lesbianism=abstinence

wilma wonka's picture

So I read this article in the New York Times Magazine about this club at Harvord of people who've taken vows of chastity. The woman who started it considered herself a feminest because she was trying to give women the strength to refuse to have sex with men. So...if abstinence is really about saying no to men, then lesbianism is the way to go. How can men take advantage of you while fucking you if you're fucking women? YIPEE!!!

But seriously, if we (women) want equality/respect from men, shouldn't we ask for it everywhere, including (perhaps especialy) in the bedroom, instead of avoiding the places where we're disrespected.

Regardless, it was an interesting viewpiont, even if I disagree with it.

Comments

jeff's picture

Hmm...

Abstinence is all the rage, these days. It is the only way to get any funding for certain programs if you go through the government. Even all the money pledged to fight AIDS in Africa has to include a lot of education about abstinence, in a society where HIV is most often spread through rape? Good plan there, just say no... which, you'd probably be doing anyway during rape.

The upside for teenaged boys is girls who take abstinence pledges in high school are more likely to give you oral, and as your relationship progresses, when you'd normally get to hit your home run, you still will, only a few inches lower. Yes, it seems, the Republicans have created a whole generation of apple-cheeked girls who now say, "I'm saving myself for marriage.... fuck me in the ass," to quote Bill Maher. The abstinence group also had a higher STD rate, if I recall properly. Which makes sense, because abstinence is making you think about not having sex. If you think about not having sex, you want sex. Whereas if you just let it alone, I think there would be less sex in general.

I know when I diet, if I focus on the fact that I'm not supposed to have a cookie, well, it becomes quite the battle not to have cookies. But, when I'm not dieting, I rarely eat cookies. Refusing to have it is what makes it desired.

If feminists refuse to have sex with men, won't men just go fuck other girls? Unless you get every woman on board, it seems to be a bad plan to me. I also think it makes sense it would exist in the world of academia where people are more likely to live in their heads, to the point where sexual release would be more likely to come with a patriarchal subtext pre-installed rather than more primal responses like, say, female pleasure. (Again, more of a case for lesbianism there than straight guys, from what I understand. Not sure, I haven't slept with enough straight guys... yet).

I mean, sure, women who have sex with men for validation, to get ahead, or other bad reasons, sure... teach them to own up to their truth and such, but this seems a bad prescription for the general populace.

---

"Be like a postage stamp. Stick to one thing until you get there." -- Josh Billings.

Add me on MySpace!

Lol-taire's picture

No, it's a stupid veiwpoint

No, it's a stupid veiwpoint (and I know it's not yours).

It's ridiculous to suggest that by having sex with a man regardless of context or mutual desire a woman is being taken advantage of.
The implication is that for women sex is at best submission, at worst capitulation.
Women like having sex with men. I mean, I don't, but I have it on good authority that having sex with men is a very popular passtime.

Anyway, it's old hat this arguement. Like this is proper Second Wave debate.

Women's 'strength' has traditionally been their abilty to say no to male desire, see courtly love: the value of the virgin, the Belle Dame sans merci, or Richardson's virtuous Pamela. Power is giving or withholding (or giving them withholding or withholding then giving) their affections.
It's literally the oldest trick in the book.
Jesus, like the entire premise of the Lysistrata is that the women will withhold sex to blackmail the menfolk into ending the war.

The only real variation is how capable of abstinance women were considered able to be. Century to century we're either nymphos or nuns. Occasionally both.

And why has this been the case for so many centuries? Because women were only good for one thing.

If she wants real power, this girl, she should clearly be using her expensive, elite education to gain a diamond hard mind and not lean back on the hoary old 'a woman's power is her body'. It's so exhausting.