dani ([info]_allecto_) wrote,

sex/intercourse/rape

This was rape because it was not sex. Sex is beautiful, messy, lusty, loud, funny, mutual, consensual, interactive, intimate, unselfish, caring and conscientious. Sex is not some guy acting his sexual fantasy upon a prone, female body.

I was uncomfortable with this paragraph even as I wrote it. Simply because it isn’t true. Or rather it is true but it isn’t. After reading Intercourse I have a fuller understanding of how to say what it is that I was trying to say. Although Andrea says it much better than I do.

Under patriarchy, rape and sex are not discrete either as concepts or as acts. Simply put, male dominance means that sex is some guy acting his sexual fantasy upon the prone body of a woman. That is exactly what fucking is. That is exactly what sex is. What I was trying to describe as sex is not sex simply because sex is male dominance is intercourse is rapist.

Whereas radical feminist lesbian physical/emotional/erotic/loving intimacy is radically Other than sex/rape/intercourse. What I found in the arms of a woman that I loved has nothing to do with what the patriarchy holds up as its model for sexuality. It cannot really call it sex because it isn’t. Physical intimacy of a radically feminist nature cannot be divorced from love, trust, emotional intimacy, care, touch, sensuality, beauty, honesty, mutuality and interaction. Objectification can have no place in, and is completely alien to, Women-Loving, Women-Touching women.

The idea of consent even, has no place in the concept of physical intimacy as a loving, emotional interaction. Yesterday, I was tickling the child that I am nannying. She was giggling and laughing her head off. Then she stopped laughing and turned away. I stopped tickling her. While I am tickling her and she enjoys the interaction, I too experience pleasure. She is giving me clear signals of her enjoyment and I laugh with her. When she turns away and no longer wants the interaction it is pointless to continue to tickle her, I get no pleasure from doing so.

I see erotic interaction in much the same way. My lover (hypothetical lover at the moment as my partner and I broke up earlier this year) and I can come together to enjoy each other through a physical and emotional interaction. If she or I do not, for whatever reason, feel like continuing and we turn away, we must be able to trust each other, and recognise within each other a fully conscious human being, capable of making discrete choices about ourselves and our bodies, that are inviolable. As such, that trust must also be inviolable. We must know that breaking that trust would bring us no pleasure and would ultimately destroy both of us.

I am not so idealistic to believe that all lesbian relationships are modeled on this principle, nor am I so cynical to believe that no men are capable of interacting with women as human beings. I have been objectified by women before and I have met men who are capable of respecting women as discrete, inviolable individuals. This doesn’t mean that fucking isn’t an act of male dominance it just means that lesbianism as an act of political resistance has been co-opted and controlled by the ‘queer’ malestream and that men are not biologically programmed for rape and conquest, they just use that as an excuse.

Translation: it is not because my lover is a woman that means that intimacy between us is not fucking/intercourse/rape. It is because our relations are radically Other than fucking/intercourse/sex/rape.

After reading Intercourse I just cannot see how any woman could disagree with Andrea’s contention. Everything she says is so lucid and honest. It’s like she has the only mirror in the world that is able to reflect the world perfectly and then she has found a way to verbalise that truth even in a language that is not women’s native language. We still speak in our father’s tongue.

I really get her contention in Mercy that women cannot really tell how bad it is and how bad it can get, just being a woman. About how the smallest mercy that god gives us is the erasure of those worst moments, the erasure of our memories. How difficult it is to describe the horror because so much of it is forgotten, and we are grateful.

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    Your reply will be screened

  • 9 comments

[info]dis_senter

July 13 2007, 12:39:14 UTC 4 years ago

I completely agree that 'sex' is not a feminist-friendly word, and that in the context of patriarchy, it does implictly mean intercourse/rape/fucking. I think, as you demonstate, it's also the issue of compartmentalisation. Under patriarchy 'sex' is defined as a genital relation that's isolated from other kinds of intimacy.

And your writing is always getting better - keep reading the rad fems!

[info]_allecto_

July 13 2007, 23:18:13 UTC 4 years ago

thanks!! I'm really enjoying writng at the moment and reading. Thanks for encouraging my writing it really helps. :)

Under patriarchy 'sex' is defined as a genital relation that's isolated from other kinds of intimacy.

Yes, and this is incredibly dangerous to women. It means that we often feel raped even if we have actively consented. Often we don't even know what it is that we are consenting to because we have such a different idea of intimacy.

[info]she_evolves

July 14 2007, 10:35:49 UTC 4 years ago

Thank you for this entry.

What is your view, in general, of the current binary of "nature" vs. "nurture" over the sexuality debate, considering the fact that you acknowledge lesbianism as a possible act of political resistance [as I do]?

[info]_allecto_

July 15 2007, 08:37:45 UTC 4 years ago

I agree with Sonia Johnson who says in Going Out of Our Minds "I was born sexual". I was born sexual. Not straight or gay or bisexual. Just sexual. I think it is incredibly important to analyse our sexuality as being conditioned. And I personally believe that nuture far outweighs nature in regards to sexuality (and in regards to most other things also). And yay for other young lesbians who see lesbianism as a political act of resistance rather than a lifestyle choice. For me lesbianism is a political act, one that radically changed my view of what being sexual meant and also what being a woman meant. So, in my ideal society, we are all born sexual. We are taught not to divorce physical intimacy from love and we do not derive pleasure from pain (our own or each other's). We are taught to see all other peoples as fully human with inaliable rights and that being sexual with someone must involve a high degree of trust and love.

So I guess my biggest issue isn't necessarily which body type you are attracted to, but more what does it mean that we are conditioned into body-type attraction. Surely sexuality and emotional intimacy are about far more than what style of flesh houses our consciousness. As I said in this post we need a new model of sexuality. I personally advocate lesbian feminism as that model and I think that everyone, gay and straight, male and female, could learn much about themselves and their sexual conditioning if they read writings by lesbian feminists on sexual interaction and intimacy.

If the whole of our society, its violence, poverty, environmental degradation, if all of it is modeled upon the act of intercourse, that supremely physical act of male dominance, as I believe it is, then we have an obligation to destabilise that notion by asserting that patriarchy's gendered conditioning of sexuality is anti-thetical to peace, love and harmony. I believe the nature idea of sexuality is the biggest patriarchal lie.

[info]johanna_bobanna

August 5 2007, 21:54:25 UTC 4 years ago

For a moment I am stunned

That was seriously brilliant, Allecto.

[info]_allecto_

August 8 2007, 13:47:47 UTC 4 years ago

Re: For a moment I am stunned

Thanks again. :)

[info]demonista

August 10 2007, 00:22:58 UTC 4 years ago

I'm feeling proud of myself because I caught up on your journal from the end of April. But it was a joy to read, and I think you're a brilliant writer, an amazing feminist, and I feel like resurrecting a saying I've not said for probably two years: ALLECTO FOR A RULER OF THE WORLD (because prime minister (that's what Australia has, right?) isn't sufficient for such a wonderful, intelligent person). Lastly, even on things we (usually, used to) differ on, I find myself saying "But she's right!"

[info]_allecto_

August 10 2007, 22:10:12 UTC 4 years ago

Oh, [info]demonista thank you. I've really missed reading your journal and responding to your intelligent comments and insight. And um as for ruler of the world I think that I'll leave that job to someone a little more organised. ;) I think Heart from women's space is better suited.

I don't think our politics differ all that much. We are both women-centred and that's what really counts. I'm privileged to have you as a sister.

[info]demonista

August 13 2007, 21:28:59 UTC 4 years ago

Your welcome and thank you back! (smiles lots at the compliments) I've not been writing much, 'cept for my Nicky/Richey from the Manic Street Preachers slash stories, and once in a blue moon updates. My latest entry is about my new apartment (moving at end of this month and I'm kicking meself in the bum for leasing it), how Nicky makes me feel like a lesbian (if it doesn't make sense in my journal entry, it still makes sense in my head), and asked for feedback on the last part of my story, because I did something in it that some radfems wouldn't agree with, but I think I did it radical feministly, and it wasn't meant to disrespect lesbian/radical feminist politics.
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…