OMG YES

This is so perfect I can hardly stand it:

I’m tangling hard with this notion of public persona. That for whatever reason, writing about sex gives some people the idea that you are available sexually to them (this is not new, this is something I’ve noticed a long time ago). But this being commonly understood as a consumable girl is hitting a breaking point for me. Does it mean I can’t flirt-for-real in public spaces without being perceived as buying into a role, without agreeing with that being pegged as The Sex Girl?

I was never that girl. I never played against my own intelligence to make men comfortable around me. I come on strong by being open, not teasing. I don’t look for strength in men’s eyes that way. As temporarily delightful as cocktail conversation may be — until our cabs come — I get my real and lasting courage from my own vulnerability. I can only trust my sense of worth to be safe with those unafraid to love me, not someone who finds me amusing five minutes at a time.

It kind of gives me déjà vu because it’s everything I’ve been thinking but, as usual, Melissa puts it into words so much better than I could hope to. (That sounds kind of assholish, doesn’t it? Argh…)

On Twitter I said: “This is what I would’ve talked about at BlogHer ATL” and “I’ll mention this at @blogorlando, too; I won’t have a prepared presentation but it’ll be a ‘talking point.’ We’ll see where *that* goes.”

I HATE it. I hate this stupid, asinine, absurd, insipid idea that if a woman writes about sex then she is The Sex Girl (as Melissa puts it). This pigeon-holing, it’s… well, there just aren’t enough adjectives for “ridiculous” to convey it!

I was never That Girl either - I wouldn’t even know how to be - and this is why, for instance, it makes me absolutely livid to see sex-positivity so COMPLETELY misrepresented by people who obviously have NO FUCKING CLUE what they are talking about. I’m staying out of blog wars with “radfems” for good - it’s just a waste of time - but occasionally I see them quoted on Ren’s blog or Caroline’s blog, prattling on about how “sex-pozzies” (yes, they really say that; can you believe it?) are all about pleasing men and the men love us because we do what they want and blah blah blah and I’m like, okay, this is the part where it is GLARINGLY obvious that you have absolutely NO GRASP of my life, my experience, my reality, and holy hell could your head possibly be FURTHER up your ass? I mean it’s kind of funny in a way, but it still just infuriates me. I cannot even convey to you how totally absurd it is.

Oh, and as for people assuming that because you write about sex, you obviously want to have sex WITH THEM - well, that’s nothing new, either. It’s as old as the hills and it, too, is a jaw-droppingly ridiculous depth of stupidity.

And, too, let’s revisit this.

4 Responses to "OMG YES"

  1. griftdrift says:

    Sex-pozzies?

    That sounds like something from a William Gibson novel.

  2. Amber says:

    I’m sayin’.

  3. Sara says:

    I was thinking Aldous Huxley, but yeah.

  4. Being Amber Rhea » Blog Archive » Online identity redux all over again says:

    [...] to a lot of people it is (I mentioned it here, and of course there’s always the whole sex thing with [...]

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>