A Few Unfocused Notes on Women and Sex
Bet that got your attention, didn't it? Next to FREE FOOD, sex is the ultimate gimmick.
This, however, may not hold the attention of everyone; I am merely reviewing a book whose title I don't remember (I think it may have been something like "Kiss the Girls and Make Them Cry"), by a woman whose name I never recognized. I saw it on the New Releases shelf of a Christian bookstore about six months ago, and I was too busy to be duly irritated by its premise, which I gleaned from the back cover.
In fact, I am reacting ultimately not even to the premise of the book, but to a sentence in its description which set many bells a-ringin' in my head.
Enough buildup. The book was written by a woman for women, and its purpose was to encourage women (especially young ones) to resist the sexual advances of men in the interest of chastity and personal well-being. Its arguments were meant to dismantle the idea that young women needed to give in to sexual invitations in order to have a sense of self-worth and the worth of masculine judgment. Almost parenthetically, it argued that there was a better way to live than to support this vicious circle, and a way that would reduce our dependence on "sexual release for ourselves."
It was that last phrase that sounded the alarms. I have no agenda against chastity, or the support of chastity, or the intrinsic benefits of chastity; but I do object to the characterization of female sexuality as something that needs "release." Something about that characterization suggests that even though we appear to be recouping our sense of worth by not giving in to male attentions, "we" still consider our own sexuality as something secondary, something optional -- or I should say, something that ought to be optional, and that that's how Good Women think of their sexuality.
I'm not denying that the sexual impulse in men is generally more focused and insistent than it is in women. Nor am I suggesting that sexuality ought to be enthroned as the utmost pinnacle of health and normalcy. But I certainly don't think that sexuality is less healthy and normal than other modes of human, and female, life. And I get suspicious of any argument that mentions female sexual "release" only to dismiss it with the same breath. Why not sexual "nourishment" or some other word...you know, I've been digging in my brain for a word synonymous with "satisfaction" that doesn't carry the connotation either of Achilles' wrath or gluttony.
Which makes me think. In times of my life in which I am the most graciously sated, physically or psychologically or spiritually, there is in fact a sense of release: the release of the energies gunning for whatever fruition I was seeking. And in the best times -- the times in which the good thing is laid into my hands without my even having to ask for it -- I find I really can let go completely (for a blessed moment) of the throttle of my various drives. But notice how it happens. The negative "release" becomes a positive because it is preceded by a true positive, a reception, a receiving, a gift, a gain...are you following me? Screwtape says that tempting humans to lust can be tedious, because it is difficult to do so without letting in the fruition of pleasure, which itself is not sin at all and is even sometimes counter-productive to the demonic agenda. And yet the feminine sexual pleasure is characterized not by the receiving of the actual pleasure, but the "release" of the drive toward that pleasure -- the sun's corona, not the sun itself. Ultimately, this characterization implies that female sexual pleasure can only be realized as Not-lust.
I'm sorry to say it, but without the realized object, the pleasures of Not-lust run a bit thin. Actually, I'm not at all sorry to say it; that was just rhetorical. "Sexual release for ourselves" is indeed a poor recompense for submitting to that vicious cycle of male judgment, desire, and worth -- a cycle, I should add, that causes men to suffer as well as women. Therefore one could just as well argue that a woman could seek out positive sexual gifts for herself, as abstain from sexual relationships or pleasures; either one would solve that problem just as well. The difficulty is that the book was making a direct appeal for female chastity, with a central feminist value as incentive. This does a disservice both to the value of chastity and to the value of female freedom. By presuming that no woman who was really a good person would think of, let alone desire, a positive sexual fruition, the book -- and I do reiterate that I didn't actually read the thing -- damages its argument for chastity, rendering it, and the women who buy it, as secondary, as optional, as they were to begin with, and possibly even worse off.
The pursuit of chastity is difficult -- not least because the cross-section of pleasures which it denies is a positive good. I find it difficult to think of anything more to say on that point that is not mere festooning. Most people don't really pursue it, partially because they are in fact caught up in the vicious cycle, and partially because they don't value the fruition of chastity more than the fruition of (unchaste) sexual activity. The worst part, of course, is that the argument presented still views chastity as a female virtue and responsibility, an all-or-nothing prescription that can't ignore female sexuality altogether but gives it a gentle push out-of-doors with the epithet of "sexual release". Wouldn't it be much more of a relief to say that yes, indeed, women have a sexuality and sexual desires, and yes, that's quite all right, and yes, like many good things they sometimes get in the way of a moral goal, and yes, it will therefore be difficult to pursue the goal? Than to wheedle, Wouldn't you feel so much better about yourself if you didn't want boys, little girl? Shhyeah, maybe, but never happen, man.
I buy that, I'm doomed to feel bad about myself forever.
Bet that got your attention, didn't it? Next to FREE FOOD, sex is the ultimate gimmick.
This, however, may not hold the attention of everyone; I am merely reviewing a book whose title I don't remember (I think it may have been something like "Kiss the Girls and Make Them Cry"), by a woman whose name I never recognized. I saw it on the New Releases shelf of a Christian bookstore about six months ago, and I was too busy to be duly irritated by its premise, which I gleaned from the back cover.
In fact, I am reacting ultimately not even to the premise of the book, but to a sentence in its description which set many bells a-ringin' in my head.
Enough buildup. The book was written by a woman for women, and its purpose was to encourage women (especially young ones) to resist the sexual advances of men in the interest of chastity and personal well-being. Its arguments were meant to dismantle the idea that young women needed to give in to sexual invitations in order to have a sense of self-worth and the worth of masculine judgment. Almost parenthetically, it argued that there was a better way to live than to support this vicious circle, and a way that would reduce our dependence on "sexual release for ourselves."
It was that last phrase that sounded the alarms. I have no agenda against chastity, or the support of chastity, or the intrinsic benefits of chastity; but I do object to the characterization of female sexuality as something that needs "release." Something about that characterization suggests that even though we appear to be recouping our sense of worth by not giving in to male attentions, "we" still consider our own sexuality as something secondary, something optional -- or I should say, something that ought to be optional, and that that's how Good Women think of their sexuality.
I'm not denying that the sexual impulse in men is generally more focused and insistent than it is in women. Nor am I suggesting that sexuality ought to be enthroned as the utmost pinnacle of health and normalcy. But I certainly don't think that sexuality is less healthy and normal than other modes of human, and female, life. And I get suspicious of any argument that mentions female sexual "release" only to dismiss it with the same breath. Why not sexual "nourishment" or some other word...you know, I've been digging in my brain for a word synonymous with "satisfaction" that doesn't carry the connotation either of Achilles' wrath or gluttony.
Which makes me think. In times of my life in which I am the most graciously sated, physically or psychologically or spiritually, there is in fact a sense of release: the release of the energies gunning for whatever fruition I was seeking. And in the best times -- the times in which the good thing is laid into my hands without my even having to ask for it -- I find I really can let go completely (for a blessed moment) of the throttle of my various drives. But notice how it happens. The negative "release" becomes a positive because it is preceded by a true positive, a reception, a receiving, a gift, a gain...are you following me? Screwtape says that tempting humans to lust can be tedious, because it is difficult to do so without letting in the fruition of pleasure, which itself is not sin at all and is even sometimes counter-productive to the demonic agenda. And yet the feminine sexual pleasure is characterized not by the receiving of the actual pleasure, but the "release" of the drive toward that pleasure -- the sun's corona, not the sun itself. Ultimately, this characterization implies that female sexual pleasure can only be realized as Not-lust.
I'm sorry to say it, but without the realized object, the pleasures of Not-lust run a bit thin. Actually, I'm not at all sorry to say it; that was just rhetorical. "Sexual release for ourselves" is indeed a poor recompense for submitting to that vicious cycle of male judgment, desire, and worth -- a cycle, I should add, that causes men to suffer as well as women. Therefore one could just as well argue that a woman could seek out positive sexual gifts for herself, as abstain from sexual relationships or pleasures; either one would solve that problem just as well. The difficulty is that the book was making a direct appeal for female chastity, with a central feminist value as incentive. This does a disservice both to the value of chastity and to the value of female freedom. By presuming that no woman who was really a good person would think of, let alone desire, a positive sexual fruition, the book -- and I do reiterate that I didn't actually read the thing -- damages its argument for chastity, rendering it, and the women who buy it, as secondary, as optional, as they were to begin with, and possibly even worse off.
The pursuit of chastity is difficult -- not least because the cross-section of pleasures which it denies is a positive good. I find it difficult to think of anything more to say on that point that is not mere festooning. Most people don't really pursue it, partially because they are in fact caught up in the vicious cycle, and partially because they don't value the fruition of chastity more than the fruition of (unchaste) sexual activity. The worst part, of course, is that the argument presented still views chastity as a female virtue and responsibility, an all-or-nothing prescription that can't ignore female sexuality altogether but gives it a gentle push out-of-doors with the epithet of "sexual release". Wouldn't it be much more of a relief to say that yes, indeed, women have a sexuality and sexual desires, and yes, that's quite all right, and yes, like many good things they sometimes get in the way of a moral goal, and yes, it will therefore be difficult to pursue the goal? Than to wheedle, Wouldn't you feel so much better about yourself if you didn't want boys, little girl? Shhyeah, maybe, but never happen, man.
I buy that, I'm doomed to feel bad about myself forever.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home