I am, I am, I am.

"I took a deep breath and listened to the old bray of my heart."

[truisrns]

(A)sexual

For my outside event I attended HOPE’s screening of the 2011 documentary (A)sexual. Though asexuality has in all probability been around for as long as other orientations have existed, it only recently became a named sexual orientation when David Jay founded the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN) in 2002. The AVEN website defines an asexual as “someone who does not experience sexual attraction,” and differentiates asexuality from celibacy by explaining that asexuality is not a choice like celibacy is, but rather that it is “an intrinsic part of who we are.”

This documentary mainly depicted the lives and experiences of Jay and other self-identified asexual people, but the film was also interspersed with clips of non-asexual people explaining their understandings of asexuality or posing questions as to how exactly asexuality worked. Something that was evident in both of these portions of the documentary was that many people seem to doubt that asexuality even exists. Julie Sondra Decker, known online as SwankIvy, mentioned that doubt is usually the first response she gets when she reveals herself as asexual, and that many people assume that she is taking break from sex after a bad break up, hates men, or just hasn’t met the right guy yet. The fact that people discount asexual people as sexual(ly unaware) ties into the concept of the “silent body” from the reading “How Being a Good Girl Can Be Bad for Girls.” Tolman and Higgins explain that “having a ‘silent body’ is a psychological response to the belief that good girls are not sexual” (213). Because society teaches that women are not supposed to be sexual or that women don’t like sex but only participate for the approval of men, some women are entirely unfamiliar with the possibilities of their own desire. Though it is invalidating to tell an asexual person that they are actually sexual but don’t know it yet, it is interesting to consider if a relationship exists between the socially conditioned “silent body” and women who identify on the asexual spectrum.

One asexual woman in this documentary further complicated the topic by bringing disability into the conversation when she mentioned a potential link between autism and asexuality. This particular interviewee has Asperger’s, and she discussed the fact that the proportion of autistic members of AVEN’s community board vastly outweighs the rate of autism in the general population. The idea that asexuality is more prevalent in this particular group of people is interesting considering our discussions of disabled sexuality in class. Though Asperger’s is not a physical disability, this correlation brings to mind Roberta Caller’s piece on sexuality and disability, “The Myth of the Perfect Body.” Just as with the “silent body,” one must wonder whether the relationship between autism and asexuality is a natural one or one born of the idea that disabled people are naturally lacking in sexuality. It is possible that asexual autistic people are responding to society’s “wish that disabled women remain invisible and that their sexuality be a hidden secret” (Caller 120) by turning to asexuality rather than exploring their sexual selves regardless of society’s discomfort. Ultimately this documentary was an interesting look at an often ignored segment of the population, though I would have enjoyed a deeper look into the relationships that gender, race, and disability may have with asexuality.

[truisrns]

Final Presentation Reflection

Although I enjoyed getting the chance to educate the class on my topic, I’m definitely glad this presentation is over with! I always get very nervous when I have to stand up in front of a class and talk, and I’m sure that was very noticeable. Even though I was confident about my material, I could tell that my nerves got the best of me at some points and made me talk to fast, mix up my words, or totally forget what I wanted to say. In hindsight, I think a little more practice might have made things go a little bit smoother on my end, but presentation anxiety is still something I need to work on.

Despite my nervousness, I think the class was receptive to my main argument. Everyone looked engaged and seemed to understand the point I was trying to make during the class discussion at the end. It was really helpful to have the midterm paper to inform the structure of this assignment because it made it easier to construct the main points of my paper into a coherent presentation. I definitely struggled with coming up with an idea for the activity portion of the presentation, especially considering open discussion is often hard for people to jump into. I really appreciate those who attempted to engage with the material and shared their opinions with the class. Had I had more time, I would have liked to have included more examples of mainstream films or television shows that the class would likely be familiar with in order to provide more personally relevant examples of my point. All in all, this was an interesting assignment because I enjoyed being able to explore a topic of my own choosing and then sharing my findings with the class.

[julesblog-93-deactivated2016050]

Week 12 Reading Response

In the reading Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists by David Lisak and Paul Miller, I found out a lot of information about repeated offenders that I found to be disturbing. I have heard of repeated rape, mainly because so many rapes are not reported so the person just continues to get away with it and assault other people. “The repeat rapists averages 5.8 rapes each. The 120 rapists were responsible for 1,225 separate acts of interpersonal violence, including rape, battery, and child physical and sexual abuse” (Lisak & Miller). This statistic really did shock me and scare me. Not only are these rapists going out and continuing to repeat this crime, but they are also committing other physically damaging crimes. The fact the authors states between 64-96% of all rapes are never reported is just so sad to me. These women are probably not only scared to report it, but they do not get treated as victims when they do go to report it. When being interrogated the victims are known for being treated as if they causes the assault to happen or they deserved it. Questions are asked such as their sexual history, how they knew the person, what was the woman wearing, and how exactly did they try to stop the rape from happening. To me, none of those questions help the woman to feel they are being taken seriously. They are victims and need to be treated with sympathy and support! “Consistent with the tendency to view nonstranger rapes as less serious than stranger rapes, it is not uncommon to find discussions of nonstranger rape referring to “miscommunication” and “misunderstanding” between the offender and the victim” (Lisak & Miller). This is absurd, how is it a miscommunication that the woman did not want to partake in the sexual act with the offender? Just because the woman may know the guy, does not mean the rape should be treated any differently. What some people fail to realize is most sexual assault victims are victimized by people they know, nonstrangers, so why wouldn’t their cases be taken just as serious as an assault done by a stranger? It really pisses me off how the victims are not treated properly and it causes them to stay silent.

           What shocked me in the reading Till Death Us Do Part by Margo Wilson and Martin Daly was the part where they discussed how in other countries they justify the males rage and murdering of their wives and the men the wives are having an affair by saying it is a “legitimate” reaction and reason. I don’t understand how these countries, and even the state of Texas, can say it is okay for the husband to commit murder if he catches his wife cheating, but if the tables were turned it would be a different story. If a woman were to kill her cheating husband and mistress, she would be sent to prison for first degree murder. Or, when a battered woman kills her husband because she cannot take the abuse anymore and is too scared to try to leave, she is also labelled a murderer. I think it is bullshit, but that is just my opinion. Instead of committing murder, how about the man asks for a divorce and leaves the woman since she committed adultery. Murder is not a legitimate excuse for that circumstance. It is just another way for men to have power over women and their decisions, to the extent of murdering them over adultery.

           In Adolescent Masculinity, Homophobia, and Violence Michael Kimmel and Matthew Mahler the section on why boys are more likely to result to this violence reminded me of how in most of my classes teachers always said studies show boys result to violence quicker and find it more logical than girls do. It’s unfortunate that boys/men feel being violent is a masculine trait. To me, violence is just hurting others, but they feel it is a way to prove their masculinity. We see it in media, and first hand, boys fighting to impress a girl or because another boy said something about them. I remember in high school guys would always get into more fights than girls and I always thought it was just because of their egos. One male wanted to prove to the other he was stronger and not one to be messed with, so they would turn to violence to prove this to each other. It is all childish and unnecessary, but unfortunately, society promotes it through media and other sources.

           I found all three of these readings to be really interesting as well as informative this week.

[truisrns]

Unfortunately a lot of people think rape only happens in dark alleys by masked strangers, even though the majority of rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim knows. This cultural assumption harms victims when their cases are not taken as seriously as cases of stranger rape. This is definitely a contributing factor to why so many rapes go unreported, un-prosecuted, and unpunished, which is how the repeat rapists in the Lisak and Miller article are free to commit these sexual assaults again and again.

[brookkeeposts-blog]

Repeat Rape & Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists

I chose to read the article Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists. I almost wish I didn’t. The statistics horrified my beyond belief and only further proved how prevalent rape culture is in our society.  The article starts by telling readers that “It is estimated that between 64% and 96% of all rapes are never reported to criminal justice authorities.” (Lisak & Miller pg. 73). This basically is saying that there is no justice for victims because their abusers are rarely brought to justice. (This could also lead to victim blaming and a number of psychological damage left on the victim.) Also, rape is a hard crime to prosecute if there is no evidence. It also could turn into a he said she said type of case, which is not saying good things about our society.

The authors of this article wrote about studies conducted by several professionals (doctors, law enforcers, scientist etc) of men who were convicted of sexual assault crimes. One of the studies results were: those who commit these crimes are often repeat offenders, which is not hard to believe. “…126 identified rapists admitted to 907 paraphilic acts against 882 victims.” (pg. 74) This makes our world scary to live in. Is this why we tell women to walk with keys between their fingers or not to leave their drink unattended? Yes there are sick people in our world, but I would rather believe there is more good than bad. What I took from this particular study was that there was a lesser amount of men who rape. Although these men did rape they committed multiple offences instead of 907 men raping. It is a terrible crime and not even as a feminist – as a woman - I am appalled and disgusted.

The study goes on to differentiate assaults based on stranger and nonstragner rape. Nonstranger rapes are harder to convict because get this – they can claim miscommunication and misunderstand as a defense. On page 74, the authors write, “Consistent with the tendency to view nonstranger rapes as less serious than stranger rapes, it is not uncommon to find discussion of nonstranger rapes referring to “miscommunication” and “misunderstanding” between offender and victim.” I actually highlighted this and wrote “omg sick bastards” next to this. There is no question in my mind that society often excuses these acts. We teach women to cover up and be conservative rather than teach men not to rape. Our society puts men on a pedestal based on their number of sexual partners. The more women a man sleeps with often equates to his masculinity.

As a woman, I do not want to be fearful of men. I don’t want to think my brother is capable of this act. I do not think all men are like this. Not only does it make women fearful of situations, it also makes men look bad. Not all of them are bad but we are taught to use caution when being in situation with an unfamiliar male, weather it be on a date or at a bar, etc.

Also,  speaking of society here are a few wonderful ads depicting rape in our media….

Please tell comment below with your opinions!

[truisrns]

It's disgusting that rape culture is so pervasive that our society somehow deems it acceptable to use sexual assault to sell products. It's outrageous to me that a number of high-powered, high-paid individuals approved the ads that you shared. Did no one question why rape was being reduced to a marketing practice? Women's bodies are constantly commodified but seeing women commodified in this way is too much.

[glaad]

As part of Trans Awareness Week, GLAAD launched a trans microaggression photo project. Microaggressions are the subtle disparaging remarks that invalidate a trans person’s identity.  This project is meant to raise awareness about how these oppressive statements, while often said with good intentions, prove to be the most damaging.

To view more photos from the campaign, click here!

[truisrns]

November 24

Dominant ideology dictates that the male gender role is one characterized by violence, sexual aggression, and a lack of emotion or empathy. This patriarchal framework of what it means to be masculine or male in our society creates a masculinity that is toxic and too often destructive to the male sense of self. By centering maleness on violence and sexual aggression, men are encouraged to act upon these attitudes in order to prove their masculinity, which only serves to perpetuate these negatives as normal events in day to day life.

Wilson and Daly’s article “Til Death Do Us Part” focuses the concept of toxic masculinity onto domestic violence by introducing the idea of sexual proprietariness. Male sexual proprietariness explains male entitlement to women’s lives and bodies by basing this entitlement in the phenomenon of treating women and women’s sexualities as commodities to be owned and controlled. Patriarchy teaches men that they are entitled women to own and control — to direct their sexual aggression towards — and that violence is an acceptable means of maintaining that control. Masculinity as constructed by dominant ideology, therefore, encourages violence as recourse when a man’s power has been threatened by the perceived disrespect that results from losing control over his “property,” i.e. his spouse. Wilson and Daly note that the vast majority of spousal homicide cases are men murdering women, and this serves as a clear example of how violence and dominance in regard to sexuality and sexual practices are the defining social traits of male gendered people in our society.

The idea that violence serves as a means of ensuring one’s masculinity is elaborated upon in Kimmel and Mahler’s piece “Adolescent Masculinity, Homophobia, and Violence.” The fact that school shootings are committed solely by males is often ignored in larger discussions of violence in schools, yet clearly “masculinity is the single greatest risk factor in school violence” (Kimmel and Mahler 1442), not the internet or video games. Because violence is such a key component to the dominant ideology’s construction of male identity, young men learn that violence is a way to maintain their masculinity, or to prove themselves as masculine against those who threaten or denigrate their manhood. Homophobia begets violence because it instigates “the terror that others will see one as gay, as a failed man” (Kimmel and Mahler 1446), essentially creating a threat to one’s masculinity by equating them with a “failed man”; that is, with a gay man. By establishing toxic masculinity as the standard of maleness for men in our society, patriarchy encourages the violence that manifests itself in domestic violence, rape, and school shootings.

[helen-south]

Pro-Rights.

Abortion has been a heavy topic that has often swirled around in the world of politics often narrowed to this dichotomy of pro-life or pro-choice. But what we don’t really see is this idea of women’s right to her own body. We are led to believe that pro-choice is the giving a women the option to have control over her body, but what it does not tell you is the fact that a women’s body is still politically not her own within this category. There are many restrictions that still come out of this idea of pro-choice. In Backlash and Continuity, Rachel Roth talks about how “the law has typically regarded women’s bodies as men’s property.” (Roth 344) Roth gives us a timeline view of reproductive rights of women through-out time, beginning with the huge achievement that came from Roe v. Wade, granting women the authority to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term. Even with this success, we still see an area of grey with reproductive control over women. We still find ourselves being questioned on our reproductive rights over the fetus’s right, as if as a women we are just vessels for life, but not considered humans.

A couple things that really disturbed me with Roth’s history of reproductive rights is the history of sterilization. Roth informs us, “the eugenics movement succeeded in institutionalizing and sterilizing masses of “unfit” persons, ranging from developmentally disabled individuals to sexually promiscuous women…the legacy of sterilization abuse continued…shifting primarily to African American, Native American, and Puerto Rican women.” (Roth 347) This overwhelming fact that white privilege is clearly being presented to us. We are all human beings, with just different physical traits that are completely shallow, yet we allow shallow minded-ness cloud our judgement which lead to such despicable actions over specific groups of people. Similarly with the 5 year hormonal contraceptive Norplant, that is surgically implanted under a woman’s skin. The Norplant program, Roth explains through the words of the programs champion Senator Ehlers, was “developed strictly on the standpoint of rights—every child has a right to be born normally.” What this doesn’t allow is a women’s right to her own fertility. Norplant was often surgically implanted into women because of their history. Roth also shares with us, “legislatures quickly entertained measures to give AFDC recipients cash bonuses for using Norplant or to make it a condition of receiving benefits…” (Roth 348) Instead of giving women the option, they used it as a way to corner a women into getting the implant through the choice of offering or taking away benefits/cash bonuses. I highly doubt that if men were the ones to carry pregnancies these issues with reproductive rights would not be an issue and would certainly not have such a fight with fertility rights.

Aside from reproductive rights, there is a whole different issue within the same subject. Homosexual partners and their rights to marriage, a family, and equality within society. I recently read an article on what it means to get married. The overwhelming fact that was clear is that marriage is based on love. When two people are in love, they get married. With Partners as Parents, Charlene Gomes discusses homosexual partners and their rights of marriage and to be parents. Gomes points out, “privileges enjoyed by heterosexual married couples but denied to gay parents include legal recognition of the parent-child relationship for children born during the relationship; recognition of parental status under the Family and Medical Leave Act; access to child support when the parental relationship ends; the right to petition for visitation and custody after the dissolution of a relationship; and adoption and fostering parenting.” (Gomes 409) These privileges are huge when it comes to legality rights as a couple and as a family. To fight a couple who want to get married and raise a family simply because they do not fit in this cookie cutter ideal of what it means to be a couple politically.

What’s tragic to learn is that if you are a homosexual couple trying to start a family, it is much more difficult for you to adopt or even to have access to a surrogate within many states with the argument on whether or not a same-sex couple is fit for a child and the debate on biological parents having custody over the adoptive parents. A very interesting fact that Gomes points out in her article is that “because heterosexual couples are often preferred placements for adoptive children, many gay and lesbian couples willingly adopt (children with physical or mental disabilities).” (Gomes 410) Gomes then brings up the argument of same-sex couples being considered unfit to parent yet they are usually the ones who adopt the children that need the most care. A huge concern comes from this idea that same-sex couples raising children gender-confused children or even raising children causing children to “become” gay. We are faced with this heterosexual ideal that our culture upholds as being the “norm” and also this fear that the gendered structure our society upholds will be threatened because of same-sex couples. This dominant ideology of gender, gender hierarchy, gender roles and gendered ideals are threatened when we think of homosexual couples having the same rights as heterosexual couples, but what our society doesn’t choose to see, is how this gendered ideology we live in is a way to classify people and keeping people casted in a lower classified category from others. The whole gendered system and dominant culture we live in victimizes groups of people, stripping them of their rights.

…

On a different note, I absolutely loved the film Obvious Child. I enjoyed how open she was about her sexuality as a sexual women, revealing many of her own personal problems with her current boyfriend and discussing even their intimacy issues. You do not find women who are open with talking about who they are sexually and how they are with their significant others especially in front of a room of strangers. Aside from this you see a very realistic view when she finds out she has been lied to and cheated on by her boyfriend and her supposedly best friend. After a drunken one night stand, Donna finds herself pregnant and decides to get an abortion. Donna is very sure of herself when making the decision although it is quick. I loved how supportive her mother was when Donna tells her that she is pregnant and is going to get an abortion. Her mother is not only supportive but she also shares her experience with getting an abortion after becoming pregnant with her college boyfriend, which had to be done by “back-alley” abortion because of it being illegal during the 60’s; but assuring her daughter that it was the best decision of her life. Another thing I love about Donna was that when it came to talking about herself and her decision to get an abortion, she spoke about it very personably while keeping the positive attitude and shedding some comedy to it. Not to say that abortion is not a serious matter because it most certainly is an extremely serious matter to be considered. But a women should have the right to her own fertility/body and should not have to feel ashamed for the decision she feels she must need to make. There are many reasons as to why a women would feel she wants an abortion and to take that right away is simply an injustice. Another thing to note, the guy Max who is the father is supportive for her during this serious matter. He is informed during Donna’s stand-up comedy act, to which he leaves during, but when it comes to Valentine’s Day (the day of the abortion), he shows up to support her and then takes care of her afterward.

[truisrns]

The fact that some lawmakers wanted to make Norplant mandatory for women receiving government benefits is indeed disturbing. It is very reminiscent of eugenics programs that wanted to stop certain groups or types of people from reproducing, especially when one considers the fact that a large majority of low-income women are women of color. The Norplant program also plays into the mythos of the Welfare Queen that we’ve discussed previously because its goal was to stop low-income women of color from reproducing as a way to somehow manipulate more money from the government. The fact that people supported this program just goes to show how these mythos insidiously affect the way that people interpret and interact with the world and people around them.

[britthuff13-blog]

Readings and Obvious Child

This week’s readings were very interesting and definitely produced many different emotions from me. Partners as Parents discussed the many legal barriers and unfounded beliefs that many same sex partners face when trying to start their family or raise their child. Something that really stood out to me was the belief that gay parents raising a child would result in a child who would be gay later in life. First off, this implies that being gay is a problem for the child’s welfare. WOW. I have heard this before and it still makes me so mad. Becoming gay is not a death sentence or a disability. There are many awful things that a child can grow up being, and liking the same sex is not one of them. The article also show evidence that this is completely untrue, and yet people still argue this. Another issue that stood out to me was the difficulties that these parents had legally adopting their child. I had never really thought about how this could effect a child receiving the parent’s benefits or that heterosexual parents were given priority for adoption and foster homes. Its ludicrous to me, because all that should matter is that these partners want to be parents. As long as they have the ability to provide support, love, and a safe home then they should not struggle to have a family.

The second reading was Backlash and Continuity, which discussed the topic of abortion and its progression of legality issues that have happened over the last 50 years. Before Roe vs Wade, abortions were illegal and many women had to get “back-alley” abortions, which left women in extremely dangerous situations. Since then there have been many different law changes with restrictions on when and how a women can receive an abortion. The amount of hoops women have to jump through to get an abortion is crude and unfair. While I agree that women need to make informed decisions about what they are doing, getting permission from parents or spouse and long waiting periods are completely restricting a women’s right to make decisions about her own body. Another thing that was brought up was a type of birth control called Norplant, which was a 5 year long hormonal contraceptive that was placed under the skin. What could have been a great way for women who didn’t want children to have a new form of birth control, was quickly turned into a way to control women’s bodies. Legislation came out that proposed having the contraceptive be a condition of parole for women who had been convicted of child abuse or drug possession and pushes to have women on welfare use this contraceptive. Yet there was no legislation that put the same constraints on men. It is incredible to me the length that people will go to control and restrict a women’s right to her own body.

I really liked the movie Obvious Child. It was a really great view from what many women go through every day when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. I love that the character Donna talked about what she was going through with her friends and family, and even at the comedy show. I think for many women they don’t have people to talk to about it, even though it is really something that needs to be talked about. I really appreciate that Max went with Donna to get appointment and supported her through it. While it is very sweet and sentimental, I unfortunately know that many women do not receive support from their partners. I hope that this can be a model for men to act when women are in this position. It may even allow women to be more open to their partners if they believe that they can be supportive through it. Overall, the movie was good, and I hope that it can help people to open up and talk more about abortion in a positive light.

[truisrns]

I never understood the belief that gay parents will make their child gay. This completely ignores the fact that many straight people end up with gay children, but no one is running around claiming that straight people shouldn’t have kids because they’ll make them gay! Ignoring the fact that being gay is not a bad thing, this argument against allowing gay individuals and couples to adopt is a complete fallacy.

[gend712]

“Backlash and Continuity” and Obvious Child

Reading “Backlash and Continuity: The Political Trajectory of Fetal Rights” by Rachel Roth was pretty frustrating to say the least.  The whole article shows just how little pregnant women mean to the pro-life activists compared to the fetuses growing inside them. Roth tells us how the activists refer to the women a “maternal hosts” and “the fetal environment” just to dehumanize the women and make them seem heartless if they were to go for an abortion.

Roth also talks about the legal scholar, John Robertson, and how he believes that “women have both legal and moral duties to protect the fetus”.  He uses this to basically try to control what women do in order to do what is “best for the fetus”, whether it is what’s best for the woman or not.  Robertson even says, “Although she is under no obligation to invite the fetus in or to allow it to remain, once she has done these things she assumes obligations to the fetus that limit her freedom over her body.” He talks as if all women who do not have an abortion, choose for themselves not to have it.  But sometimes this is not the case because not only have some states made it more difficult, with laws, to get an abortion but sometimes the women just can’t have one, whether it be for financial reasons, lack of access, etc.

This was somewhat shown in Obvious Child when Donna decided that she wanted to get the abortion.  She had little money to actually pay for it since she lost her job, she couldn’t afford health insurance, and she didn’t really have anyone to help her.  Unfortunately that is where the realism seems to stop because even though she said she couldn’t afford it she still was able to get the abortion, and they never really went into how she could afforded it.

It was also nice that after Donna told people she got a lot of support, especially from her mom, her friend Nellie, and her potential boyfriend Max.  Unfortunately, though, not everyone gets that support and sometimes people even get harassed for it, but the movie didn’t show anything like that.  

[truisrns]

The idea that a woman has legal duties to protect the fetus is abhorrent because it gives more rights to the fetus than it does to the autonomous human woman. The fact that women can be punished for any detriments to the fetus is especially problematic when it comes to miscarriages. Miscarriages happen all the time for reasons often out of control of the mother, but by placing a legal responsibility on the mother to protect the fetus, women become open to legal repercussions for having miscarriages. This is definitely a huge problem because it means women could be punished for circumstances out of their control when it comes to the nuances of pregnancy and miscarriage.

[anarchistsoup-blog1]

Pornography also eroticizes male supremacy. It makes dominance and subordination feel like sex; it makes hierarchy feel like sex; it makes force and violence feel like sex; it makes hate and terrorism feel like sex; it makes inequality feel like sex. Pornography keeps sexism sexy. It keeps sexism necessary for some people to have sexual feelings. It makes reciprocity make you go limp. It makes mutuality leave you cold. It makes tenderness and intimacy and caring make you feel like you’re going to disappear into a void. It makes justice the opposite of erotic; it makes injustice a sexual thrill.

John Stoltenberg (via seebster)

[helen-south]

Sex and Power.

“One’s sexuality affects her/his ability to act in the world, and to feel like she/he can will things and make them happen.” (Sheff 254) It is no secret that humankind are sexual beings, and not just for reproductive nature. Each and every one of us has needs, desires, and fantasies that we strive to have satisfied. Sex is a very powerful thing, and it can reveal a lot about a person; what they like, are they a dominant person, do they like to be dominated, etc. In our culture, “female sexuality is commodified or colonized in the service and convenience of men.” (Sheff 254)

Polyamorous Women, Sexual Subjectivity and Power, by Elisabeth Sheff, we take a very interesting look at this world where many women feel like they have greater power when it comes to their relationships as polyamorists. This gives women the opportunity to explore who they are sexually and without the pressures of our cultures male dominated ideals especially when it comes to sex.

Some polyamorous women felt a sense of release when trying out polyamorous relationships and even “spurred willingness to challenge social conventions and attendant roles.” (Sheff 259) What stood out to me a lot was one women’s personal experience with her engagement in polyamory. Louise, through her engagement in polyamory, “spurred [herself] to reexamine her traditionally feminine focus on ‘living for other people’ and ‘putting everyone else first’ and transition to a more agentic life pattern of self-focus with a concomitant experience of greater authenticity.” (Sheff 260) With our gendered culture, we do place women in this category of both living for the man and living to be the mother, leaving us with this overwhelming pressure to live for others before living for ourselves.

Another thing that stood out to me was the topic of sexual appetites. Women who are seen to be highly sexual cannot be respected in our culture but men can talk about sexual conquests, experiences, fantasies, and the like in public and be viewed as the man/socially acceptable. With polyamorous relationships, many women feel as if they reclaim their sexual appetite. It also has helped some women like Louise, with their body image. Louise gained a new appreciation for her body as a larger woman in a society that does not consider larger women as sexy.

Bisexuality is a common thing in polyamorous relationships and often being involved in the one male to two females but not two males to one female. Many women who identify as bisexual said that this cliché triad of the threesome: two females-one male; gets really old and more often than not, they feel disconnected when getting involved with a heterosexual couple looking for a third to join.

I was pleasantly surprised what Louise said about polyamorous men:

“They are much more nontraditional… most men that I’ve seen that are polyamorous aren’t looking for a relationship with a woman they can control or be in charge of. They like independent women who are highly sexual, who are exciting. They like that. That’s why they’re attracted to this kind of lifestyle is because they like strong women.” (Sheff 273)

Now jumping over to “Looking at Love: Applying the Triangular Theory” by Robert Steinberg to look into intimacy, passion, and commitment. We first learn that love is like an addiction, specifically “the passion component of love acts like an addiction.” (Steinberg 85) Often, the effects of love are both psychological and physiological, especially when a lover is jilted. Steinberg also discusses the “Hard to Get Theory” where people want what they cannot have. Interestingly enough, Steinberg points out that men typically want a woman to be not just attracted to them, but uniquely attracted, yet when this glory stage is over, men often feel a sense of freedom being threatened. This is similar to the “reactance theory” in psychological literature where “[people] react against perceived threats to their freedom of choice.” (Steinberg 87)

Two other concepts that Steinberg talks about are “Like Attracts Like” getting to specific with three kinds of similarities and the “Mere Exposure Effect.” The three kinds of similarities that determine interpersonal attraction are:

          1. Activities each member of a couple enjoys.

          2. Basic beliefs and values—the couple’s views on religion, politics,                   and children, monogamy, sharing of possessions, money, and so on.

               a. Specifically how important these values and beliefs are to each                      member.

          3. Tacit assumptions about the way the world, and a relationship, should             be.

               a. These tacits are almost never really spoken about, and most                          people are unaware that they exist.

For the “Mere Exposure” effect, we look at interpersonal relationships among people you meet in everyday life which poses this line between general physical attraction and developing emotional connectedness. The problem with developing emotional connectedness with another person is that at that level, you are now looking at intimacy rather than just passion which typically promotes liking.

Steinberg gives us advice for relationships as well especially for long term relationships. Maintaining communications as to avoid this silencing within the relationship about important matters that need to be taken care of. We need to maintain intimacy within the relationship, not allowing the relationship to become predictable. Then we look at the passion component of love where we need to analyze the needs of the relationship in order to fulfill them. Thirdly, we need to look at the commitment/decision component of love which is easier to handle because of its conscious control. Using this conscious control to maintain the importance of the relationship and to maximize the happiness achieved through the relationship.

I think that these articles go well together because they speak to a better understanding of interpersonal relationships and to really listen/understand someone’s sexual and emotional needs. Many of the women interviewed about their polyamorous relationships often spoke about communicating to their significant other, including married spouses, being vocal of their needs as sexual beings, which often brought this better sense of power for them. There were also woman, whose husband brought up the idea of a polyamorous relationship, yet did not like it when realizing his wife was gaining more from the her polyamory than he was. It’s a good feeling to know that we are starting to break these social norms about sexuality and broadening the lines that society tries to keep us in.  

[truisrns]

Sheff’s article was especially interesting for me to read because my best friend and her boyfriend are in an open relationship. While neither of them identify as polyamorous, I definitely saw aspects of their relationship reflected in this piece. My best friend absolutely would consider herself an independent women who is highly sexual, and for her an open relationship is important because it allows her to exercise her independence while also sharing a relationship with someone she loves. She is also bisexual, so I found it a little funny that she fit almost exactly into the mold of the polyamorous woman that Sheff describes. While I personally would not ever be interested in an open or polyamorous relationship, I enjoyed the extra understanding that this article provides.

[brookkeeposts-blog]

Week 10

Hooking Up: Sex in Guyland

I love this article! I found it to be so interesting and a really easy read. Right off the bat, when I read the section about Willard Waller describing the “rating system” in the 1930s I had to reread it because I thought I misread the date. Everything that Waller described still exists today. In the 1930s men that were classified as “Class A” dating material were those who “…have a copious supply of spending money, be well-dressed, be “smooth in manners and appearance…and have access to an automobile.” (Kimmel pg. 193) What is described here is just class privilege. Nothing about how these men treat their fellow classmates or women is said, or if they are ambitious, smart, caring, or kind determines if they are high on the ranking system. These attributes are still valued today (the ones mentioned by the author not me) Today it is called “swag.” Having a car, style, and money are what our culture values and teaches us is more important than having humbling characteristics. And the guys with “swag” or in the “Class A” categories are the ones who are engaging in sexual activity.

Maybe I am wrong or way off but, because I am a huge feminist and have read a lot about this subject, that could be contributing to our rape culture and sexual assault problems on campuses all around the country.  These type of people know they are valued and that women want to date or hook up with them.  They  could feel entitled to getting anything (including whoever) they want. Often times, those brought up in higher income backgrounds get whatever they want without working for it. Things are just handed to them. So this idea of getting whatever you want and taking whatever you want seems to have a blurry line that is often crossed without realization. I absolutely do not think all men are rapists or pigs but if the notion of always getting what you want or getting something handed to you would not be any different if after a few drinks they see a girl at a party they want too. Mix privilege, drugs and alcohol, and a location such as a college campus without any adult supervision and you might have a recipe for disaster.

The section, “Hooking Up and Relationships: “The Talk” is all too familiar to me. This section talks about how it is often the women who want to get to a deeper level such as a relationship and not just a causal hook up. The women are the ones who often ask “So where do we stand” or “what are we doing.” It seemed that every male the author talked to was relationship phobic and only wanted to hook up instead of being committed to a female. Also, it made it seem like females only want a relationship and have no other desires. She would have sex but only if there was a promise of a future relationship with the male. I have absolutely experienced this, but I feel as though I can always tell if a guy just wants to hook up or likes me. Usually it is obvious, but not always. However, there is nothing wrong if both parties want just to be involved sexually, but when feelings get involved then it gets difficult. Once feelings become involved then the person (usually the male) has the power and it turns into a type of patriarchal relationship.

——-

POLYAMOROUS WOMEN, SEXUAL SUBJECTIVITY AND POWER

This was also a very interesting article to read. Polyamory is described by the author as “a form of relationship which people have multiple romantic. sexual, and/or affective partners.” (Sheff pg.252) One of the great things about a women having a polyamorous relationship is that she breaks away from the traditional views of a female. Society often expects women to be pure and innocent, now by a woman being polyamorous, she has the ability to express herself sexually without any inhibitions. This could come from a “wanting more” theory discussed on page 259.

On page 259, the author describes a 36 year old white woman who who had a good career as a magazine editor and was a mother of three. She rejected the role of monogamy because she felt she wanted more. Multiple women go on to explain their reasons for choosing to reject the idea of a monogamous marriage as well. ““Wanting more” involved not only pursuing higher levels of education but also rejecting a form of sexuality and family that was not working for her and forging a polyamorous alternative.” I cannot help but think of Betty Friedan’s the Feminist Mystique. Women are all too often forced into the role of a mother which is great, some women love being mothers. However, what often happens is that these women no longer can put time and effort into climbing the corporate latter and their careers suffer, or they take jobs such as part time or teachers because that works best with raising a family. Meanwhile their husbands get to go to work every day and succeed in a career they love. Now this is only for the women who can afford to stay at home or work limited hours so they can be with their children. Women who are forced to work full time do not even have the luxury of wanting more (career or education wise) because they are working to survive.

By rejecting the idea of not having a family and being polyamorous allows women to focus on higher education, furthering their careers, and even exploring their sexuality.

[truisrns]

I was also surprised to see the date on Waller’s work because his analysis of 1930s campus dating is still very relevant to college relationships today. I like your point about how prevalent class privilege is in terms of what makes a “Class A” man, and I definitely think you’re spot on when you talk about how privilege and entitlement can contribute to rape culture. You’re 100% right, mixing entitlement and alcohol, especially in a college setting, is certainly a recipe for disaster.

[thatfeministchick]

Fuckboys and Thots

This article “Hooking up: Sex in Guyland” by Kimmel explains the effects that hookup culture has on future adult relationships once the student leaves college. He primarily focuses on how the man is viewed in hookup culture, hence, “Guyland”. Kimmel describes sex in Guyland, “Sex in Guyland is just that- guy’s sex. Women are welcome to act upon their sexual desires but guys run the scene. Women who decide not to join the party can look forward to going to sleep early and also tonight- and every night ”(192). Kimmel sees this sexual world dominated by men. I have to disagree with Kimmel because I think that both men and women have a role in the hookup world. I think this is where the derogatory terms for sexual men and women come from, “thots” and “fuckboys”. This double standard annoys me because when both heterosexual genders hookup with one another consensually, they end up bashing one another. If a college aged man and women both hookup, and the man doesn’t call her or text her ever again and hooks up with other women he is a “fuckboy”. And if a girl is at a party and many men are coming up to her to talk and flirt, she is a “thot”. Or if she’s dancing in a tight dress, she’s a “thot”. So what!? Why is the way heterosexual sexuality always bashed on? Often, the men end up using their derogatory term in favor of themselves. A “fuckboy” is now a praised attribute, but a “thot” is still a shameful word. 

In my opinion, I do not care if people are hooking up, as long as it is consensual and safe (which is something that Kimmel did not discuss enough of in this article). Hookup culture is praised by the media and this is where the terms originate from. The double standard for hooking up is often more shameful for women than men. This might be why men and women who are used to hooking up might have a hard time with commitment later in adult life. These terms might affect the way they identify with themselves which could affect their self esteem and relationships. Hookup culture is apart of our millennial culture and we shouldn’t be shaming one another for engaging in a natural, human experience.

[truisrns]

I agree with your point that hook up culture may negatively affect a person’s ability to commitment in the future, but I definitely think that this affects women far more then men due to the sexual double standard. Women are often equated to chewed up gum or used tape if they have “too many” sexual partners, while men’s worth is ultimately not affected by their number of sexual partners beyond possibly being labeled a “fuckboy.” It is common for many women to downplay their sexual history when beginning a new relationship in order to not threaten the man or affect his opinion of her. Though an outrageously high number might affect a man’s relationship as well, it is clear that it is not nearly as damaging for a man to have a high number of sexual partners than it is for women.

[truisrns]

November 10

As the phenomenon of hook up culture rises to monopolize the social and sexual landscape of relationships among young adults, questions of sex, gender, and power come to the forefront of public consciousness. Because unapologetic sexuality is considered a male quality, hook up culture forces analysis of gendered distribution of power in sexual relationships. In other words, does hook up culture exploit women as reluctant participants in a male dominated practice? Or does hook up culture allow women to explore their sexual autonomy outside of the culturally designated roles for women that are perpetuated within traditional heteronormative relationships? And more importantly, what does hook up culture mean for the future of marriage, romantic love, and the family?

Though hook up culture seems reminiscent of historical sexual revolutions because of its focus on sexual liberation and deviation from the mores of traditional dating practices, casual sex is still very much a man’s game. Kimmel explains the dilemma women face when it comes to hooking up, saying that “if they don’t participate, they risk social isolation... if they do participate, they face the potentially greater risk of ‘loss of value’” (210-211). As this illustrates, the sexual double standard still very much exists, and women are still constrained by cultural ideas of womanhood, particularly when it comes to their sexual practices. Kimmel states that “For the women who do want relationships, hooking up seems to be the only way to find the sort of relationships they say they want. They hope that it will lead somewhere else” (203). The idea that women are forced into the lose-lose situation of hooking up in order to pursue romantic relationships serves to portray women as victims of this sexual culture.

However, the implication that women are reluctant participants in this new system of sex detrimentally “assumes that women are naturally chaste and virginal, were it not for those rapacious men” (Kimmel 213), an assumption that is harmful to both men and women. Hook up culture can be viewed as a way for women to practice sexual autonomy while choosing to focus on themselves instead of a relationship, a man. Doris Lessing’s remark that there has never been a woman who wouldn’t jeopardize her career for a love affair (Kimmel 202) is very quickly proving itself untrue, as many of the young women interviewed in this article state that hook ups are all they want while they are building their futures. In this way, hook up culture can be viewed as a sexual outlet for women that is removed from the oftentimes toxic and constricting nature of conventional heteronormative relationships.

Yet hook up culture raises concerns in another way; how are adults meant to learn the intimacy and commitment necessary to form long-lasting relationships and successful marriages if they aren’t building these skills in their youths? Kimmel explains that “the real life skills that young people will need as they take on adult sexual relationships rarely feature in the hookup culture” (215). If hook ups depend on making yourself emotionally invulnerable, as one interviewee claims, then how is one to know how to make themselves emotionally vulnerable when it comes time to pursue more significant relationships? Sternberg claims that “intimacy, in particular, predicted satisfaction best in terms of happiness, closeness, rewardingness, and goodness of the relationship” (103), yet hook up culture seems to establish a lack of intimacy as the norm. Though hook ups are not the inherent evil that the media often makes them out to be, it is clear that sexual double standards and a culture of invulnerability are ultimately harmful to young adults’ ability to form intimate and lasting relationships.

[dawnoftoday-blog]

TomBoy: Mickael/Laure

Tomboy (commonly known as a girl who acts like a boy) was a movie made in 2011, is described on IMDB as “A 10-year old transgender boy moves to a new neighborhood with his family. He introduces himself as a boy for the first time to new friends”. Using the word transgender here seems to me a bit of a reach. Only because the main character Mickael/Laure never actually refers to him/herself as any gender rather lets others choose his/her pronouns for him/her. For the sake of writing this blog I am going to refer to Mickael/Laure as a boy considering it seemed to me like that’s what he preferred. While watching this film I noticed that not only did the main character reveal his preferred gender right away but the film makers were also discreet until Laure (as she is referred to by her mother) gets out of the tub and it is clear she is in fact a female. After this all evidence points to Laure being only truly happy as Mickael and when he is fitting in with the boys. Although he seems to be happy, a great deal of stress comes along with identifying as a male while having all the parts meant to be a girl. The first instance was when Mickael had to pee and ran to the woods to do it. He is discovered and the boys say he has peed his pants. He is mortified and does not return to play the next day but his new friend and love interest Lisa decides they should play alone at her place instead. Here she puts makeup on him and says it suits him, that he looks great as a girl. When he goes home with the makeup on his mom says “she” looks great with makeup and is very happy to see Mickael looking like a girl. For me it seemed as if Mickael was content in living this double life as long as the two didn’t collide. When it does because his younger sister Jeanne finds out he is pretending to be a boy, it becomes more obvious that this is a secret he does not intend on sharing with his family. I loved Jeanne by the way, I loved how accepting she was of her big brother/sisters identity and sense of self. I liked how the film makers made her the complete opposite of Mickael, a hyper girly girl who had no intention of identifying as a boy and knew she was a girl. The moments they shared together were often my favorites because it seemed to me that Mickael didn’t feel the need to act a certain way around Jeanne. The scene that made me most nervous was the swimming scene where Mickael is trying on his “new” bathing suit and knows it looks weird in the front where a penis should be. So he makes a clay penis and going swimming with it. I was on the edge of my seat waiting for it to fall out and for Mickael to be exposed in the most embarrassing way possible. Luckily this doesn’t happen. When he was exposed it was much worse. In a way I understand the mothers thought process. How could Laure (as she knows him) go to school and continue to pretend to be a boy? I had a simply solution which was for the mother to ask the teacher to refer to Laure as Mickael and keep his secret. However I suppose that wasn’t something they thought of or saw as a possibility. And to avoid having his classmates find out at school and make a public fuss, his mother decides to go door to door and tell all his friends individually. Which didn’t keep Mickael from being exposed very publically later in the woods. This scene broke my heart. The humiliation on Mickael’s face was so horrifying I didn’t know how he was going to get past that moment. However in the scenes that follow and in the entire movie Mickael proved to be stronger and more forgiving that any 10 year old I ever knew. He forgives his mom and seems to be happy at home and even goes to talk to Lisa after she refereed to their shared kisses as “disgusting”. He even ends up revealing his real name and seems content to identify as a girl since he has no other choice.

[truisrns]

While perhaps using the term transgender in the IMDb summary is a reach because the word is never used in the film, I’m not sure we can say it is a reach because Mikael “lets others choose his/her pronouns.” I think by introducing himself with a “masculine” name, Mikael implicitly dictates his identity and chooses his own pronouns. If one is not educated on intricacies of gender identity, generally they will gender someone based on their appearance, name, or other qualities that indicate gender in our society. By giving himself a masculine name, Mikael essentially ensures that the other children will see him as male and use the appropriate pronouns.

[gend712]

Tomboy

I really enjoyed the movie that we watched this week, Tomboy, and I’m really happy that we got to watch it.  But, the first thing that I had noticed about the movie was the description that Hulu put up for the movie.  They put, “A 10-year-old girl, settling into her new neighborhood outside Paris, is mistaken for a boy and has to live up to this new identity since it’s too late for the mistake to be clarified.”  This really got to me because Hulu is just making it seem like it was just a mistake that Laure decided to go along with, instead of the fact that she made a conscious decision to try and live as a boy under the name Mikael. I know that Hulu’s description isn’t the fault of the movie makers, but it just caught my eye and I found it upsetting that in a way Hulu was downplaying and completely ignoring the fact that this is what life is like for a trans person.

There were a lot of nice parts to the movie that I really appreciated.  My favorite part of the movie was the relationship with Mikael and Jeanne.  You can tell throughout the beginning of the movie that Jeanne really looks up to her sister and that she sees her as her best friend.  That makes it so much nicer when Jeanne finds out that her sister is trying out living as a boy.  When Jeanne went out to play with Mikael and all of his friends, it was awesome to hear her talk so highly of her brother and how he used to stand up for her against bullies.  That was a really cool scene because even though earlier that day Jeanne found out her sister was a boy, she never questioned it.  She accepted the fact that she now had an older brother and even played along by making up stories to make him look like an awesome big brother.

Watching Jeanne’s reaction made the end a little more uncomfortable to me.  After their mom found out that Laure was living as Mikael, she acted the complete opposite of after Jeanne found out.  The fact that the mom took Mikael and forced him to wear a dress and then go around telling his friends that he is a girl was absolutely ridiculous. What I found even worse was the way that she tried to justify what she was doing.  She told Mikael that school was going to start in 2 weeks and everyone was going to find out the truth anyways so they might as well tell everyone ahead of time.  I found that horrible (I was even screaming at the TV at this point) because there are so many ways that the mom could have worked with and helped Mikael, besides forcing him to out himself to the only friends he had.

In the end I found it nice that Lisa ultimately accepted Mikael (or maybe she accepted him as Laure?  I couldn’t really tell).  As you can tell, I watched this movie figuring Mikael was transgender and that is probably he did the things that he did to fit in more with the boys.  But the story never really tells us if that is the case, so I was just wondering if anyone else saw it like that?

[truisrns]

I didn’t even notice the Hulu description! I totally agree that this summary seems to downplay the significance of the issues covered in Tomboy, and I imagine it has likely influenced how some viewers interpreted this film, especially considering the ambiguity of the film’s title.

The relationship between Mikael and Jeanne was also something that really appealed to me in this film. Their interactions were very sweet and genuine and the fact that Jeanne seemed to accept Mikael’s identity with no qualms was very touching. Jeanne’s unwavering support of Mikael is especially important considering the less than ideal reaction of Mikael’s mother.

[thatfeministchick]

Tomboy

This movie triggered different feelings I have towards parenting and raising children. Personally, the Gender classes that I have taken throughout my few years in college have made me understand the importance of raising a child and being accepting of their thoughts and feelings about their selves. Our society has a difficult time understanding gender because of the binary norm. There are only two genders and it is seen as appalling to feel misplaced by gender in some peoples eyes.

Mikeal decides that he wants to be one of the boys and begins mimicking their actions. We find our that Mikeal is really Laure when his mother finds out about his secret. The way she reacts to her daughter’s secret was astonishing. I hated the way she made him tell his friends because she was shaming him and trying to teach him who he was. Her daughter clearly feels insecure about being a girl. She called what he was doing “pretending” and she said they needed to “tell the trusth”.By doing this she dismisses her daughter’s identity and feelings. This movie showed that children are going to follow their honest, gut feelings. Mikeal understood that what he was doing would be seen as wrong, but he knew that it felt right to him. It was sad to see his mother become so concerned with what her daughter was doing behind her back. It wasn’t “disgusting” or “unnatural”, it was sweet to see this girl change her identity to something he felt more comfortable being. In my free time, I have seen more and more parents spreading awareness about gender identity in their children. I think this is great. More parents should view this movie so they can understand how children are feeling in their points of view.

[truisrns]

It’s great to see that gender identity is a topic parents are starting to educate themselves about because a positive reaction within the family makes a world of difference to a child coming to terms with their identity. I imagine the ending of Tomboy would have been decidedly different had Mikael had accepting parents. I agree that this film is significant in this way because it shows the issues of gender identity and transition through the eyes of the child experiencing it.