Women Want Their Sexuality Back -- Now. And Opening Marriage Just Might Help.
Last night I heard the fearless Jessica Valenti, the author of Full Frontal Feminism and the founder of feministing.com, speak at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. I was both elated and devastated. The thing is, Valenti is eight years my junior and is still battling the same sexism that I did. It's funny, I remember when I was in college and going to feminist rallies or lobbying for pro-choice, my mother would say how she was proud of me for fighting for a better world and sad for me that her own protesting had not brought forth the kind of world she had hoped for for me.
Don't get me wrong. I'm thrilled that Valenti is out there fighting the good fight. I'm just baffled at how as much as things have changed so many things have stayed painfully the same. We're still fighting for the right to control our own bodies. We're still fighting for equal pay. We're still struggling for the most basic sense of equality in terms of worth and ability. But what really struck a chord with me last night was when Valenti spoke about the battle over women's rights over their own sexuality and how we're still frighteningly far away from owning those.
There are the purity balls attempting to convince young women that their value lies between their legs and that that commodity belongs to daddy until a suitable man comes along to whom its ownership can be transferred. There is abstinence-only education that fills young women's heads with lies leaving them more likely than those given true sex education to end up having oral and anal sex and contracting STDs. And, of course, they also reiterate to girls that their value is their virginity. Lose that and you have nothing left to offer. Then there are the lovely advertising campaigns that tell woman all the things they must do and buy to be sexually attractive else they find themselves -- horror of all horros! -- without a man.
I can't help but marvel at how much this battle over female sexuality and the refusal to allow women to own it themselves so directly affects the way people look at me. As a bi-sexual, polyamorous, married woman, I epitomize a woman who demands control over her own sexuality. That terrifies people. And rightly so. Once we girls refuse to think of ourselves as nothing more than receptacles for the male sex organ, then we are free to spend less time tossing our hair and more time tossing out the trash who are serving in office, making the laws, presiding over the bench, and generally perpetuating the myth of woman as helpless toy.
What some people fail to understand though is that women having control over their own sexuality (let alone their bodies and their minds and their lives) benefits everyone because those women have the opportunity to be whole women. And no self-respecting man should want anything less. No more guessing what she's thinking or what she wants. No more living with someone who has become so programmed to ignore her own desires that she doesn't even remember what they were. No more wishing you had an equal but pretending you wanted Barbie.
I used to be upset by the people who called me a whore and said they pitied my husband. "Who are you to think you deserve to be happy?" their comments seemed to say. "How dare you want to be fulfilled sexually? You're just a woman," I heard them whispering between the lines. But now I simply pity them. Sexuality has gotten a bad rap. It's great in the movies and in the glossy magazines, but when it comes to real life, it's supposed to be ignored for "higher" pursuits. Well, hell with that. My sexuality is part of me and it is no more nor less of a part than anything else.
Men who want to rule the playground are right to be frightened of women like me. They are right to be concerned that the balance of power might shift to the center and away from their boy's club. As long as woman can be made to feel badly about their sexuality, so too can they be distracted from the larger issues. But I have hope that those days are numbered.
Valenti and the many other young women like her are fighting for that change. And so am I. For as far as I'm concerned, redefining marriage and validating relationships outside of heterosexual, monogamous marriages is one of the many ways we can work toward returning a woman's sexuality to its rightful owner. And, trust me, she wants it back.
Jenny Block
Author of Open: Love, Sex, and Life in an Open Marriage
www.jennyonthepage.com
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Gender identity and role assignment may be initially ruled by society standards, but we are ultimately responsible for what values we hold and what actions we do. Consider the strength and determination of women like Anais Nin and Louis Bryant who openly explored their sexuality in the early twenties.
The only battle is in our struggle to define ourselves against society. Unfortunately sexuality is one of those pesky things that can't fall into standards of social value. The discussion can't be between men and women, but rather people.
Consider how many married wives have a problem with husbands who like to spend nights with Steve or Marcy who used to be Mike.
The answer lies in breaking stereotypes and not falling victim to the perceptions of others. You have to be the woman that you want to be, not the woman that you believe everyone else wants you to be. Educate your daughters EARLY that the world can be an unkind place to those without penises who don't pursue a quality education or aspire to shatter the limits of the glass ceiling. You can be attractive and, yes, even sexy, but still command and require respect from those whom you take into your confidence and your bedroom. There are worse things to be than alone and worse things to be called than a bitch, so fight the overwhelming pressure to fall in line with the status quo. You may have to sacrifice a few things to achieve your long-term objectives, but what worthwhile pursuit isn't worth it? All men are not created evil, but we recognize that there are more than a few that are. Don't be ashamed of enjoying and pursuing sex as a man does, and don't apologize or feel guilty for it. On that same token, recognize that biology happens, and remember that if he's not good enough for the next nineteen years, then he's not good enough for the next four hours. There are men out there that have woken up...we're all just waiting for women to learn to be more patient.
The battle will take centuries rather than decades. Men will not quickly give up the power to frighten women and weaken their sense of self esteem. As women slowly take the running of sciety over via higher education and control of corporate America, they will come to understand the intoxicating effects of the use and abuse of power.
In essence, it should happen more quickly because America is headed towards becoming a 3rd world country with feudal system that is being pushed by the GOP's oligarchy. If the GOP ever manages to get power again, no one without millions of dollars in hand will have any rights.
Hurry up women, get better educated and take over. Stop the slide to mediocrity that right wing males seek to impose on this country.
Sheeesh! I'm glad that I'm more on the asexual end of the continuum, I never have to think about all of this stuff. My b/f has a very low libido so we are happy and perfect for one another!
Open marriage doesn't work. Moderation in everything. Too much freedom is as bad as too little freedom. Cheating on your spouse shouldn't be encouraged with such fancy titles as Open Marriage.
I read the New York Times article last week on the Harvard student who is crusading for virginity at Harvard. In the article, and it this one, it strikes me that talk about women being sexual is only done in two ways "sleeping around like a man" (what ever that means) and "virgin." What about I bit more explicit: I have sex when I want with who I want. And that includes not having sex, and having sex now with him and her.
Also, IMO, buying into marriage at all does weaken your position a bit. (Or just bring it up.) While I'm all for redefining the institution, I feel trying to is a bit like the "feminist" women who want to fight for their right to stay home and take care of children (call it park slope syndrome). Ever your right, but too many women are buying into it for it to be just "personal choice" and not something they were taught to want.
(One should also note that any committed relationship we get into restricts our freedom. There are then more feelings to take into consideration. And the more committed relationships I have the more people I need to check in with before I do something. Like see a movie one of my lovers or my mother or my best friend might have wanted to see with me. Stop thinking I'm only talking about sex and romance...
So raising kids and getting married is bad? I thought the whole movement was about equal footing/rights, and the ability to choose as we will, not put each other down based on the choices we make. I see your point about Park Slipe syndrome, but who the hell cares? It's their choice. Bully for them. Worry about YOU.
Eloquently written, poorly argued, you come off a bit bigoted, and I'll risk a guess and suppose that you're a first-waver.
I'm married, a mom, and an engineer and artist. I was unaware anyone demanded I "check in" with them? Your definition of freedom seems to evoke a world without ties or responsibility. A bit childish, we all have responsibilities, along your logic, we should stop having sex as the responsibility to use birth control and choose to say no or yes impedes our freedoms. And my cell phone contract, don't get me STARTED on how many freedoms that impedes.
I wasn't aware that women had ever lost their sexuality.
As for advocating open marriage, why bother? Why not just stay single?
To be honest, I don't understand this whole argument about open marriage. I think that people who feel the need should spread their wild oats, preferably before they get married. If and when people feel like it, they should get married. In general, I feel that marriage is for the purpose of raising children.
There is something to be said for keeping each other company, as well. I don't know anyone who likes to be alone all of the time.
I'm 37, and I've been married for almost 17 years. We have 2 sons, 12 and 15 yrs of age.
If you stay married long enough, hopefully you come to respect the humanity of your partner. Over many years, people are bound to be sexually aroused within and outside their marriages. Staying in a lifetime commitment means dealing with this issue, in one way or the other.
Learning to embrace your spouse's life journey, and to empower your own, while respecting each other as individuals AND as parts of a greater whole - the family - is my idea of an open marriage. Conflicts have certainly come up in my marriage, but I'm glad we stuck it out. In the midst of one, I told my spouse, "This is OUR marriage, it can be anything WE decide it will be."
I suspect that almost any marriage that lasts is an "open marriage" of one sort or the other. In the best marriages both spouses are respected, and treated with dignity and honesty. I think this is a rarity, but I work to do my part.
Perhaps more marriages would last if we embraced a more open attitude?
I think that there's definitely a skewed view here. I mean, this post, for all its promises of "reading between the lines" when they hearing what other people say seems pretty oblivious to its own undercurrent.
Opening marriages wins back a woman's sexuality? Is there some gender-based factor that makes monogamy harder on women then men? That increases its cost? That generates some form on inequality that I haven't understood because my Y-chrom gets in the way?
A real marriage isn't about ownership, it's about sharing - and my wife and I share ourselves with each other - equally, passionately, powerfully. And yet, this post seems to indicate that somehow, this is diminishing my wife, that I'm somehow "holding her back".
I understand, Jenny, that you're a bisexual. I understand that you feel trapped - but insisting that everyone live up to the lifestyle that you want and see as "correct" is just as sexist, just as controlling and trapping as the very things you're rallying against.
A woman should feel free to choose the life that she wants - and if that life is a monogamous one, then who are you to judge them -- or the partner that she has chosen?
As I mentioned to another commenter below, I am all about choice for women. I am all about choice for men too, for the matter. Traditionally, marriage has been all about men. I am delighted for both you and your wife that you have an equal partnership. But marriage was "invented" for business purposes and ultimately meant that men could own women - and their property. It wasn't until very recently that marital rape was even considered a crime. And there are women today who still remain in marriages because they fear they are worthless without their husbands or won't be able to support themselves because of discrimination and the wage gap. And they figure their sexuality isn't important enough for them to fight for. All I'm suggesting is that putting open marriage on the table of options levels the playing field for everyone. It is all about choice. But right now, it doesn't feel like there are many. In an open marriage it's not a matter of a woman "winning back" her sexuality, it's a matter of her honoring it. Of her living her own truth and not the one Disney and the far right have crafted for her.
And yet the language you use when describing that choice - indicating that it may be some sort of fiction crafted for her by people seeking to oppress her - seems in so many ways counter to the freedoms that you're describing. Marital rape, as an example, may not have been a crime, and I'm sure that the statistics for such a thing are probably sobering, disturbing, and painful to look at - and yet, it seems (to me) to be remarkably short-sighted or closed-minded to use a minority of cases to condemn the majority. You're painting with pretty broad strokes, seeing or arguing for links which may have existed in the past, and may even still exist in some people, and arguing towards these being some sort of "norm". Even the language that you're using: "living her own truth and not the one Disney and the far right have crafted for her" - as an example, indicates what you view of marriage, as a whole is. And so, I think it's unfair. It's unfair to modern men, most of whom are not the neanderthals who seek to oppress women that you describe (possibly because so many of us were raised by single mothers), and I think it's unfair to modern women, who may want to explore the depths and heights that a well-formed, exclusive romantic pair bond can give you.
"As a bi-sexual, polyamorous, married woman,"
Oh puh-lease. You’re not some ultra-empowered female. You’re the flavor of the month. Bi-sexuality is the in thing lady. You are no different than the girls who lift their shirts at a camera or kiss each other in clubs. You are solidly, soundly typical.
I’d pity your husband too, having to live with someone who has so completely swallowed the pabulum society feeds us. You tried to be different, and chose the most conventional way to do it. What’s next, a tattoo on the small of your back? That’ll show daddy!
Ultimately you are as common, and typical as those you rail against. Different? You and about 20 million others.
Rebellion: NOT achieved.
While I don't think any-sexual makes for inherent liberation, who the hell are you to question someone's self-determination and identity.
Internet coward.
You completely missed the point of her post.
Did you just need to vent about something?
You're not clever.
So tell me what was the point you talk about?
I think I agree with Badbone!
You, not so much.
I hope no women are waiting around for the world to change to suit them. It won't happen. They need to make their own world. Take the power, it won't be offered, you must take it. Don't ask for permission. Just do it.
HuffPost's Pick
a quote from "Being Perfect"-Anna Quindlen
"...Set aside the old traditional notion of femal as nurterer and male as leader; set aside too, the new traditional notion of female as superwoman and male as oppressor.
Begin with the most frightening of all things, a clean slate. And then look, every day at the choices you are making, and when you ask yourself why you are making them, find this answer; because they are what I want, or wish for. Because they reflect who and what I am.
This is the hard work of life in the world, to acknowledge w/in yourself the introvert, the clown, the artist, the homebody, the goofball, the thinker.
Look inside.
that way lies dancing to the melodies spun by your own heart.
It would seem this is the perfect moment in history to live with imperfecti
This is beautiful. I adore Anna Quindlan and this quote could not be any more perfect. Thank you.
It would sure help us all alot to have a woman president.
While I think this is a very pretty idea ideally, I can't agree with it in a practical sense. I'm not sure it does anything in the real world, where by the time you are old enough to really consider yourself and your social/gendered role in a concious manner you've been inculcated to think a certain way. It is very much like Brave New World. We have been whispered to that we should be glad not to have to work as hard as the Alphas our whole life and it has become part of our self understanding. That can't just be put aside or thought around in a rational manner. After all, aren't the gilded prisons the hardest ones to escape from?
I am in a very loving relationship with a woman who grew up with the free expression of her sexuality.
My wife earns more then I do (I am very successful at my job) she is respected at her office. Is comfortable with her expression as a woman.
Our relationship choice is the Promise of being monogamous, not as a factor of limitation to control her place in the relationship, but based on our belief that union in our relationship cannot be achieved without giving of ourselves only to the other. This is where I disagree with the blog. It’s the black and white mentality that is no different then the crazy religious people.
I have yet to see a long term success of any marriage that is open. How can you expect to rail against those families that are getting chastity vows from their children (not just the girls but the boys also) when your approach to relationship comes from such an exact opposite perspective?
I am not defending the purity balls and vows given by daughters to their fathers (encouraged by their mothers) I think the other extreme that the religious Christians inhabit is so entrenched in strange psychosexu
All sides inhabit and unhealthy extreme.
At the end of the day Jenny, are you really happy?
I am happy. Very. And, please don't misunderstand. I fully respect the choice to be monogamous. I just don't see it as the only way or the best way or the way that should be revered above all else. I see it as one way among many. Unfortunately, many marriages, quite unlike the one it sounds like you're in, are not based on choice, but instead on convention. That is what I protest -the following of the lemmings simply because they are out in front...
Jenny, let me be honest. I do not understand a desire to be anything other than monogamous in a marriage that includes children. Do you practice such a marriage? Or is it that you practice a relationship that is not exclusive, sexually, but without children?
I confess, I have never known anyone who has tried to raise children in a marriage that does not have as one of its conditions exclusivity, at least in theory.
Jenny, as one who supports full personal empowerment for all people, perhaps you could fire a shot, for me, across the bow of The Huffington Post. As one who celebrates sexuality in all its technicolor forms, I am disturbed when I begin to see a formerly serious internet publication like this one begin to pander and solicit with images best left to the London Page Three style publications. The continued reinforcement of this pavlovian response to sex that diminishes its real power and degrades the conversation about Rights and who has them, has the same effect of disempowerment as calling Blacks "boy" or Women "girls." How can anyone take the issue seriously if it is made into a topic for derision or locker room ogling that we all should have grown out of by now?
And, to be clear, I think that sex is the best thing that we've got going as humans; what ever's second doesn't even make it a contest. But seriously, if you want to rob a thing of its power and diminish its political importance in our already repressed national dialogue, such as it is once the smirking and blushing is removed, then the easiest way to do that is to continue to bombard people with images that objectify rather than ideas that educate.
Here. Here. I shall do my best!
Jenny, thanks. And just today--is this really necessary?
http://www
"I eat lunch once a week with he and his classmates at his school."
This is not correct English. And yet you hear this kind of thing from new anchors and other people in the media all the time. Even on the front page of the L.A. Times. And even in the movies. The script readers just let it pass.
I guess people think it sounds more refined to say "He recently phoned my wife and I". Im beginning to hear this kind of thing more and more.
i know. i went to a land grant college. Language was taught descriptively rather than prescriptively. I'm also exhausted and didn't bother to read any of it before sending. I know I don't go eat lunch with he. Thank you Mr. Language Person. Me will try do more better next time.
All through school I was told "It is 'Jane and I'".
No one ever pointed out the times when "me and Jane" was the correct way to phrase it.
From this I learned that I'll get yelled at for not saying "Jane and I".
How many times do you have to get yelled at to stop doing something?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
