
Within females there seems to be a disparity between how we naturally are inclined to behave and how we fear we may be negatively perceived because of it. This essentially is the foundation between the dichotomies that exist in defining females: virgin vs. slut, being assertive vs. being a bitch, being free-spirited vs. being easy, and so on. If a female is able to grab the dick by the shaft and ride off into the night, is it an act of confidence or implied promiscuity ("apparently not the first time it's happened")? Why is Lil Kim a hoe, but Samantha on Sex and the City is just a woman in control? Their overlapping qualities seem to all be admirable: a flippant approach to what other people think about their decisions/actions, a no-holds-barred demeanor when it comes to discussing their sexuality, etc. No one wants a little nun ass bitch -- but it seems like if you're not a nun, you're a slut.
Most women just want to be in control. That's why Rapex exists. They want control, and want to control when and if they are controlled, which falls in line with everything we are taught to despise about our still-misogynistic society -- but does each consensual slap on the behind count as "minus one" from the countless years women have fought for progress, equality, control? We as females are torn between what we should do for the potential and probably microscopic advancement of womankind, and what we sometimes want that goes against that grain.
Every time we dress like "sluts" to go out, we are degrading ourselves, but if we're decked out in nun gear or a burqa, we don't feel cute. We go out and want male attention, but "boy please" every guy that approaches us. We want to be on top and be in charge, but end up on our backs (or even worse, with our faces pressed into a pillow). We want to be Michelle Obama, and flex our guns and intimidate men across America, but even she is secretly subservient to Barack. It's all about the power dynamic. We want to be cutesy little girls but deny that we are, and hide behind the guise of "This Is What a Feminist Looks Like" t-shirts and Bitch magazines. We want to be spanked but are well aware of the implications of accepting such. It boils down to fucking or being fucked, spanking or being spanked -- and most girls are not the dominatrix, spanking type. The spanker holds the power in his elevated, fingers-together, ready-to-strike palm. We optimally would like to manipulate this power dynamic in a way that would allow us to maintain our control and respect, so, we get spanked in the dark, and sport Michelle Obama, Amazon woman, bicep-baring, knee-length dresses during the day, and we dare you to think you are in control.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Nun vs. Slut.
Posted by
DANA JEANius
at
11:27 PM
Labels: Feminism, Sex, Societal Stereotypes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
DANA JEANius is a 20 year old sophomore/junior Journalism major from Washington, D.C. Skilled in the art of getting ADHD web surfers to read something longer than a tweet, Dana loves to blog. Read her other blogs at
2 comments:
Hmmm.
Relationships are constructed in the context of the patriarchal society in which they occur. But just because they occur in that context doesn't mean that they necessarily need to replicate the violence and misogyny that are features of the patriarchal society.
Just like the one-true-Scotsman, there's the problem of what, exactly, do we mean when we say "feminist." I happen to think that one important aspect of feminism is allowing women (and men!) to decide what they want in their relationships and lives. If a woman likes being spanked, and has a partner she trusts to spank her, then that's no knock against her feminist credentials. The problem arises if she can't say no to the spanking, or if it's always assumed that she says yes.
I'm not particularly interested in attacking the feminist credentials of someone who likes spankings, or cunnilingus, or the missionary position, or anything else that gets them off, so long as those desires are accompanied by his/her partner's consent.
Post a Comment