also realize that many individuals determine their own meaning in the case of marriage. I will admit, I cry at weddings. It's beautiful to see two people very much in love promise their lives to each other. However, it bugs me that they must do so in a cist pool of patriarchy and materialism.

Now would somebody please go answer my research question? Honestly, it's like people don't care if I'm horribly misinformed...

Oh, yeah, what I meant when I said I cannot separate sex from love was merely that I would not have sex if I didn't first love that person. I think that a lot of the purity discussion in the Bible can be taken literally, or can be examined for deeper meaning. There is a certain purity in loving the person you have sex with. There is also something very beautiful about only engaging in this act with one person. Rather this is taken as a definitive one person or a statement about monogamy--I leave it open to both interpretations. My mother told me once that, "Your virginity is all you have to give the person you love." Thus, I was a tad soured to this idea of "saving myself" at a rather early age. It didn't seem fair that everything else I am should be so harshly discredited in light of a little bit of muscle tissue between my legs. At the same time it was also obvious to me that highschool was not the place to act out this dissatisfication--the boys there were just that boys, alright for weekend dates and parties and dances but not for sex. I knew I wanted sex to mean something--to follow something even more profound. His name is unimportant. It lasted three years; one happy, one apart, and one in which I loved someone else. Because I grew up with the nagging thought in the back of my head that so much of my value rested on the preservation of my hymen--not matter how much I rejected this idea--I couldn't let myself be happy for the longest time. It's funny all the different things you think love is before you actually find it. Perhaps you can separate love from sex and sex from love, I'm sure it can be done--except for us girls with Christian upbringing--separating the two is like separating a yolk from its egg white. Maybe I shouldn't speak for all of us. I don't know. There's still a lot I haven't quite figured out.
~Sarah

I am taking the liberty of invading this thread. Yes, I have permission (thanks Nic).
Just to clarify, are you guys talking about the King James Bible? Who Jesus is there? Not the apocrypha, I assume? Because if we want to talk about the patriarchy and the influence it has upon young girls, I think that it's important to recognize that the Bible was compiled by men with a certain agenda, and that agenda was not necessarily Christs agenda. The role of women in early Christianity was not what it is today. The treatment of women within current Christianity is not the same either. Although the record that we have is extremely limited, the proof is there.
And about a girls virginity being something that can be given or taken away...women take things too. Sure, we have a physical barrier that must be broken in order for sex to occur, but we take things too, albeit not physically. So much about sex is metaphorical - I'm dirty, I'm unclean, I'm a whore, I'm ruined I'm IMPURE - take a shower.

Something that has risen in me through the years, has been the awareness of my body as something that I am sovereign over. Back in my Christian Era, I did entertain the notion that my body was, in essence, a temple for God but that didn't work out. I kept waiting for God to show up and take care of the dirty work, but that never happened. I was raised in the church, and yes it did have an effect on me sexually speaking, but I'm not sure to what extent. I always thought that in many of the pictures of Jesus that were in the church and my home, he was cute. The images of Jesus showed a cute guy, whatever that's worth. I couldn't seperate sex from religious ritual and dieties. I was told that sex was bad and that if I was in a situation, that I should imagine the preacher is watching me and that should keep me in line. Brilliant. So, I decided to not step any furthur into that place of vigilantism and embrace what I'd always believed. It's my job to make sure that my body and psyche do not become a wasteland. The terms of this agreement are not bound in any book but within my flesh. This way, there's no pissing about when it comes to who is responsible. I am the only one to blame. Not to disrespect anyone elses belief systems or personal decisions. I don't presume to have the answer for anyone else. But as a daughter of the Christian church, I think that it's interesting that I've ended up where I am.

Sex sells. The imagery is not going to go away. Hormones are generated from the mind. Girls are becoming women in the physical sense at earlier and earlier ages, yet the average age at marriage grows later and later. It seems to me that we are widening our gap from nature in an intriguing way from an evolutionary standpoint. Kids look for ways to justify what it is that they want to do. Adults are an inconsistant lot with widely varying agendas. While the basis of the inner conflict hasn't changed much at an individual level since I was a young adult or an adolescent, the opportunity to find justification seems more prevalent today. The oversaturation of images of sexuality have not yet led to desensitization (is that a word?), and can be particularly damaging to the very young girls. It seems as if many middle school or younger aged girls feel it is important to look sexy, but they don't truly want what it implies. Probably too many don't understand what it implies. Fairy tales have ogres in them for a reason, but these tales too often present a sense of justice and romance that is uncommon and unlikely to be encountered except for a fortunate few. We want to blame someone or something when the perceived prince turns out to be the perceived ogre. Often it is boys who get the blame. But these boys are no better equipped at handling sexuality and relationships than any other uninformed and inexperienced novice in any endeavor. They wrestle with similar peer pressures and self esteem issues as girls. Girls do have to face the "slut" factor among myriad other heinous things, but boys, too, face awful burdens. While it may not seem as overt that is likely because one of the great conflicts is wrestling with the neccessity to put up the manly front. It appears as if girls are the mean ones to each other, but a lot of boys seem to grasp early on that it is better to keep ones inner conflicts inside and even to lie when neccessary. It then becomes easier for boys to fit into an overarching clique, because they don't want to let on when they are hurting, stressing, or wondering. Yes, they pick on the Other, but that Other is not generally a marginal persona, as is often the case with girls.
Yeah, I'm not sure where this was to be heading, so I think I'll cut my losses and not try to make a real point here.

On virginity...virginity is not just some piece of tissue, first off. Virginity is innocence. Whether that is sexual virginity or something else, once it is gone it is not a matter of loss of purity, or some kind of judgement on what you have to offer someone. It is that moment you can never repeat. An experience you will never be unknowingly innocent about again. All first time experiences carry weight simply because there can't be a second first time. Whatever value we place on sexual virginity, we need to remember that not having it doesn't require justification. It is not a matter of right or wrong, once it is gone. It is a matter of responsibility and acceptance. You have to be able to accept that that first time may not have actually been that special outside of the fact that it was a first time experience. The idea of "giving" one's virginity to only one person is special because you have shared a one time event with someone. That's all. And if this thread is any indication the opinions about having and not having vary.

On Christian backgrounds...how did I turn out this way?

Glad I'm a troll and not an ogre OR a prince.

Snootch!

Equating virginity with innocence is a very patriarchal stance. While virginity may be a form of innocence, it is not the definitive definition of innocence. The problem with equating losing one's virginity to a loss of innocence is that innocence is a much larger, broader concept than just virginity. A person can lose their virginity and still remain incredibly innocent as to the responsibilities and ramifications of sexual intercourse--thus, leaving this person very innocent and naive in spite of the lose of said virginity. Virginity simply signifies, in females, that a hymen remains intact. It is just a piece of skin--more like muscle tissue. Innocence is much harder to break.

You guys oughta read Tess of the Dubervilles.

I think you missed part of my point. I in no way was trying to use innocence to mean naivety, but the only other word I could think of to use there would have been ignorance and the whole post would have read very differently under that situation. What I meant with the use of innocence there was akin to being innocent of some fact. Also, i was speaking of virginity on behalf of both sexes.
So, to rephrase:
The loss of virginity ends one's ignorance of a life experience, thereby prohibiting the chance of ever repeating it. A further implication I forgot to mention is that once you have experienced something that creates pleasure you are more likely to seek that pursuit again, but each instance of repetition holds the risk of cheapening the experience.

...or something.

"cheapening the experience"? This phrase implies everything negative and stigmatizing about the patriarchial perception of virginity and sex in general.

Patriarchy refers to the male oriented suppression of both men and women. Men suffer almost as much as women from these stereotypes and assumptions we make regarding innocence and purity. It is little help for a man to call himself a whore--it rather perpetuates and parodies our struggle. It is through dialogues like this one that we will reclaim sex as an expression of ourselves rather than a power ploy for men seeking to degrade women, women seeking to degrade men, men seeking to degrade men, and most frequently and irreprehensible; women seeking to degrade women.

One of the things is that this dialogue may enlighten some people, but it is likely not the people we would have enlightened. Most of us (in here) get that sexuality tends to be messy, whether in practice or dialogue, and that something ought to be done about it. I'm interested in understanding the differences in the overarching "patriarchal" workings of sex today as opposed to any other generations in this country. Is it more or less religious based now? Is it more or less economically (Capitalistic) driven now? Is it more male or female driven now? Does "patriarchal" imply males in general or is it meant, as the word implies, to represent fathers or adult male authoruty figures? I don't really know. Did sex become taboo as a construct of civilization because it was just so out of control, or is it that much more enticing because it is so taboo?
To me the whole patriarchal thing likely came about from male insecurity. It is so much easier on men if their partner has no real frame of reference in which to compare her partner's performance, stamina, control, and equipmnet.

I love your theory about the patriarchal take on sexuality...certainly it does feed into male insecurity as well as female insecurity--a female is just as likely (perhaps more likely) to assert authority and power by calling another woman a whore or saying her dress is trashy, etc. Sometimes just a knowing look will do the trick. For most women, this begins with our mothers. They tell us what is appropriate dress, behavior, etc. Thus shaming us into the patriarchal mold they succumbed to at some point. We then perpetuate this idea by forming clicks and ostracizing the girls/women who jeopardize this theory as well as their own reputations. And men are not the only benefactors of these patriarchal assumptions about sex. Women also receive a kind of quasi glory concerning virginity, conservative dress, etc. (which are very often healthy, smart choices). But I have a rather nagging theory of my own; that adhering to the patriarchal model in any way, especially where sex is concerned, only reiterates the subjugation of women--making us into viable commodities, our virginity or various sexual discretions speaking more loudly of our characters than our mouths ever will in this stifled environment where women are objects with a hymen to protect rather than individuals with lives to live.
~Sarah Stevens

Oh, just in case I wasn't clear; I advocate a woman's right to choose in every situation and I do not think that choosing to abstain from sexual intercourse, dressing conservatively, or getting married feeds into patriarchal views concerning sex if these choices are made in the spirit of feminism. Wahoo choices! It is my greatest sadness, however, that alternative choices are celebrated with the same enthusiasm:(.

are not celebrated* I meant to say.

Ok, I can't help it.

"So, to rephrase:
The loss of virginity ends one's ignorance of a life experience, thereby prohibiting the chance of ever repeating it. A further implication I forgot to mention is that once you have experienced something that creates pleasure you are more likely to seek that pursuit again, but each instance of repetition holds the risk of cheapening the experience."

Nic, I love you, but damn it.
Does repeating an action really compound the risk that it will become cheap? And, I have to say, the first time I had sex wasn't exactly pleasurable, but I wasn't discouraged. I can say with a certain degree of certainty that a lot of people's (girls and boys) first experience with sex wasn't exactly bitchin'. It's curiosity that drives a lot of young people to do it, not some jacked up agenda to subjugate one another. It's a natural thing to do, we are physically formed to do it and our nerve endings help us rise to the occasion. But the point I'm trying to make is that just because something is ritualistically done doesn't mean that it's quite probable it may become cheap or not as meaningful as the first time. Maybe in a public arena certain things such as religion may eventually become hollow and you may be right to a certain degree (porn). But I think it's such a beautiful challenge that it's up to us as individuals to transcend all that. Sex is truly a personal thing, despite how it's plastered all over everything. We can forget that and become desensitized to it in that way, but it's not inevitable. I understand where you're coming from, (And I, I took the road less traveled by, and that has made all the difference); but I disagree. Of course, whatever gets you through the night and all. But I don't think that repeating something, perhaps in the name of pleasure, cheapens it. We just get lazy and unimaginative. And I'm not talking about picking up a copy of the Kama Sutra, (although I wouldn't discourage it), I'm talking about the whole mental and spiritual factor. Maybe it's because I'm a woman and sexually speaking the mind is involved in sex to a much larger degree than in men, but I don't think there's ever an excuse to be bored by anything or to feel like an experience has become cheap.
Jeez. I think I'll stop now before I start making sense.
And Sarah, you kill me. Kick some ass if need be.

I want to thank you both for your helpful comments. I always find it valuable to get different perspectives on various things. The only thing I really want to add at this point is that it isn't whether a repeated action is necessarily cheapened that I was referring to, so much as the risk. Now, of course, it is up to the individual as to whether that actually happens, but I'm afraid that for some people it happens with out them ever being ready or prepared for it, for whatever reason. That's all I got right now. Once more thank you for the enlightening comments.

Social individuals. Intergendered groups. Survival of the fittest. Sometimes the fittest are the ones who know how best to play the particular game in which they find themselves. Often this is accomplished through exposing and exploiting the perceived flaws of others. In order for this to be done effectively, certain criteria of flaws must be identified and maintained. Perfection is illusive, so flaws will always be present. Fitness,therefore,requires having enough people deciding which flaws are worthy of keeping others down. Many of these so-called flaws are clearly laid out for us at an early age. I would imagine one of the first agendas sprung from the invention of writing was to post rules. Consequences likely varied. It would be nice if all the rules wre clearly delineated so that we would know all the subtle workings of society. It would also be nice if the rules stayed within the parameters of safety and fairness. We might all have a better chance of finding and following a moral compass.
What we do find, instead, is a lot of arbitrariness, some of which seems to make little sense or which clearly goes against mammalian nature. While many social rules are designed to protect the innocent, they really aren't necessarily made for everyone, nor do we expect everyone to adhere to some of these rules.
For many the consequences of not following the rules can be quite damaging unless they are fortunate enough to recognise that maybe it wasn't so bad.
Catcalls may seem piggish when one is twentyish, and it may lead to the idea that men think with their organs. My guess is that catcalls do not come from the best and brightest men, so why let it go any further than that? It also may be that some day that twentyish woman might get a catcall some twenty years later and smile to herself. The guy is still insensitive and immature, but then a lot of people are that way.
I don't have many male friends who feel the desire to subjugate women, so I find it surprising to find that so many women make an issue out of this feeling of subjugation. Objectification, yes, but that seems a matter of evolutionary forces at work in our bodies and minds. Feminism seems to want some sort of end to objectification, but what I'm seeing more and more is the overt objectification of men. I'm guessing that's not the sort of equality and fairness issues we were going for.
Once again I have lost any point I was going for, but you'll have that.