Putting Sex In Its Rightful Place

Sound the klaxons! I am about to go on to write a non-watertight post which will include some assertions and much musing. WHAT IT WILL BE: a reflection and an invitation to debate, discuss and ponder (I know, I know, call the ponce police NOW!). WHAT IT WON'T BE: sociological treatise supported by pages upon pages of peer-reviewed science.

Sex is overrated.

Yeah, I said it. That's right. You read me right. SEX IS OVERRATED!

Now that I've grabbed your attention with my controversial soundbite, sit still and bear with me. I don't think ALL sexual activity is overrated...

but when I said 'sex,' you thought of penetrative intercourse, didn't you? Go on, it's the right answer! It's the answer I want you to give!

I've always been a bit dubious about penetration. When I was younger, it was the idea that something being inserted up you could be fun. If you think about it, that brings to mind injections. Injections are not very fun, now, are they?

(Incidentally, I've only just now made that link, so don't go crediting my teenage self with scope I didn't actually have...).

As an Asian woman though, the prospect of it absolutely fucking terrified me. Ideally, I would be imagined - and expected - to be a virgin, a sexual ingénue, whilst my husband could have had numerous sexual encounters, and we would not discuss it because you Do Not Go There. Why would you want to broach a topic that would only lead to strife? Wondering how many previous lovers he might have had, if he's being honest about that number, how you compare, why it's OK for him and not for you...

Not all Asian men are hypocrites. Some of the genuinely devout ones aren't. However, depressingly enough, it is the religion-following (rather than any sort of internal reflection and self-awareness) that makes them so, for a lot of the men I know of. Sikh men. Let it be said though, that the power structures are partly responsible. Even though men benefit much more than women in Asian culture, they're by NO MEANS free of baggage.

So yeah, I would wonder why the hell the whole world was so goddamn obsessed with sex anyway. From the age of eleven, I made a resolution, and this was my only life's resolution. Now it may sound sad to some, and maybe some sort of betrayal to others (OMG, WHY DIDN'T YOU LIKE, AIM TO BE AN ASTRONAUT OR SOMETHING?!), it was important to me. It still is - important and necessary, and I feel that I was very lucky to find it.

I vowed that I wanted to love and be loved. Note: I didn't say 'wanted to be married,' or that I 'wanted to be in love.' No, I wanted to be loved. Not drama and not tears. Not the sort of relationship where his basic acknowledging of me as a fellow human was a source of happiness. Not the sort of marriage where his leaving me to get on with the housework, rather than criticising me for not doing it the way his mum did, was considered desirable. A partner who could understand that, was THE benchmark by which I would set my standards, thank you very much.

Sex has always been important, but many would argue that it has become more recent in modern times. I would be inclined to agree, especially when you think of changing attitudes to pornography, the arrival of the Internet and a general liberalising of society. That's not to say we're all fine with talking about sex now, but you know, you have things like Anne Summers shops and mainstream papers such as The Independent running lists of 'The Ten Best Sex Toys.' Hard to imagine in the 1950s, eh?

However, the way we think about sex has often been problematic. For a long time, you had a love/sex dichotomy, and it still persists. The idea that love and sex could be separate (especially for women) began to develop towards the end of the nineteenth century. I'm thinking specifically of Kate Chopin's The Awakening (1899), which tentatively broaches a subject all too familiar to modern readers: the notion that you can love somebody - while simultaneously being attracted to someone else. No doubt it was there before, but it was very likely taboo, especially for women. Fancy someone other than your husband? You strumpet!

For some people, I don't doubt that love and sex is often - maybe even always - separate. That may even work for them. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for a lot of people. Read any number of letters to any number of agony aunts, and you see the same ol' time-weathered issues recurring: I love a married man, but he won't leave his wife for me, blah blah blah. Or I'm unsatisfied and I'm having an affair, blah blah blah. Alongside this kind of thing, you get celebratory articles about women finding sexual satisfaction in their 40s by having affairs, and stuff like that.

What I'm trying to say, I guess, is that - perhaps because of an increase in sexual freedoms for women - it became more acceptable for women to 'do as men do' sexually. Unfortunately, however, that increase in freedom didn't necessarily coincide with a weakening of certain ideas about sex and gender. Hence, many women had more sex, but the old idea that women wanted love and men wanted sex still held firm in the minds of many. So, you got this stupid and painful situation where women could have sex with whoever, but for many, love and sex were intrinsically bound in their subconscious.

There's also the fact that sex leads to the release of oxytocin, which:

has various functions in the body, such as inducing labor contractions and milk ejection, but from evolutionary biology’s perspective, its main evolutionary function is to bond us to our children for life. It also serves to bond us to our mate…at least long enough to produce a child and (if we're lucky) get it on its feet.

We are not programmed for monogamy, nor our own sexual satisfaction, it would seem. I DO NOT mean by this to say that women should stop exercising sexual freedom like men. Evolutionary science has been conveniently used in the past to enforce gender stereotypes and permit men to 'sow their wild oats' while denying women the same freedom. That's what you'd call 'bad science,' though. Proper science shows itself to be egalitarian in showing that actually, we're all set up for the same goal: to further the species. If males will 'sow their wild oats,' then females will replace flagging partners.

This is where I come back in. Yuman beans are, of course, brain-equipped creatures and not just bags of hormones, correct? We realised the dangers of blindly following our instincts since very, very long ago (see: Greek tragedy), in the form of overpopulation, if nothing else. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Either we have long-term stable relationships, or we have incredible sexual peaks and troughs. The time-honoured way to have both is to fake replacing your partner, by means of sexual exploration. You may notice how people always use terms like 'reinvent' or 'rediscover.' It's change, but you're tricking your brain - instead of a new partner, you're simply using new techniques to keep dopamine levels consistent.

Another possibility, to be used alongside, is to reassess the importance of sex. To put sex back in its rightful place (AT LAST! I hear you cry). No sex vs love. No more of this 'I love my husband, but I have great sex with the plumber.' No more of this 'I love my wife, but my secretary is so naughty and dirty.' Actions have repercussions. That's the shittest and most important bit of being an adult. Especially when there's children or friends involved, and Lord knows, there so often are. It's almost embarrassing.

Be slow. Be messy. Be fumbling. Learn, gradually and carefully, how to turn each other on. Think of your sex life as a book, which you chop into bits and put back together again. Does the end HAVE to be the end? How final was the end, anyway? In so many cases, you probably read to the end and then thoughts lingered in your head. You thought 'I wonder what happened next to so-and-so?' Even if there was a sequel, the likelihood of it carrying on right where the last left off was unlikely. In cases where that DOES happen, the first media I can think of are soap operas and comic-book series - and what are they? Long-running.

Penetration is not the end, nor should it be. It's been established that many women don't come through penetration alone; evidently it's not the key to orgasm in itself. Yet we persist in elevating it to such ridiculous levels of importance. Teens are all so interested in 'going all the way' and 'doing it.' Very few people's first time is about learning how to enjoy sex; it seems more to be about 'getting it out of the way.' How depressing! That's life, though. Social conformity exerts such horrible, crushing pressure on us that people have sex - or pretend to have - before they're even really ready for it.

I think the common attitude of 'lose virginity drunkenly, so as to ease fear, then have sex whenever I feel like' is fair enough, but watch out, people. If that's how you want to do, then you have to do it right. Go all the way. Don't think about love. Where sex leads, love does not necessarily follow - and you know what? That's not because men want sex and women want love. It's not because love and sex are opposed. It's because reproduction and monogamy are opposed. Yeah, that's right! How hilarious it feels to read that, when religion has been advocating socially/religiously/legally-enforced monogamy as the prerequisite for reproduction for years.

Sex needs to be rethought, and not just by feminists. Enough of the turgid meatstick in the quivering lower-lips. Enough of tits, asses and cock. Have you ever found somebody's eyelashes sexy? No? I sure as hell have (The Libertarian's thick, charcoal-dusting caught my eye even before his green-and-gold eyes). I like lips, in a man. The Libertarian has very rosy cheeks and lips, a freckled nose and unexpectedly dark, thick upper lashes. Half the time, I don't know whether to frame-and-display him, or kiss as usual.

I think I'm lucky, because I grew up with an awareness of classic Bollywood cinema, where filmi courtesans redefined the markers of sexuality. Between the sashaying of hips and the thrusting of abdominal muscles that we know so well, alongside wet saris, there was something new. I'm thinking of Madhuri Dixit as the courtesan Chandramukhi in Devdas, of the song 'Kaahe Chhed Chhed Mohe.' One of her most fervent admirers sings (roughly translated from memory):

'Jasmine makes fragrant her lovely dark tresses... Radha's face is aglow, electric... Her gait, seductive.'

In Sanskrit poetry, as well as old Bollywood, eyes, eyelashes, hair and faces are most often described as alluring. The face and hands are most often employed by filmi courtesans to seduce. It's still objectification, you might argue - but at least it's not quite as violent a form of objectification. It's not the same as when: 'you talk about getting laid, you never say a woman, you say a broad, a lay, a baby, a doll, a bird, you talk about butts and boobs, every time you mention a woman I see her either as a sort of window-dresser’s dummy or as a heap of dismembered parts, breasts, or legs or buttocks.’

There is some sense that a woman has some power, something concealed which is hers and which she can choose to give. Granted, this is somewhat illusory with a courtesan (a bought woman) - but I'm not telling anyone to be a courtesan! Nor am I saying 'cover up' or 'behave like a man/lady.' Sexual problems in a relationship are so often merely the most visible element of a larger underlying problem. Fluffy handcuffs, toys and dressing up are all very well. Just make sure it's not all one-way - and just make sure you're realistic about the relationship of sex to love for you. Does sex really = love? For a lot of us middle-class kudia, raised as respectably as we are, I don't really think so. Intercourse - especially penetrative - is not the apogee of desire. Standing close to someone, denying yourself, a loaded glance, a telling kiss - give it a try sometime if you haven't already, o no-doubt-horrified readers...

Must... spill... guts...

OK, I'm snapping. I'm officially snapping right here, and right now, and the results may be ugly but really, who gives a flying fuck? I will feel the mad elation of the recently-confessed sinner. Forgive me Father, for I have had bad thoughts about my contemporaries and now I must repent.

Now, I don't know if any of my readers read Penny Red, but I used to link to it, and it's a good blog, no doubt.

I stopped linking to it recently, though. Do you know why? Because I realised, it kind of pisses me off rather a lot sometimes. I feel bad about this - there should be no reason for a well-written, ingeniously-analytical feminist blog to make me get really, really riled up. Yet sometimes it really does. When those 'some' times roll around, I want to stuff a knuckle into my mouth, eyes rolling wildly around like the ungrateful lunatic that I am and choke down the waves of fucking irritation.

See, as per the female stereotypes, I initially assumed I must be jealous. Laurie's slightly older than me - not even a year, really - and much more accomplished.

Then, I got real. Like fuck is it jealousy. Maybe if I were subconsciously my mother, I could safely believe in jealousy as the reason.

No, the reason why they drive me mad is because they seem to absolutely drip with dishonesty. I don't mean that in the sense that she's lying, I just mean that there is something strangely false about the way she writes. An anonymous commenter left this message on the latest post:

Very well-written article. You seem to have two sides to you, one that writes great stuff like this (although I don't agree with a lot of it), and other stuff that comes across as studenty rant. Stick with this stuff, but try to be a bit less old-left. I think the world has moved on from some of the stereotypes you use.

Exactly. Thank you, Anonymous. In many of Laurie's articles, as somebody previously handily pointed out on Liberal Conspiracy (don't make me look for it, you bastards!) you get a lot of good rhetoric - very stirring/rousing/whatever, and when she deals with stuff that is obviously from immediate personal experience - her angry feminist stuff and especially things dealing with female body image - the writing lives. It crackles with the lightning of unbounded, shameless self-expression that makes 'personal' writing (such as blogging) truly 'personal' and captivating.

However, in a lot of other stuff, the rhetoric is just that - empty pretty words, and it does feel 'studenty.' Oh, let's start a revolution on the weekend, shall we? I find myself thinking sarcastically. There's nothing wrong with being idealistic, but if you're claiming to be revolutionary, why don't you be revolutionary? Bring something new to the table instead of blatantly resurrecting the creaking ghost of Old Socialism. That's not to say the socialism is the problem - it isn't. It's the tone that's the problem. Take this article '1984 in 2009', for example, on Liberal Conspiracy. At the end, she says:

We are more than the queue-forming, forelock-tugging, tea-sipping, biscuit-eating, pet-shop-boy-listening people of popular mythology. We are, at the root and bone, a nation of king-killers. I think they’d better watch out.

What utter balls. Who is this fictional 'we'? The people of Britain? The people of Britain are not your fellow socialists, girl. They popularise the Sun and the Daily Mail. For someone who strives constantly to be a Superwoman of anti-prejudice, it's not only the taking the 'us and them' line that surprises (classic 'othering' tactic of racists, misogynists, et al, anyone?) but also the apparently-betraying a certain type of middle-class arrogance. Doris Lessing captures this middle-class arrogance perfectly in The Golden Notebook, showing the irony of a bunch of white, middle-class, Communist twenty- and thirty-somethings all with deeply divergent aims, in Africa trying to propagate Communism during a time of apartheid. One of the characters, Paul, in a moment of cynicism remarks:

'Suppose the black armies win? There's only one thing an intelligent nationalist leader can do, and that is to strengthen nationalist feeling and develop industry. Has it occurred to us, comrades, that it will be our duty, as progressives, to support nationalist states whose business it will be to develop all those capitalist unegalitarian ethics we hate so much? Well, has it?'

- The Golden Notebook, p. 101.

I.e.: your good intentions may be good for you, but not necessarily good for others, do you see what I mean?

I may be seeming a bit unfair here since I've picked out this particular article, but I have read a lot of Laurie's stuff and indeed, y'all may want to go check more of it out. The overwhelming feeling that assaults me, having read a great deal of it, is of somebody who wants so badly to be all things to all men, women, animals, etc. that she could easily end up being an MP a few years down the line. You only go all-out friendly with people if you want to be liked, right? This feeling was strengthened when I met her in person. The red light in my head that is reserved for such occasions screeched 'POLITICKER! POLITICKER!' when I had a chat conversation with her a while after our meeting, and she could barely remember The Libertarian (who she has met thrice). I was absolutely appalled. Shouldn't somebody who is a 'socialist, feminist... queer' who is 'plotting to subtly re-arrange the world to suit her ideals,' remember TL?

'Well, he is your man,' you cry. That wasn't what bothered me. What bothered me is that Laurie embodies her labels - that is, she becomes THE socialist feminist queer (et al) - by way of her lovely rhetoric quite frequently in her posts. Evidently, as I observed, that makes her a politicker - she wants to become 'the voice' of people like her (Rhetoric is the tool of politicians, isn't it?!). Which means she should remember who she networks with and - this is the crucial bit - who she needs to remember. I'm no swaddling babe, I know politickers are ruthlessly efficient socialising machines who remember people as and when they need them. Hold up, though - TL is the embodiment of privilege. He is a white, middle-class male - exactly the sort of person I'd think she's trying to engage in discourse with - and furthermore, sympathetic to her cause. A blogger who blogs on issues concerning 'minority' females, a group that liberal feminists are all agreed, needs reaching out to. Yet he didn't make enough of an impression for her to remember him. After three meetings.

I told TL about all of this, and he wasn't too impressed either. I think this whole thing has opened my eyes significantly. I'm deeply, deeply disappointed that I find myself in a world of clichés with somebody who is supposed to be more intelligent than me. Sometimes she plays 'the girl that boys AND girls like' in the guise of the 'unthreatening! liberal-not-radical! feminist' (as in the most recent post), sometimes she's the 'voice of angry women'... Ultimately, I can see her ending up as an MP or, I strongly suspect, a columnist. I'm repeatedly struck, as I've already said, by the stereotypically feminine need to appease that just radiates out of most of her material (not the journalistic stuff on the whole), anger being brought out only when it's useful. That's what I mean. Dishonesty. Schtick. It pisses me off. If you're a feminist, it should always be OK to be angry. Why, then, that sense of creeping fear? Why the need to appease? Why all the student-revolutionary bullshit, and the liberal guilt?


In a post on the vigil for Ian Tomlinson, she wrote:

When the tealights blew out in what seemed to be the icy gust of a hundred closing shutters, I lit them again. And people started taking pictures of the cute girl in black lighting candles, because of course the image, not anything we actually think, is the important thing.

That's what I meant by 'middle-class arrogance', because I mean, c'mon, you just know that (in bold), that's the kind of sanctimonious bull that'd pop up in a Guardian Cif piece about Jade Goody, or whatever. Maybe the people thought you were a weirdo, maybe that's why they were doing it. Or maybe they just wanted some memories of the event? I also hate the tendency she has to 'novelize' certain events she reports on her blog. No, don't do that, that's part of the problem! We need to fight the 'I, I, I, me' cult-of-personality that seeps more and more into journalism and the reportage of events nowadays. If you're writing something that will end up being used elsewhere (as her stuff frequently is), please, cut yourself out of it as much as possible unless the post is meant to be about you. This was about IT's vigil, not you being moved to sniffle and people taking pictures of you, and I don't give a fuck about any of that.

Do you see what I mean about her? I hope you do. Scratch the surface of the rebel-labels and you get subconscious attitudes, and behaviour, which is nauseatingly conventional. No-one's saying that feminists should become a parody of the 'angry man-hating lesbo femonazi' insult that's so often thrown our way, but if you really believe that 'the personal is the political,' that famous 70s feminist slogan, why not be more honest? You don't have to be good to every online commenter who concern-trolls you. You don't have to try to impress people on Liberal Conspiracy. Tellingly, as I observed, her articles that touch on the genuinely personal are good. The journalistic stuff is again mostly quite good (again, mostly when it touches on the personal, such as her article on anorexia on the Guardian website - oh, look it up yourself). Stuff like this is good.

Two-way connection is necessary, but both parties should lean in for the conversation, if you see what I mean. When I see Laurie trying to be everyone's best friend, it puts the lie to her labels, because you can't please everyone and people won't let you be all those different labels at once! Sometimes, it's not your job to educate the information-starved masses. Put the liberal guilt down, and step away from your pretensions. You are not a 'rebel,' you're a politicker. You've written for Labourlist. You're pretty much a Labour activist. Tell people to take a hike and learn shit themselves from time to time - being a liberal feminist is somewhat paradoxical, and you need to exploit the space that that paradox affords you. Write for yourself a little more.

Finally, before I collapse with fatigue and antihistamine - yes, as a woman, you do have some understanding of being 'second-class.' Yet you're not exactly on the level of a Muslim woman, or someone like me - you have ambition and you have a 'voice' and a platform. Society will tolerate the likes of you far more readily than it will conflicted types like me. It has tags all ready and waiting for you, and surely you must know this. It gives you your 'subversive' tags and you accept them in exchange for the realisation of your ambition. So, get real. You're not the voice of all oppressed women, nor are you the dark, spicy and seedy underbelly of what's respectable. You are inside the system, and that's the only point from which a person can ever work it. Fuck the rhetoric and the labels. Life ain't easy. You're you, and capable of bringing some real good shit to the table - so bring it.


Apologies to anyone who now thinks I am batshit insane. I am just going to blame all this on Doris Lessing.