Posts Tagged ‘sex’

Last year, at a wedding I attended, one of the conversations I participated in involved a straight woman asking a gay woman how much money it would take for her to sleep with a man.

Now, I’m not saying nobody should ever have such a conversation – as woman B said to me after woman A had left for a bit, she has had that conversation with her good friends, possibly more than once. But to ask that question completely out of the blue pretty much immediately finding out that a person does not want to make sexy times with any person of a particular gender? Really?

The conversation was not made any better by woman A’s exposition on prostitution (her word) sex work, and linking it to desperation and solely that, which came about when I pointed out that the question wasn’t really a test of sexuality, per se, as some people are quite happy to have sex with people they might not be particularly sexually attracted to, sometimes for money, and for others – assuming they are generally happy with their present material wealth, which woman B is, and that’s who she was asking – no sum would be sufficient. Funnily enough, different people feel differently about this, and it’s not necessarily about their sexuality (if sexuality is defined as what gender of persons one is attracted to).


Read Full Post »

DUFC logo

Welcome to the 18th Down Under Feminists’ Carnival! (And apologies for the delay.)

This Carnival has an optional caring theme, thanks to Australian Carers’ Week (which was October 18 to October 24). The theme for this year was “Anyone, Anytime, Across Australia”, which I modified to “Anyone, Anytime” for the purposes of the DUFC.

There wasn’t much sent in on theme, so I’ve expanded the DUFC rules just a little.


Read Full Post »

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 »

Now, I agree that the fact that “as many as four former priests and brothers and one lay teacher at St Stanislaus’ College, Bathurst” have been accused of sexual abuse – over decades – is a scandal.

I do not agree that it is a “sex” scandal.


Read Full Post »

Sex = sex?

According to a brief newspaper article, a survey has shown that “the best sex should last from seven to 13 minutes, and three minutes is adequate”.

The article then goes on to specify that this time limit is for penetrative sex, as you might guess from the times, and notes that women are usually happy enough for it to be shorter, while men want it to last longer. Reasonably predictable from stereotypes, right? Which, I’m guessing, is what sex experts generally use (I’d love to know how they defined “sex expert”, too!).

But my issue here is not with the survey (if I’d read the survey results, maybe I would take issue with that, too, but that’s not the point right now), but with the way it is reported.


Read Full Post »

For various reasons, I’ve been thinking about rape lately; about the specifics of what rape is, what needs to be proved in order to obtain a conviction, and how other parts of the law have had to be tortured in order to make up for law-makers’ (both judges and legislators) blind spots about what rape and sex are.

There are a couple of things that really bug me. One is related to our culture’s obsession with penis-in-vagina (PIV) sex, and how that’s the only sex which is really sex. In some ways, that should come first, but I’m going to leave it until later. Twisty’s recent post and a couple of cases I’ve been reading lately have really got me thinking about consent, so I need to have a bit of a rant about it.

First, I’ve got to admit that what I’m about to say has a fairly strong basis in Amanda’s comments about real consent. But that comes a bit later.

Cut for possible triggers…


Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: