Here’s a snippet of a comment I left elsewhere on Teh Internets™. The post in question was inspired by the Salon.com article about virginity that I mentioned yesterday; it spiraled into a discussion about sex in general, and the conflicting pressures our society puts on people WRT sex.
I don’t understand the mentality that talking about sex and sexuality will make people want to go out and fuck. That makes no sense. Talking about bungee-jumping doesn’t make me want to bungee jump - and if I had already wanted to bungee jump anyway, talking about it probably wouldn’t make a difference.The reason it’s important to talk about sex is the same reason it’s important to talk about (for example) mental illness, and a host of other “stigmatized” things in our society… to get it out there and remove the taboo, get over all the hush-hush weirdness that makes people feel isolated and alone, and realize that we all deal with these issues, so why not talk about them and begin to learn from our shared experiences, our similarities, and our differences!
For example, when I had to go to my OB/GYN to have a colposcopy… even though I was already thoroughly educated about All Things HPV - I was still nervous. But as I talked to people about it, it seemed like practically every women I mentioned it to said, “Yeah, I had that done a few years/months/weeks ago.” And inside I’m screaming, “SO WHY DON’T WE TALK ABOUT THIS STUFF!!!” So many people deal with it, why should each and every person who has to deal with it for the first time feel like she’s the first person to ever deal with it, and feel so alone??
But I guess that was a tangent. ANYWAY. About sex. There is definitely a weird set of contradictory pressures coming from our society. On the one hand - wait til marriage! Save your viriginity at all costs!! If you don’t, you WILL BE RUINED!!! -But, then, if you’re not married by a certain age (the secret there, of course, is that the religious right wants people to “marry off” as young as possible)… you reach that tipping point where suddenly being a virgin isn’t virtuous anymore. It’s weird. Then the pressure is the opposite: fuck, just fuck already!!! What’s wrong with you?? Surely there is something wrong with YOU that you can’t get laid!!!
Blah, blah, blah… it is all so stupid and exhausting.
I don’t think there are any easy answers here, as much as people would like there to be. No generalizations can be drawn. You can’t put someone into a nice neat box labeled “virgin” or “not virgin,” because it’s just not that simple… that’s not how real life works. And I won’t even go into the whole heteronormativity thing, and the special, elevated status PIV sex is granted over all other sexual experiences.
There is a lot more I want to write about all of This. Yes, This. This Big Scary Sex Issue. Hell, if I ever get time to actually sit down and write what I want, I’m going to have to break it into like a 50-part series. Ah, will someone just give me a goddamn book deal already?
READ ME: Disclaimer
17 Responses to "I could (and probably will!) ramble about this for days"
Amber: good post, and while I largely agree with your POV, I’ll give it a spin to look at it another way.
In your argument what if you replace “having sex” with “walking around naked”?
Nudity is stigmitized with hush-hush weirdness, but do you encourage people to become nudists or is it okay to be shy about nudity? And how does that compare to people who are shy about talking about sex?
Write it and they will cum.
“I don’t understand the mentality that talking about sex and sexuality will make people want to go out and fuck.”
You mean, that doesn’t happen with you?
Pat,
This analogy doesn’t work:
For the analogy to be valid, we would replace “talking about sex” with “talking about nudity.”
And, people who are shy talking about something don’t have to talk about it if they dont’ want to, obviously. BUt if they listen to other people talk and understand that it’s a valid topic to be discussed - well, then they might decide to talk about it after all. If not? Fine, their prerogative. Where it crosses the line is if that personal shyness starts to turn into “No one can talk about it openly.”
Does it cross the line when the shy people ask we not talk about it around them, or when we choose not to talk about it around them?
Look, it seems like whenever someone speaks up against some sort of institutionalized, societal oppressive force - whether something as mammoth and nuanced as racism, or something as (arguably? compartively?) simple as sex-shaming, someone comes along and wants to defend their “right” to continue doing those things. “But… it’s my right to only want to be around other white people!” Well, it doesn’t work that way. That’s the “freedom of speech” card A White Bear was talking about (in a post I linked a few days ago).
I don’t think you personally were doing that, Charles. (Correct if wrong.) But people do that reactionary shit all the time.
Here’s something else I meant to say in my reply to Pat. Some shy people might not want to speak up, period. But if the issue is open for discourse and is being discussed openly, frankly, and without judgement, if they have questions, they might hear their questions answered (or at least addressed) without having their only options be, 1) speak up despite their shyness, and possibly face ridicule, scorn, judgement, etc.; or 2) remain isolated and confused, with unanswered questions.
And I say this as someone who was “shy” (partially by my nature, partially bc of extenuating external circumstances) for most of my life growing up. And in a lot of ways you could say I’m still shy now.
Guess this was a rant, or a ramble, or something. Well, it stands.
I have no problem with shyness. My question is if what is over the line is the shy people wanting others to be shy, or when we ourselves become silent for the sake of the shy people.
I can see times where it is polite to not say something, for the sake of others. I can see times where failing to speak up is itself a moral failure. The problem is that, formally, the two are the same insofar as one remains silent. And there is also the sense in which failing to speak up because of some oppression through silence is sign of how powerful the repressive apparatuses are. This last situation is what one finds where whistleblowers come out: it’s not so much that their co-workers are immoral scum and try to prevent anyone from talking, but rather that no one can talk for fear of saying something to disturb the everyday, normal misery.
Shyness and silence and repression are not all the same things, and they don’t all move and live in the same way, but the spaces they occupy are too tight. I think there is legitimate room for nuance, for why people choose to remain silent. I think there are also times when people should be silent, because not every discussion is worth having. I think, if you were to look through your own life, you’d see plenty of times where you bit your lip or thought it wasn’t worth it. That’s the lesson of “Do not throw your pearls before swine.”
People are limited and finite. They have to pick their battles… if they want to battle at all.
Well, obviously, the issue is far too complex, nuanced, and full of grey areas for me to be able to sum it all up, tidy up the whole issue of shyness and self-censorship and so on, once and for all, in a little blog comment.
And you obviously know this (as your comment shows).
Speaking for myself? I know one thing with crystal clear certainty: I hate self-censorship. I feel dirty when I do it. To me it is a form of dishonesty (to myself, and also to others, though the former is more important). Rusty and I were talking about this the other night and had a very good conversation… I wish I could remember everything I said. Anyway, the point is, I refuse to self-censor because someone, somewhere might have their precious sensibilities offended. I lived that way for too long and it took a huge toll on me, mentally, emotionally, and yes, physically. And I refuse to continue doing it.
I would like to write more about this topic at greater length, in a future blog post. When I do, I might disable comments. We shall see.
I don’t know what your last line is supposed to refer to - if it’s a thinly veiled, passive-aggressive way of saying you think this particular “battle” isn’t one worth fighting. If that’s what you think, you can come right out and say it; I won’t run off crying. If that’s not what you were referring to, then, well, my bad. Anyway, I do think this battle is well worth fighting; if you or anyone else disgrees, then I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. Other people can pick other battles that I might not care to fight, after all.
Point taken about my bad analogy, but I’m glad it added some interesting discussion (or maybe I should say “sorry for hijacking your thread” instead :)
Unfortunately I shall have to be a hit-and-run commentor (off to put the kiddies to bed).
Preach on. I could write a fucking book on this (couldn’t we all).
…Brings to mind how last weekend my mom told me she was concerned because I was being “caustic.” Apparently my emails of late have been difficult for my father and sister to read.
TOUGH. Two options - hear from me and know what my life is or don’t. I’m not re-writing my existence for other people’s comfort levels.
Sometimes life sucks. Sometimes people get pissed off. Some of us refuse to pretend that isn’t the case. You take the bad with the good and encounter it equally and fucking grow.
Okay. Stopping the blog usurpage.
I really agree 100% though - I feel dirty when I censor myself. I haven’t spent this much time working on figuring out who I am just to hide myself from the world.
:) Feel free to usurp all you want… until you start your own blog, that is!
Oh, hell, even if you do start your own blog, you can still come usurp mine! I welcome it!
And, I love this:
I think I will have to add it to my header quote rotation. (Notice how you and Niki make appearances there quite often?)
I’m not being passive-aggressive. When I want to be aggressive, I will be. Passivity is for totalitarians. Aggression is for lovers. My last comment is my way of thinking on the idea of “self-censorship”: reconciliation, harmony, or avoiding a dangerous fight are all worthy things people can pursue. Some people will never listen to your thoughts or opinions. Some people will be torn and humiliated by your thoughts and opinions. Some people will come after you because of your thoughts and opinions.
Discourse, for me, is about moving towards a community. To have that, sometimes, I need to chill out, myself.
Before, you had said you agreed with me concerning what white people need to do in order to learn. The very first thing is to stop talking, because we can’t hear each other when we’re both talking. I do not think that this silence is self-censorship, or should be taken to be dirty. I thought then and think now that we have problems in accepting our differences because we are busy busting ourselves trying to justify ourselves before others.
I don’t think you should stop talking and listen to, say, people who think only virgins should get married. It’s not my point here to defend anybody’s take on sex or virginity. I read the earlier comments on shyness and thought about it. They didn’t mesh with what I think about shyness. I expressed my thoughts.
These are not meant to attack your position or your original post when it comes to how people don’t want us to talk about sex. They are meant to say that I think we should not generally think that being silent is wrong. I agree with you that talking about sex does not always make all people horny and lustful. An honest conversation about sex will reduce the taboo to where people can freely admit things. But, I don’t think that means that just any old people can talk about sex. For one, to have an honest conversation, one needs trust or one needs courage. A conversation that becomes very objectifying or degrading of women I don’t think is the kind of conversation that produces in people healthy views about sex. And, I don’t think one should support these conversations on the basis that such people are being honest about themselves, even if they are being honest when they insult women.
So, for me, to be honest to myself, I won’t participate in those conversations.
I mean, you wrote that you would later talk in greater detail about your views on self-censorship, but you might close the comments for that. Why? My thought is that you don’t want to have to deal with misinterpretations, flimsy judgments, backhanded comments, &tc.—all the things you’d have to respond to. That means to me that you would not want to participate in that conversation, one going on behind your back (or else, it would not need to be blocked). You have said your thoughts and written what was on your mind, and now you will say no more on that subject, no matter what is being said elsewhere by others.
I don’t think that is self-censorship. I think saying, “Enough, good bye,” is liberating. But that means having to hold back and not express what is going on. And, so, that’s what I mean by “if they want to battle at all.” Closing the comments down means there is no battle, because, in the end, we already realize it won’t be worth all the self-expression.
I’m not asking you to tidy it all up, sum it all up, in comments, once and for all. I am not looking for definitions by which to nail. I like discussions. I also think that discussions can include the person who chooses to be silent and lurks, opting out, because they want to listen. I think, given what you had earlier said in the quoted portion about shy people coming into the conversation later, that this is something you’d agree with.
I think, really, we are not in too great a disagreement about principles. Just emphasis.
I do agree with you on that. And I don’t think that is self-censorship. I think it’s apples and oranges.
I’ll write more on this topic later, in a separate blog post.
More commenting later, too. Must fully wake up first.
Another way of looking at this would be, when you open things up to comments, you’re more prone to censor yourself. You’re looking to address the responses you know are coming before they even arrive.
I understand your point, but there’s definitely more than one motivating factor to consider.
Sometimes it’s not about a “battle” (which is a term that makes me uncomfortable), it’s about expression. There doesn’t always have to be give and take, sometimes people just need to express themselves and have an outlet, particularly one where they’ll be free from criticism or free from misunderstanding.
And, of course, if anyone is just dying to comment, there’s this li’l thang called email.
EXACTLY.
This goes hand-in-hand with the concept of “safe spaces” - e.g., safe spaces for women, people of color, LGBT folks, etc., just to name a few. Very important - and not about “shutting out” people who don’t fit the description. It’s usually, pretty much, het white males who come along all pomp and bluster, shouting “reverse discrimination” because they’re not allowed to play in the survivors of hate crimes safe space (for example). They play the freedom of speech card. They play the “free expression” card when grousing about how it’s so unfair that they can’t go around calling LGBT folks dirty, hellbound freaks. It’s their right, after all!
No. Just no. Such behavior screams “PRIVILEGE” so blatantly, than I wonder how the people who do it can keep a straight face. That is not about freedom of speech. It’s about checking your sense of entitlement, and realizing that not everything and everywhere must cater to YOU.
So how does this tie in to my blog, and whether or not I disable comments? Well, first and foremost, this blog is MY safe space. Yes, I often leave comments open, but that does NOT mean people are free to come and post whatever kind of annoying crap they want. If I invite someone over to my house and they take a dump on my living room floor, the “free expression” card does NOT fly. Same thing here. I disable comments because sometimes I just don’t feel like dealing with the bullshit. I don’t feel like moderating when jackasses vomit their entitlement all over my comments form. If something is soooo important to them, then they can find their own “safe space” to bloviate. I don’t owe them anything.
I’m so quoting from this post, Amber. Nicely put!
figleaf
These are very helpful comments. Thank you, muchly. I find myself without disagreement with what either of you wrote. I think we have different emphases, no doubt. Battle, above, is meant for that kind of conversation forestalled by not allowing the blog equivalent of dumping on the living room floor. Not for, say, the kind of discussion we’re having, but more of what Amber went through recently when she expressed her views on the politics of oral sex and discussions about oral sex.
Expressing one’s self in a safe space—something I myself engage in and encourage for those who stand to benefit from it—I am suggesting is one way of being apart from a certain kind of conversation, or removing one’s self from a certain kind of exchange. And, this removal is an option that reflects a sense of shy, where we don’t want to have to deal with shit on the floor we didn’t ask for.
To be clear, I’m not saying it’s bad or wrong to close comments, or bad or wrong to be shy, or bad or wrong to express one’s self in safe spaces. I’m saying that I think there are times where we are shy around others for good reasons.
But, as you said, Amber, self-censorship is appled to the orange of being silent. I think that is true, but sometimes, it’s not. I think I don’t understand how y’all use ‘censor’ in this context. I mean it as withholding one’s comments or thoughts or opinions. But, it seems, y’all mean something more particular. That is perhaps the source of our perceived disagreement.