Tag Archives: gender and sexuality

"curvy girls" virtual book tour: interview with kristina wright

23 Wednesday May 2012

Posted by in book reviews

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

Welcome to today’s stop on the Curvy Girls virtual book tour! I had so much fun interviewing Donna George Storey for the last virtual book tour Rachel Kramer Bussel invited me to participate in, that when she asked if I’d host a stop on the tour for her latest anthology Curvy Girls I said “yes please!” and asked if I could, again, use the event as an opportunity to interview one of the anthology contributors about writing, erotica, and all that jazz.

The contributor I immediately wanted to interview was author and editor Kristina Wright, whose story “In the Early Morning Light” is an erotic exploration of what it means to re-connect with your body and sexuality after a difficult pregnancy. I was impressed and moved by the way “Morning Light” made an emotionally-fraught and physically difficult experience incredibly porny (anyone else enjoy a little hurt/comfort and body affirmation with their tea? yes? that’s what I thought).

So I asked her to share a little bit about her process for this story particularly, and erotica writing more generally. Without further ado, here’s Kristina!

Kristina Wright (via)

1. On your website, you describe yourself as someone who has been “writing since [you] learned to read.” From the perspective of another lifelong reader/writer, I know I wasn’t particularly encouraged toward writing romance or erotica — what brought you to those genres?

I have always written what I love to read. I read a lot of Harlequin romances when I was a preteen, then I fell in love with horror. My writing interests followed my reading interests. I was a book reviewer in the mid-90s for a magazine called The Literary Times. I was reading 4 to 5 romance novels a week (everything from historical to paranormal, but nothing really erotic) and after a couple of years I decided to try to write one. I wrote one, then another– and sold the second one (Dangerous Curves, a romantic suspense). In the process of trying to sell my next romance novel, I started writing erotica. I had read a few Black Lace novels (my first introduction to erotica, other than online) and discovered erotica anthologies. The rest is history. I’ve gone from romance to erotica to a blend of both. And I love it.

2. What arrested my attention specifically about “In the Early Morning Light” (your story in Curvy Girls) is the way you incorporated painful issues of sexuality and embodiment following a difficult pregnancy into an erotic short story. Some people might think this would be a death knell to arousal, but instead the result is really hot. Can you talk a little about what inspired you to write this particular piece?

I had a baby. Ha! Actually, I had two, in December 2009 and September 2011. The story is purely fictional– my husband was deployed prior to the birth of our first baby in 2009 and was only home for two weeks before returning on deployment for another five months– but the emotions about body image, the rediscovery of sexual desire, the need for connection (and sleep!)– all of that is from experience. We live in a culture obsessed with youth and hot sex with someone new, whether it’s a hookup or a new relationship. I wanted to write a story that was not only about a committed couple, but the growth of a family and how sex– good sex!– does not end just because you have a baby.

3. In “Morning Light,” the character Carolyn initially resists her husband’s initiation of sex, but he persists and she ultimately experiences a moment of renewal and self re-discovery of her body and her sexuality post-cesarean. While I found the interaction tender and believable, it would be possible to read her husband’s persistence as pressure and emotional/physical coercion. How did you navigate the issue of enthusiastic consent in this story?

Again, I think we are culturally aware when it comes to issues of consent when it comes to being young, single and in casual sexual situations but context is everything in a scene like this. I would never write the scene this way if it were about a couple who had just met in a bar and knew nothing about each other’s needs, emotionally or sexually. But in the context of a marriage between people who have experienced all of the ups and downs that go along with a committed relationship, including childbirth, trust and faith are the foundation. Trusting that a partner has your best interests at heart, having faith that the connection that has sustained you until this point is still there even if it is dormant– that’s what this story is about. The husband’s persistence in initiating sex isn’t about his needs, it’s about her needs. And her reluctance followed by her acquiescence is about her putting her trust in him and letting go, if only for a little while. It’s this kind of connection that I crave to create when I write erotica.

4. When I write about erotica and pornography as a blogger, I often get comments asking me for reading/viewing recommendations. If you had to pick five favorite erotic stories to recommend, what would they be?

Honestly, I don’t think I could name just five stories. I probably couldn’t even name just five books! For readers who are new to erotica and maybe want some romance with their sex, I’d recommend my anthology Best Erotic Romance or Rachel Kramer Bussel’s anthology Obsessed. If you’re looking for spanking, bondage and other kinks, I love Rachel’s anthologies Yes, Ma’am and Yes, Sir and Please, Ma’am and Please, Sir or Shanna Germain’s forthcoming Bound by Lust. Alison Tyler’s Harlequin anthology With This Ring, I Thee Bed is a delicious (and big!) collection of erotic romance centered around weddings and committed, sexy couples abound! And if readers are looking for erotic fantasy, I have a new collection out called Lustfully Ever After with erotic takes on classic fairy tales.

5. Are there any particular tropes in modern erotica that you wish would just go away?

I’d be happy to never read another virgin heroine again.

6. What are some of the things you wish we would see more of in erotic writing?

I’d love to see more diverse characters. Characters that aren’t model-perfect, who are over 25 (or over 45), who are complex, who are having amazing sex in committed relationships. Stories that reflect the complex, complicated lives of characters who could be my friend or neighbor– or even me.

7. I’ve been thinking lately about the presumed audience of certain types of erotica (for example, the fact that Curvy Girls is erotica “for women”), as well as assumptions about what who would or should be interested in certain combinations of bodies (for example, people wonder whether m/m erotica written and read by women, of any orientation, constitutes appropriation). While I appreciate the appeal of themed anthologies, as a queer woman I’m often frustrated by the fact that I usually have to make a choice between an anthology of mostly heterosexual stories OR lesbian erotica OR m/m erotica, rather than enjoying the best of all three (and combinations besides!). As a writer, reader, and editor of erotic romance, do you have any thoughts about whether the market is really as segmented as the publishing industry assumes? To what extent would you say peoples’ reading taste actually mirrors their own identities, desires, and sexual activities?

I think marketing a book– any book– is important in terms of getting it in front of readers. You could slap a plain white cover on a book and put it on a bookstore shelf or the front page of Amazon, and if you don’t give readers a clue as to what it contains, the book won’t sell. So I understand the necessary evil that is the genre label. Reading tastes do seem to skew along the lines of how a particular reader identifies, though I know from experience that isn’t always true. I understand your frustration. I wish there were a better way. I think the increasing popularity of ebooks and the flexibility of the digital format may eventually alleviate some of our frustration. Now that authors and publishers are starting to offer individual stories for sale like you buy individual songs, I imagine a time in the not-so-distant future where we’ll be compiling our own personal anthologies, picking and choosing which stories we want to include from a wide variety of authors and even naming our own collections based on our current mood or interest, much like we make music playlists for parties or working out or meditation. (Remember, you heard it here first!)

CURVY GIRLS: You can read more about the Curvy Girls anthology, and find links to all the stops on this virtual book tour, at the anthology website as well as purchasing copies from a variety of online booksellers including Amazon, Powells, or Seal Press.

KRISTINA WRIGHT: Can be found online at Kristina Wright: Musings of an Insomniac Writer.

Cross-posted to The Pursuit of Harpyness.

‘the act of marriage’: ch 8-10 (when things go wrong)

21 Monday May 2012

Posted by in book reviews

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

See also: intro, ch 1, ch 2-3, ch 4-5, ch 6-7.

Welcome back, folks, to the ins and outs of Christian marriage and sexytimes. We’ve reached the middle of the book and it’s time to talk about sexual dysfunction. Namely: “the unfulfilled woman” and “the impotent man.” There’s not a lot for me to rate myself on here (“frigidity” isn’t a particular problem of mine, nor is impotence), so I’m going to set aside the Adequate Lady-Spouse Metric for the next three chapters and instead just make a few more general observations about how healthy, positive sex is construed in The Act of Marriage, what major problems the LaHayes encountered in their marital counseling, and what solutions they suggest for those problems.

Overall, we continue to have a number of … I’ll call them tensions in the text between the desire to understand sexual intimacy as normal and God-given, with a number of possible paths to sexual fulfillment, and as a site for self-improvement. A sort of moral and physical proving-ground. So The Act yo-yos back and forth between encouragement (e.g. pointing out that the majority of women labeled “frigid” will respond sexually in situations where they aren’t pressured to perform in certain ways) and a fairly narrow definition of what “the act of marriage” entails (e.g. penis-in-vagina intercourse following adequate foreplay). Trying to reconcile these two goals isn’t always an easy task, and sometimes leads to baffling or conflicting advice.

Most notably, as I believe I’ve already pointed out, in the recognition that clitoral stimulation is necessary in most cases for women to experience orgasm while simultaneously holding up mutual orgasm during penetration as the sexual ideal for married couples. This, in turn, leads to a lot of paper and ink and effort spent on instructing couples how to practice just enough “foreplay” to push the woman toward orgasm while delaying male ejaculation so that (God forbid!!) he doesn’t come before penetration and/or before his partner. Because “lovemaking is impossible without an erect penis” (128).

But I don’t want to get ahead of myself. Let’s examine the main sexual woes of women and men in turn, and the solutions presented for each.

“The tragic tale of female sexual frustration winds its way through almost every tribe and people leaving literally billions of married women sexually unfulfilled” (103).

“It is safe to say that, except for Christians, the majority of women do not regularly enjoy orgasm in the act of marriage” (106).

The main sexual woe of women, according to the LaHayes, is Not Enough Orgasms. While “More Orgasms!” is a public health campaign I could totally get behind, the LaHayes give their own particular spin to the struggle of “unfulfilled” women in a couple of ways. The first, as the above quote suggests, is to try and argue that being a Christian will lead you to a better sex life. It’s unclear, as yet, why this is the case since they also illustrate this chapter with many examples drawn from pastoral counseling in which peoples’ beliefs about sexuality and Christianity are part of the problem, not the solution. But argue it they do: anorgasmia among women is at epidemic proportions, and the cure is a combination of religious faith, sexual education, and …  the all-mighty kegel.**

So, okay. Points for saying women can, and should expect to, enjoy wanted sexual intimacy. That’s the “yay for sex-positivity!” part. But then we get into the “ur doin’ it wrong” part of the section, in which women’s inability to come is largely attributed to her own moral, emotional, and physical failures. Yes, men are encouraged to slow down love-making and be attentive to their wives’ bodies (as well as to delay ejaculation; I’ll be getting back to this shortly) … but the majority of the burden falls on the wife. Which would be okay if the message was, “it’s okay to learn, and ask for, what you want in bed!” This is not what the LaHayes have in mind. Instead, they chastise women who don’t experience orgasm for experiencing negative emotions such as anger, resentment, guilt, and fear.

Reading “The Unfulfilled Woman” chapter, we learn that women who’ve experienced sexual abuse at the hands of their fathers should forgive the fathers (!!) in order to experience sexual satisfaction with their husbands. That women who are domineering (“choleric,” anachronistically enough), who feel guilty about premarital sex, who are passive, who are overweight, who are tired — all of these women may suffer from a lack of sexual fulfillment. And, basically, it’s the woman’s job to sort out her shit and get with the program.

While the kernel of truth in all of this is that each of us, individually, is responsible for exploring and communicating what we want sexually, the tone taken in The Act of Marriage is, well, preachy. And incredibly, incredibly callous toward people who have experienced sexual trauma. And in general absolve the husband of any responsibility to address relational issues (outside of the whole length of sexytimes/ejaculation thing) that might be contributing to sexual unhappiness — like, for example, a mother of young children who’s shouldering an unequal share of the parenting responsibilities, and is thus too worn out and/or alienated from her spouse to find much pleasure in sexual intimacy with same.

“After his fortieth birthday a man’s most important sex organ is his brain” (155).

“A rigid penis is absolutely essential for satisfactory consummation of the act of marriage” (157).

While the tragic dearth of lady-gasms can be cured with a combination of better sexual skill, physical self-improvement, and a judicious injection of Christian forgiveness-of-male-sins (and penitence for female ones),  the main struggle for married dudes is ejaculation: “premature,” “delayed,” or none at all. Like wives, husbands are counseled with a not-altogether-logical mix of “no matter how your body functions, you can still enjoy sex,” and “BUT YOU SHOULD REALLY BE FUNCTIONING IN THIS ONE SPECIFIC WAY.” While the LaHayes do emphasize that the majority of “impotence” issues stem from anxiety of one sort of another, rather than physical difficulties, they put men in a double-bind by basically increasing rather than decreasing, the cause for concern. To wit, in the section on the types of fear that contribute factor to impotence, they write:

(d) The fear that he will lose his erection. To a large degree, satisfying lovemaking is dependent on the husband’s ability to maintain an erection. A limp penis is unsatisfactory to both partners and humiliating to the husband (161). 

So basically, rather than offering reassurance that a “limp penis” can still experience pleasure and that partners can find alternate ways to engage in sexual intimacy, they just end up reinforcing the man’s fear that his ability to perform on cue is the linchpin of the entire experience.

Mirroring their advice in chapters seven and eight, the LaHayes concentrate narrowly on men’s sexual skills and knowledge vis a vis their wives when it comes to maintaining a sexually-satisfying marriage (e.g. remember to stimulate the clit! don’t penetrate too quickly! ohmygod don’t come before she does!!***) while it falls to women to maintain the broader emotional-relational health of the marriage. In the chapter on male impotence, for example, women are admonished not to be “nags” or be “passive,” and not to have a “sagging vagina” (get on those kegels!).

Once again, I’m left with the impression that while both partners in the marriage bear responsibility for successful marital relations, the work of women is much more nebulous and therefore potentially vast in scope — while the work of men is physical and weirdly self-absent. Where, in this landscape of orgasm/ejaculation delay and carefully-scripted lovemaking is there time for guys to just be with their partners and enjoy — without the anxiety or performance — sensual contact?

Stop back in on Friday to check out what the LaHayes have to say about family planning (I think it might surprise you)!

*For example, their claim that “until around the turn of the century, millions of women each year were cheated out of the exciting sexual climax that most men enjoy regularly” is wince-ably inaccurate. While women prior to 1900 navigated a cultural landscape that treated women’s sexual arousal as a disease to be cured, I’m pretty sure lots of them got off in creative and satisfying ways. Likewise, it’s not like twentieth-century gals had it easy in the “take my sexual desires seriously” department. If we had, terms like “sex-positive feminism” wouldn’t be tossed around with quite such frequency.

**Yep, you heard me right. The reason women’s sexual dysfunction takes two chapters and men’s only one is that women get a whole chapter on the wonders of the kegel. While I’m all behind exercising pelvic floor muscles, I’m not sure kegels have quite the transformative properties The Act of Marriage seems to ascribe them. They end up sounding like you’ll be able to jet around like the elderly kegel-practicing ninja lady from American Dad‘s Live and Let Fry.

***And what ever you do, DO NOT MASTURBATE. While it may not kill you or make you grow hair on your palms, it’s clearly contra-indicated from a Godly perspective and will probably destroy your marriage.

‘the act of marriage’: ch. 6 and 7 (care and keeping of a wife)

14 Monday May 2012

Posted by in book reviews

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

See also: intro, ch 1, ch 2-3, ch 4-5.

Following what I’ve come to think of as the “sexuality 101” chapters come two intriguingly-titled sections, “For Men Only” and “For Women Only.” Thus I was faced with a dilemma. The “For Men Only” chapter instructs one on the care and keeping of one’s wife, while the “For Women Only” chapter instructs one how to be a wife.

Since I’ll both have  AND be, well, I decided the best  thing was to read both chapters just to be sure I had all my bases covered. I have a few overall observations about the differences between the two sections and the overall assumptions being made about what makes for positive sexual intimacy and martial relations. But first, the nitty-gritty details (you know you want them!).

Here’s what one must do in order to sustain one’s marriage:

Husbands Wives
1 Learn as much as you can.
Quote: “Since skilled lovemaking is not instinctive, a wise husband will learn as much as he can from a reliable, Christian source.” (i.e. the last two chapters of this very book!)
Adequate lady-spouse metric (8/10): I love learning about sexuality, but I can’t say I depend very heavily on “reliable, Christian source[s]” so why don’t we say five out of ten for this one.		 Maintain a positive mental attitude.
Quote: “Three areas in a woman’s sexual thinking pattern are very important to her: (a) what she thinks about lovemaking; (b) what she thinks about herself; (c) what she thinks about her husband.”**
Alsm (10/10): Lovemaking = awesome, self = good enough to be getting on, wife = sexy, compassionate, smart, and kick-ass. Think we got this covered.
2 Practice self-control.
Quote: “Be careful not to overdo it, but concentrate on something that will delay your ejaculation and give your wife sufficient time for her emotional build-up.”
Alsm (2/10): I’m all for paying attention to where my partner’s at and making sure she’s enjoying  herself – but I’m not sure how that jives with delaying orgasm by thinking about football.		 Relax! Relax! Relax!
Quote: “It should come as no surprise that a virgin will be rather tense in anticipation of her first intercourse.”
Alsm (5/10): While I’ve got the relaxing bit down, I think I probably lose 50% for not actually being virginal on my wedding night.
3 Concentrate on your wife’s satisfaction.
Quote: “Since a woman’s orgasm is much more complex than a man’s, it takes her longer to learn this art.”
Alsm (5/10): With two complex lady-gasms to worry about, you’d think future-wife and I would have it extra hard! Maybe that’s why the fundies are against same-sex marriage — because they worry lesbians won’t achieve enough simultaneous orgasms?		 Chuck your inhibitions.
Quote: “Though modesty is an admirable virtue in a woman, it is out of place in the bedroom with her husband.”
Alsm (4/10): I’ve got the bedroom covered, but what about the living room or kitchen? And the whole we-aren’t-actually-technically-wedded-in-holy-matrimony-yet thing might move my lack of inhibitions from the “admirable quality in a wife” column to the “shameless hussy” column.
4 Remember what arouses a woman.
Quote: “Men are stimulated by sight whereas women respond more to other things — soft, loving words and tender touch.”*
Alsm (10/10): Not gonna be a problem, so much. 		 Remember that men are stimulated by sight.
Quote: “The sight of a bedraggled wife may engender sympathy (though it’s doubtful) but it will rarely inspire love.”
Alsm (0/10): Oh, god, I’m always bedraggled. Future Lady Spouse despairs.
5 Protect her privacy.
Quote: “Men are far more inclined than women to be sex braggarts.”
Alsm (5/10): Since I’m a woman, you’d think I have this covered but I write a blog in which I talk about stuff like orgasms and erotica and how much I enjoy both, which probably makes me a braggart on some level.		 Never nag, criticize, or ridicule.
Quote: “Nothing turns a man off faster than motherly nagging and criticism or ridicule of his manhood.”
Alsm (6/10): I agree that “ridicule” and treating one’s spouse as if they were a dependent to be controlled*** rather than a person to be respected as an equal it’s time to re-evaluate what you’re doing with this person as a spouse. But I don’t agree that avoiding confrontation, substantive argument, or asking for change is wrong.^
6 Beware of offensive odors.
Quote: “A thoughtful lover will prepare for lovemaking by taking frequent baths, using effective deodorant, and practicing good oral hygeine.”
Alsm (10/10): I have it on the authority of Future Lady Spouse that she is in favor of my odors.		 Remember that you are responder.
Quote: “Except for those occasions when a wife is particularly amorous and initiates lovemaking, a husband makes the first approach most of the time.”
Alsm (0/10): We don’t have a husband, so there’s a technical difficulty here. Oops!
7 Don’t rush lovemaking.
Quote: “The time spent lovemaking varies with the culture. Researchers have indicated that the average experience runs from two minutes in some cultures to thirty minutes in others.”
Alsm (10/10): I just gotta say I find it really amusing that “more is better!” is something that has to be spelled out here.		 Observe daily feminine hygiene.
Quote: “Every woman must be careful of body odors for two reasons: first, in some women the vaginal fluids … can emit a strong odor unless they bathe regularly; and second, she may become immune to her own smells.”
Alsm (8/10): While I’m a fan of the daily shower, and enjoy our wide and indulgent array of Lush products, I’m deducting points here on principle ’cause I think our ladybits smell just fine thank you.
8 Communicate freely.
Quote: “I have been appalled to learn that even well-educated people find it difficult to discuss their love lives frankly.”
Alsm (10/10): I hyperverbalize and I love sex … need I say more?		 Communicate freely.
Quote: “Unless a man has read the right books or sought knowledge in the right places, much of what he knows about women is likely to be wrong when he enters marriage.”
Alsm (10/10): <– See left.
9 [I guess men aren’t responsible for prayer?] When all else fails, pray.
Quote: “I’m convinced that God never intended any Christian couple to spend a lifetime in the sexual wilderness of orgasmic malfunction.”
Alsm (5/10): While I’m all for a pro-orgasm God, I … what? (Although bonus points for phrasing!)
Okay, so … lots going on here, but a few general observations.

Notice how the instructions for men involve practical things (keeping clean, gathering information, controlling ejaculation) and are largely confined to the specific situations of sexual intimacy. Men are encouraged to slow down their love-making, learn how their lovers bodies work, respect their partner’s privacy, and to communicate with their partners about sex. So far, so good! Except for what it leaves out: men’s emotional lives. Men are assumed to want sex basically whenever their wives take their clothes off, and all of the instructions in the husband’s section are geared toward getting him to control his bestial (physical) urges and pay attention to his partner’s needs.

Now notice how much emotional work is expected from women. First on the list is the admonishment that women get into the right headspace for sex, which in the chapter involves three sub-sections worthy of discussion. Women, not men, are expected to have emotional baggage around sex being shameful, their bodies being shameful, and their partners being undesirable. In addition to basic bodily hygiene, women are expected not to look “bedraggled,” not to “nag,” and to pray (attend to the spiritual health of the couples’ relationship) when all else “fails.” Men have no analogous last-resort advice.

Finally, although none of these specific points touch on it, I want to recall from chapter five the argument that the best lover is an unselfish lover who attends to their partner’s needs and desires above their own. I think this assumption continues to play out in chapters six and seven: Husbands are instructed to subordinate their physiological response to the course of their wife’s arousal, while wives are instructed to tidy up all messy emotional and psychological issues so their husbands will be able to love them. While mutual empathy is, obviously, a major indicator of any successful relationship (sexual or otherwise), there’s a serious case to be made for the notion that selfish sex is the best kind of sex. That is, learning and owning what you enjoy, how your body responds, and how to communicate your desires, is key to pleasurable sexytimes. While focusing on your partner’s pleasure is laudable, knowing what you want and need and how to ask for it is equally important. And that’s one of the key pieces I see missing in The Act of Marriage.

IN SUM:

Ability and willingness to fulfill the duties for having a wife: 60/80 = -20
Ability and willingness to fulfill the duties of being a wife: 48/90 = -42

Chapters 6-7: -62

Chapters 4-5 score: +30
Chapters 2-3 score: -33
Chapter 1 score: -50

Cumulative ALSM Score: -115

*Having experienced first-hand what seeing my wife’s nakedness does to stimulate arousal, I’m baffled by this assertion.

**Aren’t these a good rule of thumb for anyone in sexually-intimate relationships, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, or gender?

***This isn’t the place to unpack the “motherly nagging” assumption, but if you’re treating your kid through passive-aggressive control and shaming ridicule, you’re doing it wrong.

^See also.

‘the act of marriage’: ch. 4 and 5 (how to do it 101)

10 Thursday May 2012

Posted by in book reviews

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, ,

See also: intro, ch 1, ch 2-3.

Once the LaHayes have established that sexual intimacy is God-approved (chapter 1) and that men and women both get things out of it, even if they be different things (chapters 2-3), they move on to the basics of anatomy and how-to. Chapters three and four are a really amusing mix of accurate, fairly non-judgmental sexual health information and prescriptive sexual coaching that would put a drill sergeant to shame. It follows the 90%/10% rule*: You’re reading along with a sentence and nodding and then — what the fuck?! it just takes a u-turn into not-good places.

Let me illustrate with several verbatim passages.

On sex education:

An in-depth study of sex is best pursued just prior to marriage. Let’s face it — the material is simply not that complicated. God didn’t give Adam and Eve a manual on sexual behavior; they learned by doing. We are convinced that modern Adams and Eves can do the same, provided they are unselfish enough to consider their partner’s satisfaction more than their own. A few good books on the subject, studied carefully two or three weeks before marriage, a frank discussion with their family doctor, and pastoral counseling are usually adequate preparation (45).

Continue reading →

‘the act of marriage’: ch. 2 and 3 (his and hers)

06 Sunday May 2012

Posted by in book reviews

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, ,

See also: intro, chapter one.

We learned in chapter one that sexual intimacy between married hetero couples carries the God-seal of approval. Chapters two and three take us on a tour of “what lovemaking means to” men and women. Because men and women are different creatures, each creature gets their own chapter and hierarchy of meaning.

You see, the male creature gets five things from the act of marriage, as does the female creature. But because they are different species, what they get out of lovemaking is different in kind — and when similar in kind, different in meaning.

I offer a Handy Dandy Chart of Comparison:

Males Females
1. It satisfies his sex drive.
Translation: Dudes be horny and must have with the fucks.		 It fulfills her womanhood.
Translation: How do you know you’re a girl unless a man puts his penis inside you? Also: Babies! And homemaking.
2. It fulfills his manhood.
Translation: Fucking things cures all feelings of emasculation. (aka The Magic Cock).		 It reassures her of her husband’s love.*
Translation: If you don’t put out he’ll leave you. Sex is the way to a man’s heart.
3. It enhances his love for his wife. 
Actual quote: “When you have a Cadillac in the garage, how can you be tempted to steal a Volkswagen off the street?”		 It satisfies her sex drive.
Actual quote: “Each thrilling lovemaking event increases her sex drive drive” (aka Married women who have good sex will become insatiable nymphos)
4. It reduces friction in the home.
I don’t think they actually meant this as a double entendre, although they do spend a lot of time on the benefits of lube later in the book.		 It relaxes her nervous system.
Because suddenly we’re going to get all nineteenth-
century on your ass.
5. It provides life’s most exciting experience.
By which they mean orgasms, which I’ll be talking about later (really? the most exciting?)		 The ultimate experience.
I’m struck by the slightly different wording here. Also, is there anyone else who can’t help think of Wet Hot American Summer?**

SOOOO many questions!

Why is orgasm the “most exciting” experience for men, but the “ultimate” experience for women?

Why does sex drive rank #1 for men, but #3 for women?

Why does libido come before ego in the hierarchy of needs in men? Does that mean that masculinity matters less than getting it on?

How does affirming womanhood through sex lead to marriage, a house, and babies? (I mean, besides the obvious sperm-meets-egg thing)

If you’re going to lubricate your marriage, what brand is best?

Why does sex “enhance” a man’s love of his partner, while merely “reassuring” the woman? Is love something men do and women receive?

If women want sex more after every successful instance of lovemaking, how quickly will her sexual needs spiral out of control in the average Christian marriage?

Inquiring minds wish to know!

In addition there’s an extra bonus section in the “males” chapter dealing with the issue of “mental-attitude lust” which basically instructs us that guys fantasize about hot chicks. ALL THE TIME. But they shouldn’t. So men are counseled to police their thoughts and never have sexual thoughts that don’t involve their wife. How they’re supposed to do this isn’t clear, except it’s probably the wife’s responsibility to play the role of Cadillac so her husband doesn’t turn to auto theft as a hobby.

Women don’t get the lecture on mental-attitude lust because, see, we don’t have any. “A woman does not seem so readily tempted to fantasize as does her husband.” (Let’s just say there was hysterical laughter in my house when I read that passage aloud to the almost-lady-spouse). Apparently, we’re only capable of “remember[ing] romantically those exciting experiences of the past. Consequentially each thrilling lovemaking event increases [our] sex drive” which presumably, over time, would turn us into succubi. Though he doesn’t mention that bit.

Mostly, I just love how women here are incapable of original, imaginative sexual thought and instead can only harken back to good (and bad) sexual experiences that have previously happened to them. And my use of the passive construction is deliberate here.

IN SUM: The adequate lady-spouse metric

I figure I get negative points for all the ways I experience “male” sexuality and positive points for all the ways I experience “female” sexuality.

 -15 – for being spontaneously horny but
+15 – for also being an experience-driven succubi (the more good sex I have, the more I want!)
  -5 – for not believing that a dude’s ego is lodged in his dick
+10 – because I do feel reassured of my lady-spouse love when we enjoy sexytimes but
 -2 – for not being an extrovert
  0 – for not having to train my sweetie in empathy (women automatically have “bedside manners”)
 -2 – for not being interested in white knights and angels, except in the m/m sense
 -4 – while I respond well to treats, I generally put out anyway so clearly I’m a cheap slut
   0 – while my “passion” flares with my cycle, lady-spouse would say I’m only slightly capricious.
-10 – I’m confident my lady-spouse means what she says when she says she won’t go stealing cars
+10 – and also don’t plan on car-jacking myself***
  -5 – I’m a believer in the benefits of lubrication to ease friction
 +5 – and also find sex to have a beneficial effect on my nerves (I’m in that 10-20%)
+10 – for enjoying orgasms as a “most exciting” experience but
 -10 – for not experiencing “the ultimate” (p-i-v intercourse) with actual penes
 -30 – and obviously for being full of mental-attitude lust (slash fiction anyone?)

Chapters 2-3 score: +50/-83 = -33

Chapter 1 score: +35/-85 = -50

Cumulative: -83

*Bonus: Wives need five sub-types of love. We’re just that high-maintenance. Companionable love (all women are extroverts by nature), compassionate love (sex somehow trains a man to practice empathy, a womanly virtue), romantic love (“my white knight/not a Lancelot/nor an angel with wings …”), affectionate love (women, like pets, respond well to regular treats), and passionate love (the capricious kind).

**Wet Hot American Summer:

J.J.: He gets so uncomfortable whenever we talk openly about sexual issues. You know he’s never been with a girl before.
Gary: McKinley needs to experience “The Ultimate” And I think you know what I’m talking about.
J.J.: You mean, penis-in-vagina?
Gary: No, dickhead. Sex.

***Though if we’re doing car comparisons, I expect Hanna would rather be compared to an Impala than a Cadillac.

‘the act of marriage’: ch. 1 ‘the sanctity of sex’

04 Friday May 2012

Posted by in book reviews

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

See also: intro.

So one of the reasons that The Act of Marriage was such a ground-breaking text in the mid-70s was that it was one of the first modern Christian fundamentalist, evangelical books on marriage to be all “whee! sex be awesome and of the Lord!” And that’s really the message of chapter one: Good Christians can make with the sexytimes.

In “The Sanctity of Marriage” I learned that:

1. God’s okay with people married, hetero couples doin’ it.  “Some people have the strange idea that anything spiritually acceptable to God cannot be enjoyable” (15). But nope. Sexual intimacy outside of marriage is “condemned” and people who commit the “sin” of pre-marital sex will likely have to confess and receive forgiveness before they can proceed along the path of righteousness orgasms.

2. God made our bodies, and therefore our bodies are good. “God designed our sex organs for enjoyment” (11). I’m not actually going to snark about this one, because if you’re going to believe in a creator I don’t think it can hurt to believe that the creator looked upon human embodiment as something positive, rather than negative, and gave us our bits for a reason. Especially the clit. Because I’m fond of clitori.

3. “Spirited” sexytimes are all over the Bible. Old testament, new testament. Everywhere. Adam and Eve were likely getting it on in the Garden of Eden before the Fall. (For true!) All I could think about reading this section was the episode of Futurama in which Leela and Zapp Brannigan crash land on an Edenic planet and Zapp tries to convince Leela she has a duty to make it with him in order to re-populate a supposedly destroyed Earth. There are fig leaves and everything.

4. When supporting your argument that sexual intimacy is Christian, and proof-texting is the way to go. This isn’t surprising, because the cultural of evangelical fundamentalism encourages this sort of behavior. If you make an assertion, you need a bible verse to back it up.

5. Have I mentioned sex outside of marriage is a no-no? Well it totally is. In any way, shape, or form. In fact, according to the LaHayes’ interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7: 2-5,

1. Both husband and wife have sexual needs and drives that should be fulfilled in marriage.
2. When one marries, he forfeits his control of his body to his partner.
3. Both partners are forbidden to refuse the meeting of the mate’s sexual needs.
4. The act of marriage is approved by God.

I love how these four tenants are such a surreal combination of yeah, I’m down with that and ohmyGODwhatareyouTHINKING. It’s like a sandwich made with fresh-from-the-oven artisan bread and  with a filling that carries botchialism.  Both partners, male and female, have sexual needs? The act of marriage (sexytimes) comes with the God-stamp seal of approval? Well, hooray! Particularly if you’re coming from a God-saturated worldview, and from a patriarchal religious background, those things are babysteps toward a way better place. But then OH MY GOD it’s so full of NOT OKAY in the middle!!! “Forfeits control of his body”?! “Forbidden to refuse”??!

o_O

And I’m totally not distracted by the “he” and “his” pronouns here. Because (I peeked) chapters two and three are about male and female “lovemaking” needs? And men totally want more sex than women. So even though the language is neutral, paired with the universe of wrong that is gender essentialism this is about making the ladybits 25/8 accessible for the magic, randy penes.

IN SUM: The “adequate lady-spouse metric”

My friend Molly commented on the intro post that she was looking forward to learning how she measures up  as a lady-spouse. And in honor of her, I decided to give myself grades after each chapter according to how well I have/will perform as a lady-spouse myself (a girl’s gotta have something to strive for, right?). So here’s my score for chapter one:

+15 –> in agreement that mutual pleasure is key to sexual intimacy
+10 –> down with the idea that God made flesh and flesh is good
+10 –> down with the idea that, since flesh is good, sex is also good in the eyes of the Lord.
-20 –>  and yet I’m a pre-marital slut 
  -5 –> who’s not guilt-ridden about it
-30 –> and oh wait, I’m also a dyke*
  -5 –> who’s busy enjoying “spirited” “acts of marriage” with my (almost) lady-spouse**
-25 –> and plans to retain “control” over my body and right of refusal re: sexytimes post-vows


Chapter 1 score: +35/-85 = -50

Watch this space on Sunday for the gloriousness that will be a comparison (with tables!) of “What Lovemaking Means to a Man” and “What Lovemaking Means to a Woman.”
Let’s just say … I’m doing it wrong.

*Technically, I’m probably worse being bi/omni/fluid whatever. I could be making myself available to the magic penes, but I’m not ’cause my almost-lady-spouse doesn’t happen to have one.
**Does committing acts of marriage with an almost-lady-spouse technically make them “acts of pre-marriage”?

booknotes: the straight state

03 Thursday May 2012

Posted by in book reviews

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Modern-day campaigns for civil rights and equal citizenship for queer folks tend to conjure up a progressive trajectory from exclusion to inclusion: from a dark past when the homosexual was excluded from equal citizenship (or forced to live closeted) to a not-yet-realized future in which one’s sexual identity, desires, and behaviors, do not exclude one from enjoying the rights and responsibilities of the American citizenry. The ability to apply for citizenship in the first place, the responsibility to serve in the armed forces, the personhood status to form legally-recognized kinship networks and access the welfare benefits distributed through those kinship systems. In our collective memory, we look backward in time to a period during which homosexual acts were illegal and homosexual identity stigmatized; we look forward to a period during which our bodies and relationships won’t ipso facto criminalize us (at worst) or shuffle us off as second-class or invisible citizens (still a precarious state of affairs).

Yet as Hanne Blank pointed out, in her recently-released Straight: The Surprisingly Short History of Heterosexuality, the notion of the heterosexual being (in opposition to the homosexual being) only developed in the late nineteenth century. While certain sexual activities (most obviously sodomy, commonly interpreted as anal penetration) were criminalized, the homosexual person was not constituted in either cultural or legal understanding until well into the twentieth century. In The Straight State: Sexuality and Citizenship in Twentieth-Century America (Princeton University Press, 2009), historian Margot Canaday argues, in fact, that the identity category of “homosexual” developed in symbiosis with the United States’ state-building activities to such an extent that it was, in part, the legal conception of homosexual persons that led to the mid-century emergence of our modern-day gay or queer political identities:

An increasingly invasive state would in time also help to create rights consciousness for some queer individuals who, embracing the state’s own emphasis on legal rather than medical categories, began to ask not whether they might be sick, but whether they might be citizens. They came to agree with the state’s simple common sense definition of homosexuality, then, but could see less and less that was commonsensical about its placement outside national citizenship (254).

This is a fascinating argument, well-grounded in historical evidence. Canaday’s footnotes exhaustively document the hours she spent in the National Archives reading through years worth of military court marshals, personnel files, proceedings from immigration hearings, congressional records, and Works Progress Administration memoranda. What this detailed historical research reveals is how much our “common sense definition of homosexuality” was created through a process of trial and error, through attempts to police the bodies and social lives of those individuals coded undesirable. In example, let me glean from Canaday’s evidence a few instances of such creation that I found particularly delightful and thought-provoking.

First, in her chapter on immigration and “perverse” bodies during the first quarter of the twentieth century, Canaday discovered in reading INS records that aliens were generally turned away at the border or deported not for homosexual acts but for gender non-conformity.  This is merely the most recent book in my readings on the history and politics of sex and gender that has made me think about how much policing of our sexual lives speaks to a (larger?) fear of bodies that fail to fit our ever-changing yet stubbornly dualistic notions of appropriate gender performance. As Tanya Erzen observes in her study of ex-gay conversion therapy literature, for people and institutions concerned with gender role divisions, same-sex sexual behavior becomes a marker of gender inversion or confusion, rather than something of primary concern. That is, a woman who has sex with another woman is worrying because she is becoming masculine or enacting a “male” role. Not because she’s enjoying same-sex sex in and of itself.

Along similar lines, Canaday suggests that those policing same-sex sexual acts among men in the military, particularly during the early years of the twentieth century, distinguished between men who penetrated during sex (the “male” role) and men who were — willingly or unwillingly — penetrated either orally or anally (the “female” role). Rather than imagining lovemaking as a more fluid series of encounters in which one might penetrate and be penetrated in turn, military police imagined that men’s sexual identities were constituted and static. To some extent, they were following the lead of the men whose activities they were punishing, since barracks culture appears to have encouraged the tom/bottom hierarchical dynamic. However, Canaday’s narrative suggests that the policing of same-sex sex, and the differential punishment meted out according to who fucked whom reinforced the notion that what one did somehow followed from (or led to) who one was. It made me wonder if, in these military proceedings, we were seeing the nascent beginnings of our modern-day notion (in some circles) that gay men are either “tops” or “bottoms.”

While the military was fairly clear about the illegality of same-sex acts between men (though their policing of such activity was uneven), some of the most hilarious passages in the book deal with the inability of military police to agree on what exactly women do together when making love. The perplexity with which society responds to lesbian sex never fails to amuse me. Is it really that difficult to understand? Seriously? Like — clits and tongues and fingers and natural lubricant? Hello? But apparently, for mid-century MPs, women doing it was just beyond the realm of possibility. When, in 1952, two military police on patrol happened across two women having energetic oral sex in the back of a vehicle, they were so “bewildered” by what was happening that they turned and went away in “shock.” “It was just one of those things that you read about and hear about but never see,” one of the MPs admitted during testimony when asked why the incident had gone unreported (191-192). Because of this mystification of female sexuality, Canaday demonstrates, the anti-gay purges of women in the military relied not on evidence of acts (as it did with men) but on extensive documentation of women’s homosociality, emotional ties, and gender performance. Canaday observes that, while men and women alike were harassed during the lavender scare (see David K. Johnson), discharge files for men are typically 1/4-1/2 inch thick while women’s routinely run 2-3 inches. Not a commentary on the relative suffering of men and women accused of homosexuality, this difference represents the comparable difficulty of evidence gathering when what you’re trying to document is something as nebulous as tendencies and identities rather than trying to answer the question of whether so-and-so gave John Smith a blow job.

Finally, in her two chapters on the Depression-era welfare state, Canaday explores the long-term effects of structuring the social safety net in such a way as to reinforce the heteronormative family. A precursor to the destructive obsession with marriage as an alternative to unemployment and welfare benefits, federal programs targeting the unemployed and itinerant in the 1930s, and the benefits of the G.I. Bill post-WWII, became tied to an individual’s ability and/or willingness to fulfill a role (mother, father, husband, wife, son, daughter) within the ideal “straight” family. While this had little per se to do with one’s sexual identity, it had everything to do with domesticating individual human beings whose free-floating sexual desires were closely associated with criminality. Work programs for unemployed men, for example, often included some sort of requirement that the individual’s monthly allotment be sent to a designated “dependent,” usually a family member along the order of a parent, a wife, or children (118). Some “unattached” men were able to work around this requirement by designating a male friend as their dependent, but overall the government structured twentieth-century benefits schemes to encourage hetero-familial ties and discourage both sustained single-ness and unorthodox relationships. In the postwar era, this structural dis-incentive was joined by overt discrimination as those who had been discharged from the military for homosexuality were denied veterans benefits and experienced widespread stigma and economic hardship for suspected or actual same-sex attractions, behavior, and relationships.

Overall, Canaday’s study is one of the most impressive examples of historical inquiry into sex and gender that I’ve read in recent years, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the historical context of our present-day notions of gender, sex, sexual orientation, and citizenship.

Cross-posted at The Pursuit of Harpyness.

live-blogging ‘the act of marriage’: part the first

02 Wednesday May 2012

Posted by in book reviews

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

this is the cover art on my edition

When Hanna and I were on our trip to Michigan back in early March, I picked up a vintage copy of The Act of Marriage: The Beauty of Sexual Love by Tim and Beverly LaHaye (Zondervan, 1976). Y’all probably know the LaHayes for their right-wing political organizing and Tim LaHaye’s phenomenally popular Left Behind series. Bet you didn’t know the couple are responsible for one of the mid-twentieth-century’s ground-breaking Christian sex manuals.

Yeah. I’ll let that one sink in for a minute.

And of course I bought it. Duh. Because it’s a perfect confluence of all the shit I’m interested in: sex and Christian evangelical fundamentalism and heteronormativity and the 1970s and sex. All in one book.

This was before Hanna and I decided to get married, but now that we’ve set a date and all, I decided I should probably study up on my wifely duties. The introduction to The Act of Marriage specifically instructs that it “should only be read by married couples, those immediately contemplating marriage, or those who counsel married couples.” I told Hanna over coffee this morning that, since I now fall into category #2 (although does “engaged to be married” count as “contemplating marriage”?) I can safely read this book without jeopardizing my bridal purity.

She looked at me like I’d just turned into a hedgehog and went back to her Spanish latte.

I’ve only read the introduction so far, but two things:

1) Tim assures the readers of TAM that Beverly’s presence as one half of the writing team preserves the respectability of their project — and simultaneously assures his audience that Beverly herself was not harmed in the writing of this book. It’s a fascinating use of ministers wife as moral shield. Sort of like having one around is the equivalent of a personal shield emitter. Haha! You think talking about sex is dirty and un-Christian? Well, you see, I have a minister’s wife on hand to protect me!

2) The introduction puts forth the assertion that Christians have better sex than non-Christians. This is hardly the first time I’ve heard this argument made (and, to be fair, feminists also made the case for better fucking … though I doubt their definition of “better” is the same as the one at chez LaHaye). I’m promised survey data latter in the book that will support this thesis and, frankly, I can hardly wait to find out what they asked the couples they counseled and what “secular” data they compare and contrast their results with.

I’m looking forward to my lunch break so I can see what Chapter One has to offer. Stay tuned for more!

"in their graves because of false modesty"? [neha spring 2012]

24 Tuesday Apr 2012

Posted by in my historian hat

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

This past Saturday, I presented a paper at the spring meeting of the New England Historical Association (NEHA) at Rivier College in Nashua, New Hampshire. You can check out the full text of the presentation here: “In Their Graves Because of False Modesty?”: An Allegation of Sexual Assault in Boston, 1914-1915 (PDF, via DropBox).

The paper was my first attempt to pull together a research project I’m working on into a coherent narrative. The research concerns a mysterious deposition I stumbled upon in the Godfrey Lowell Cabot Papers at the Massachusetts Historical Society. As I write in the opening paragraphs:

Mediated, it is true, by the framework of legal testimony, the narrative voice of the deposition is nevertheless an active one. [Nellie] Keefe [the deposed] describes herself purposefully seeking medical treatment and intervening in that treatment when it goes contrary to her expectations. She positions herself as a consumer of medical services, with the ability to select a treatment plan with which she feels comfortable, rather than the passive recipient of medical care with which she is uncomfortable — from a medical professional whose authority she should not, or cannot, challenge. She evokes the spectre of sexual aggression by describing how Dr. Underhill “turned the light out [and] inserted his finger in my vagina,” yet ultimately circumscribes Underhill’s actions by indicating that she successfully ordered him to stop.

To the modern reader, the deposition feels both remarkably contemporary, yet also deeply embedded in an historically-specific set of social and medical expectations surrounding patient-doctor interactions. While Keefe’s self-reported actions make clear that she was dissatisfied with Underhill’s professionalism, she also indicates that Dr. Underhill was similarly dissatisfied with her performance of the role as patient. “During the treatments he would pull the blanket off me and I would pull it on again and he would pull it off again leaving me stark naked,” she testified, vividly illustrating the battle between patient and doctor over the circumstances under which Keefe’s treatment should proceed. Keefe was clearly unhappy with Dr. Underhill’s methods, yet returned to his office multiple times to try and negotiate a more satisfactory interaction. What appears at first to be a straightforward account of a doctor’s unprofessional conduct is, I would argue, a more complicated document containing multiple and uncertain meanings.

You can download the full paper from DropBox.

Like my past appearances at NEHA, it was great to spend a morning talking history with a diverse and encouraging group of practicing historians from all over New England. I particularly enjoyed the presentation of my co-panelist Allison Hepler (University of Maine, Farmington), whose research into the life of “Communist hussy librarian” Mary Knowles not only paralleled my own project in unexpected ways, but also gave me a certain amount of professional pride (who wouldn’t want to be known as a “Community hussy librarian”?!).

While we had very little time for Q & A at the session, I had warm words of encouragement from folks for the continuation of my research. What questions and reflections I did field helped clarify how I might move forward from here. I’m particularly motivated to explore the network of female friendships and associations that seem to be such a central part of the Keefe-Underhill case. Time to roll up my sleeves and get to work exercising my reference and historical research skills!

girl talk 2011 [web video]

19 Thursday Apr 2012

Posted by in media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

I meant to get a book review up today, but it’s been one of those weeks. So here, instead, is a six minute introduction to Girl Talk 2011, the spoken word event that seeks to bring together queer cis and trans women in dialogue (via Whipping Girl).

In their own words:

Queer cisgender women and queer transgender women are allies, friends, support systems, lovers, and partners to each other. Girl Talk is a spoken word show fostering and promoting dialogue about these relationships.

You can check out the full playlist at YouTube.