Tags
This is somewhat in response to Artemiss’s piece “Sue you for no screw” (5th October) (https://doublegentendre.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/sue-you-for-no-screw/), and has also been niggling at me to be written for a while.
Since one of feminism’s greatest achievements in the 60s and 70s – namely the recognition of rape in marriage and sexual abuse within relationships – the cultural conversation about sex in monogamous relationships is now conducted almost exclusively by women.
Before I go further, let me limit the scope of this article: the sex to which I refer is that between two consenting adults, typically in long-term relationships. I am not referring to instances of violence or coercion. I use hetero terminology in this article not because many of the arguments do not relate to non-hetero relationships, but because on a cultural level these issues arise out of the stereotype of a long term hetero relationship where women stop wanting to have sex with their husbands, who are still as randy as ever.
So in the cultural discourse about this kind of sex (i.e. non-violent, hetero, long-term relationship sex), men don’t really get a say. With shows like Sex and the City and the climax of attention (har-har) in pop culture on the female orgasm, the discourse is dominated by women.
Bettina Arndt has commented extensively on this topic – in fact, she’s conducted research which has resulted in two books and numerous lectures. Her characterisation of the dominance of women in the cultural conversation about sex has stuck with me – the image of women in talk-show audiences such as The Oprah Winfrey Show wagging their fingers and tutting (often prominent) men who are caught with their pants down. Overt, rampant or simply uncontrolled sexuality is shamed, and is seen as something particular to men, whereas women are stereotyped as being able to control their sexuality, and hence questions such as “why can’t you keep it in your pants?” seem reflect the general social attitude towards sex.
But is that attitude simply driven by women? I’m not sure. I mean, it works the other way – if a woman is ‘overly’ sexual, she’s labelled a nympho. I think there’s much more behind it than just one sex determining social attitude towards sexuality. I’ll save the discussion of religion’s role for another day. But there is a definite value attributed to the control, I might go so far as to say repression, of sexual desire and sexual activity. And why do we value the ability to not be controlled by sexuality? Michel Foucault’s work deals with this question in detail, and for my purposes I won’t today – so for now, it’s just rhetorical. Instead, I want to query the vehement shaming and silencing of the male voice on sex in monogamous relationships.
In terms of the discursive dominance held by women on this topic, you only have to look as far as Bettina Arndt’s success in getting this discussion out there: imagine the outcry and intolerance for her message had she been a man. Certainly, there is controversy surrounding her books and arguments, but I think it’s fair to say a male writing such things would not have gotten as far.
So, men can’t say that they wish they got more sex from their long-term partners without being shamed, or at least aren’t taken seriously: “can’t you keep it in your pants?” “Why can’t men think about anything but sex?” “Haven’t you grown out of it yet?” Yet, according to Arndt and the many men she interviewed, this is a serious issue. Sex is that important, and just as much as many women don’t want to have sex, many men do, and because of the acknowledgment of rape in marriage, the person who says ‘no’ trumps the person who says ‘yes, please’. Obviously, this is the correct stance – rape in marriage should be acknowledged as something which occurs and not tolerated, permitted or accepted.
However, if we are to have true equality of the genders – which I believe we must strive for – does that extend so far as to exclude the voice of one gender on any issue, whichever gender that is? That is, equality of the genders doesn’t mean that women have discursive dominance on some issues, and men on others: both sides need to get heard (particularly if we are aiming to break down the gender dichotomy!) This is what Arndt has done – in a truly egalitarian step, she has given a voice to the men who have been silenced on a topic which is important and close to many hearts (and no, that’s not a euphemism for penis).
But women have been silenced for centuries in so many arenas, I hear you cry – and I know! But, as feminists, we do not need to see men in only symbolic terms: men do not each represent the Phallic Army against which feminism has (necessarily) waged its war. Men are individuals, with feelings and desires, and why must those feelings/desires be silenced and trumped, especially by their beloveds’?
I am not arguing that men ‘getting a say’ means they can take sex by force (whether physical or emotional) from their partners, but merely that they should feel able to voice their desires without fear of being shamed. Whether or not those desires are heard is the next step. Arndt argues for intimate relationships based on true equality, where men and women can share their desires and hopefully reach a compromise, truly recognising the value of each party’s position. The controversy and outrage which has met Arndt’s argument commonly comes from people who have either not read or have misunderstood Arndt’s premise. Arndt is not advocating rape in marriage, nor is she undermining the right to say no – she is promoting understanding, compassion and harmony within long-term relationships, including in the bedroom. She is a sex therapist after all! And as Artemiss has pointed out to me – women are the ones who have been stereotyped as the ones who attach emotional value to the act of sex. We shouldn’t deny these men who experience ongoing rejection in the bedroom at the hands of their long-term partners the chance to share their feelings, which has been Arndt’s primary achievement.
– Humphrey
P.S. I know there are many couples in the reverse situation, where the women are the ones being rejected/not having their desires fulfilled in the bedroom, however, my discussion aimed to address the stereotype of men wanting more sex than women (a stereotype substantiated in Arndt’s research). As I said, I am also aware that this only addresses hetero, monogamous relationships. I wonder how this argument would work for polyamorous relationships?
Gentendre 
“Since one of feminism’s greatest achievements in the 60s and 70s – namely the recognition of rape in marriage and sexual abuse within relationships – the cultural conversation about sex in monogamous relationships is now conducted almost exclusively by women.”
It recognised rape and sexual abuse of women by men, it has a willful blind spot for all the other configurations, especially when its women perpetrating.
I would think it is a good thing that we recognised the abuse of women by men, as it was not only about the statistics of how many women were actually affected by violence (which I don’t have for that era) but about the very idea that a woman COULD be raped by her husband. Previously she was property and therefore could have sex forced upon her by her husband and that was not recognised as a crime. This being changed is a major step forward for human rights and I think should be celebrated by all genders.
In regards to your concerns about men being abused by women, while it absolutely does occur (no gender can be absolved entirely from violence), the likelihood of a man being having violence perpetrated against him is much lower than that same man having another man being violent toward him. Also, since the age of 15, 0.9% of men experience current partner violence than the 2.1% of women who do. To show how great the disparity can get, 4.9% of males experienced previous partner violence, compared to 15% of women. So, understandably, since the prevalence is much lower, it is not in the public mindset as much and isn’t really a priority. This isn’t to say that it is acceptable but I am just trying to highlight what you see as ‘blindness’ might be based more on the stats.
(Inferences to and stats on violence likelihood taken from ABS publication on personal safety, 2005)
A comment from a viewer left on reddit.com/r/Feminism (user name impotent_rage):
“This is a really excellent article making a really excellent point that I’ve often thought about while getting involved with feminism, but I’ve never really talked about yet.
Let me start with the personal – I’m a woman, in a three year relationship. For some reason which isn’t entirely clear, but I blame birth control – about two years ago my sex drive sharply decreased. I’m not happy about this, doctors ran hormone tests on me and couldn’t find anything obviously wrong (but then again its hard to establish a baseline so its hard to know if anything changed), blah blah…point is, my boyfriend is as horny as ever, whereas I’m much more take-it-or-leave-it about sex.
And that sucks for him. It sucks for me too – I really miss the feeling of craving sex and wanting it really badly and really enjoying it when you finally get it – but it sucks for him to have a partner that just doesn’t want him with anywhere near the same intensity that he wants me.
His feelings, his needs, his sexuality, is very important. If I am to remain in a relationship with him, I feel strongly that I have to respect that. I would go so far as to say that if I was to use any of the lines mentioned in the article (aka “Is sex all you ever think about?” “Can’t you just keep it in your pants?”) that this would be a form of shaming my boyfriend on a level nearing emotional abuse. Sexuality is such a deep part of who we are that to deprive and shame someone for their sexuality is very deeply harmful.
So, I’ll tell you how it works out with my boyfriend. Of course, consent is essential, and either one of us can of course say no at any time for any reason (which, of course, practically speaking usually means me). And he respects that and is always willing to either accept my no or stop if I need him to stop.
But for my part, I am not so defensive of my right to say no as to feel justified or entitled in depriving him until such a time as I’m horny too. I hold myself to a different standard. I try, as best I can, to say yes as often as I can, whether or not I am horny. Because, my lower sex drive doesn’t make sex unpleasant or traumatic or anything close. Sex still feels fine, I just don’t feel particularly motivated towards it. The only difference is that when given the option between sex or sleep or resting, sex often just sounds like a whole lot of work and trouble for nothing.
But it’s not for nothing, because my boyfriend’s sexual AND emotional needs are very deeply tied to my willingness to be open to him. So when you compare my feelings of “I don’t really feel like it” to his deep need to be accepted and find expression of his sexuality with me – the right thing to do becomes pretty obvious. I try to say yes as often as I can, and I feel that’s a huge part of what it means to love another person.
I worry that feminism has convinced some young women of the opposite. That in defending her very important right to say no, we’ve instilled this idea that women shouldn’t ever feel they ought to say yes for any reason other than feeling really horny and really wanting it themselves. But that’s not how the give and take of a mutually fulfilling, happy and healthy relationship goes. When you love someone, you consider their needs and feelings as highly as your own. Of course you need to respect yourself, and if sex is going to come at a high physical or psychic cost to yourself, then by all means say no. But if it ever comes down to “I just don’t feel like it”, I urge the feminists here (and women in general) to strongly consider making the effort to say yes.”
One of the things I like about polyamory as a philosophy and lifestyle is that you don’t have to try to be all things to one person. If you and your partner have a mismatch in libido, whichever partner wants more sex can still get it, without making their partner feel obligated to have sex when they don’t want to. By comparison I think monogamous couples have their work cut out for them, and a higher bar to jump in terms of sexual compatibility.
I also think that the poly community is more accepting of male expressions of desire. But then the discourse about sex in the poly community is quite a bit more frank than in mainstream culture.
Humphrey a very balanced approach taking into account a number of different factors in the sometimes conflicting nature of male and female sexual desire.
Bettina Arndt’s recent comments about marital sex was poignant, and in the context of your article, sought to include men in discourse around sex. Women have traditionally found it easier to talk about personal issues and thus the cultural standards around sex have been largely influenced by women in the latter half of the last century.
Bettina Arndt’s sound marriage advice was not advocating force nor asking women to throw themselves on the sacrificial altar as was interpreted by some in the media and blogosphere. I liked the quotation from the ‘reddit’ article about give and take and caring about each other in a mutually loving relationship.
Thinking about the future of feminism (or humanism) it has to include honest discussion about sexual needs. There is also a need for improvements in societal expectations about women as sexual beings without the associated stigma – an area also constantly evolving.