So much of misogyny, and even self-hate or self-misogyny by women (you know what I mean?) is rooted in sexuality and the way men and women interact with each other sexually (or would like to), and if men are cut out of the equation, then maybe women can gain some sort of empowerment from that. But maybe I am being heteronormative in thinking that lesbian relationships are free of misogyny.It seems there are a few ways of thinking about this:
1) Free from the rape-obsessed male libido, lesbian partners abandon the sexual roles and rhythms of patriarchy.
2) Patriarchy informs everything we do, including making love, even lesbian love, so efforts to escape it are useless.
3) Patriarchy informs everything we do, including making love, even lesbian love, so we must search for a remedy by continually working to understand how it taints our actions and intentions.
I think the third one is probably closest to the truth (coincidentally, it's the one that lets me get my rocks off and feel OK about it), and while my hunch is that there isn't a remedy - we'll always live with the specter of misogyny somewhere in the back of our heads - it doesn't mean we won't be better off for trying. That said, I think on the whole it would be a lot easier to deal with this stuff if a man wasn't involved.
But for many women there is a man involved! So what to do? Basically, we can imagine an Enlightened Heterosexual Relationship as a contract wherein both parties agree, for purportedly mutual benefit, to participate in patriarchal gender roles - there's just no avoiding it. The problem, of course, is the power differential inherent in these roles, and that this differential, even though explicitly stated and understood, will still be damaging to the psychosocial development of the lovers (see previous post about guilty pleasures).
One solution I've read is to literally reinvent the Lovemaking Experience (TM). The "ideal" romp is one which culminates in what is basically a shared penetrative male orgasm - that is, the woman's arousal is expected to perfectly mirror the man's in both intensity and duration. So, a sexuality in which penetration is pushed to the periphery would be essential.
Thoughts?
4 comments:
"to participate in patriarchal gender roles - there's just no avoiding it."
Hm, I think it is possible for heterosexual couples to avoid patriarchal gender roles. Granted I don't have first-hand experience in this "Enlightened Heterosexual Relationship" sans a gender/power differential, but I do not think that it is impossible for the differently gendered (such as myself) to find a hetero mate without compromising my gender presentation. Furthermore, given the number of men in the world, I could probably even find a gender-bending man and totally fuck up the traditional gender roles in a relationship.
But maybe that's just wishful thinking. Who knows, stay tuned ;)
Hi, Anonymous here. While I agree with the previous poster about being able to gender-bend the rules, I think that we're really inculcated with misogyny in sexual relationships more than we think. Even in hetero sexual relationships that I have had where I would say the gender roles are slightly bent, it's the kind of thing where both parties are consciously acting against the gender roles, and so they are still present. Know what I mean?
Anyway, a few thoughts-- one of the problems is that men and women experience sex differently and they react phisiologically differently (ie, they have different kinds of orgasm). But I feel like our society has defined sex as male orgasm and so anything else is seen as something less. It would be nice to redefine sex as sexuality, incorporating all of the feelings along the way to orgasm AND both male and female orgasm. That's why I had originally thought that a lesbian relationship may be more equal, because it would not be ruled by the male orgasm, and the sexual satisfaction of both parties would be slightly more abstract (in the terms of our society) and so could be explored more. That being said, I suppose a hetero couple could do the same thing if they were conscious of trying not to cater to the male orgasm, and I think, as you recommended, Elbow, that this would push penetration to the periphery.
I also think porn plays a big role in this... many young people's, and especially young men's, formative sexual years are influenced by masturbating to porn, much of which is violent (even if the violent is not explicit punching or something like that), degrading to women, and focuses on the male climax.
Sorry, one more thing: I don't mean to say that dominance or submissiveness or even feelings of aggression don't have a place in sexuality, because they sometimes do and they sometimes are rooted in biological impulses. I think one of the problems with addressing misogyny in sex is trying to decipher what is healthy sexual aggression, and what is "the rape culture" seeping into your sex life.
And on a pleasure note, I think it's probably nicer physically in a sexual relationship to explore the range of sexual feelings both partners can have, rather than focusing on the orgasm of either. I mean, in addition to it being more gender equal as well.
by the way, PETA is at it again...
http://www.feministing.com/archives/010279.html
Post a Comment