Posts Tagged ‘men’

At least for men, and that’s who counts, right? Right?

At least, that’s what the SMH’s article today about the cure for prostate cancer causing impotence would have you believe.

Even if that were the case, there are so many things wrong with that concept. It implies that sex is necessary for men – and that maybe a life without sex wouldn’t be worth living (for a man). This disappears the experience of asexual men, men who are celibate but not asexual, men who cannot physically have the kind of sex the article is implicitly talking about (including many trans men and some men with disabilities), and probably others I’m not thinking about off the top of my head. In other words, the article has a clear implicit definition of “man” as “someone with a penis which works in the usual way, and who likes to use it for penetrative sex”.

The article also implies that this dilemma would only be a problem for men, which makes women invisible as sexual beings (or entirely).

The statement also appears to centre penetrative sex (and probably PIV at that) as “real sex” – everything else is, presumably, “not sex”.

And probably more. I’m writing this on the fly.

All of that would be so if the man who is the subject of the article, couldn’t actually have sex (as implicitly defined). (more…)

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: