In my daily tasks of procrastination to avoid PhD-ing, I
found a thought-provoking article on The Age website.[1]
The article was concerned with a recent Men’s Health, in conjunction with
Yahoo!7, series of, um, ‘sexual suggestions,’ from six apparent
(curiously, female, although the context of their arguments are never entirely clear) (s)experts in the field. The point of these hints and tips is laid
bare in its title: 15 Ways To Turn a Good
Girl Bad[2]—not
as in naughty, but as in naughty.
Needless to say, The Age analysis
of this piece falls very much on the ‘are-you-fucking-serious?’ side of things,
and probes the pertinent question about the obsession with the idea of the ‘bad
girl’: the stereotypical saucy, uninhibited minx, always on the verge of a quivering
overt sexual desire, which ostensibly resides in the dark, repressed recesses
of every woman, waiting to be unleashed. Essentially, the Men’s Health article
argues that it is man who has ultimate control over a woman’s sexuality, that
it is his right to lay claim to it, and gives guidance into how this sexuality
can be provoked into a series of actions that, far from being mutually
beneficial, favour the sexualised ideal of the man and, thus, his desire and personal gratification over that of the woman.
In this sense of elevating the
male above the female in matters of the bedroom (or wherever suits …), 15 Ways To Turn a Good Girl Bad really
does open itself up to criticism. There is something enormously problematic
about thinking a man is able to, through various means of subterfuge and weird
mind games, with a decidedly physical notion of ownership, control the way ‘his’
woman behaves and, more importantly, how she should behave; that this
mysterious sexual beast under the skin of every woman just needs the right kind
of ‘encouragement’ to be set loose. In this paradigm, he comes first (pun sort of intended).
Yet, what should be really obvious
in our day and age is that women are not a pet to be unconsciously conditioned
through what mostly amounts to positive and negative reinforcement. And I don’t
believe I actually have to write that down. Men are in no way entitled to the
sexuality of women. And in no way can it be trained to do his horny bidding.
Let’s have look at some of its
suspect ‘advice’ shall we?
- The by-line reads: “Six
sexperts suggest 15 ways to make her great in bed (without her even
noticing)”
Um, 'without her even noticing'? That seems like rape. Or, at least, a really messed up mythical mind control. But if she is not party to the action of sex—any action—that’s mostly rape. - On oral sex: “‘If she’s
going down on you, take her hand and show her how to use as she sucks you,’
advises Allison. ‘Many women think it’s all about the mouth, not
realising how much easier—not to mention quicker—the whole ‘job’ can be
using hands as well.’”
Because the man getting off, and getting off quickly, is the most important part of any act of intimacy (this is a consistent theme in the article). Plus, he’s totally doing her a favour by making it all a little ‘easier,’ and, therefore, presumably bearable. - On matters of vaginal
tightness: “If her tunnel of love doesn’t feel as snug as you’d like, sign
her up for a pilates course.”
Firstly, in an article that has already overtly discussed ‘sucking off,’ I find the innuendo of ‘tunnel of love’ slightly peculiar—why try to sugar coat it? The feeling is that the female anatomy is yucky and needs ‘beautifying’ so that it is boiled down to amount to little more than its sexual role—much as the hypothetical woman in this article is.
Secondly, really? She doesn’t get a say in pilates? The man just ‘signs her up,’ unbidden, because he isn’t getting the ideal amount of ‘snugness’? That strikes me as insulting on multiple levels. ‘I’ve signed you up for pilates.’ ‘Why?’ ‘I’m, um, worried about your core strength.’ ‘Why?’ ‘I just think it can be, you know, tighter, I mean, stronger.’ Ultimately, man doesn’t get a say in how woman decides to treat, or live in, her body. - On the man wearing a
blindfold: “If you want to see her complete transformation from
mild-mannered to minx, stop watching.”
The notion is that a woman is more likely to be ‘naughty’ if she is free from the gaze of male appraisal. Because nothing says, ‘I think you’re sexy,’ more than ‘I don’t want to look at you while we fuck with eyes full of judgement.’ Great self-esteem lifter that one. - On withholding sex: “‘Sometimes
women become sexually defensive or shy, because their partner is always
there first, asking or angling for some action,’ according to relationship
counsellor Paula Hall. ‘Stop asking and you may find her sexual appetite
gets the better of her, revealing a hunger that brings out her more
confident side.’”
Well, this is just plain no fun for anyone. It’s emotionally manipulative (as The Age article notes) and, frankly, kind of cruel, leading to an assumption that confidence can come out of an adopted disinterest, which I would think is more likely to do harm to any sense of ‘confidence’ than good. Yep, all that hunger needs is more starvation! - Using toys to “Make it
easy on yourself”: “‘Getting her to the level of orgasm can be a hard
slog,’ admits Spurr. So stage your own industrial revolution and bring
some machinery to bed.”
This reinforces the notion that her pleasure is a task, where a man’s is a right. And if it’s all ‘too difficult’—a ‘hard slog’—best turn to toys, not cause they might be fun or different or whatever rocks your proverbial boat in the waterbed, but because they are a convenient way to get her out of the way so the man can round the bend and quickly be tended to himself. Sex, in its way, should be easy. A means to take the mind away from other matters to narrow the focus onto intimacy. But to make this ease singular—‘easy on yourself’—misses the entire point of the, you know, coupling process. - (there is then two final bits of advice sorted under the heading ‘==if she’s lazy …’ because,
clearly, a woman who doesn’t want to have sex is just being lackadaisical;
it has nothing to do with her immediate feelings or desires, which means she can easily be tricked or persuaded into being less 'lazy')
- “Give her a break”
Not because she’s tired, or sated, or had her fun, but because the quicker she rests, the quicker he can return to the important mission of getting off himself. Be careful, then, the article advises, of abiding to the principle of ‘ladies first,’ less the man is robbed of his orgasm.
“In the past few decades, women have learnt that orgasms, like voting and equal pay, are their right,’ says Spurr.
We can all be grateful that at least this article is aiming to amend that particular fallacy. Next, we’ll strike down voting and equal pay rights! Men will have their rightful place at the top.
“[The] tide of female emancipation has led to a ‘princess-and-the-pea syndrome’—her ‘pea’ gets all the attention, while everything else gets sidelined … Stand up for your rights, man!”
Again with the innuendo! It’s called a ‘clitoris.’ And who the hell suddenly proclaimed that sex has become solely the domain of the clit anyway? Even then, so what if it gets attention? I hardly think that that puts everything else on the ‘sidelines,’ as if it is suddenly isolated from the rest of the sexual act, sitting somewhere up in the bleachers getting crudely groped by the cool kid while the rest of relevant anatomy and feelings sit uncomfortably off to the side muttering, ‘well, what a greedy slut.’ And this is what this piece of ‘advice,’ and the article in general amounts to: slut shaming. It is loudly protesting against women who dare to control their sexuality; a sexuality, the article argues, which is rightfully the domain of men to do with as they please and spur into action according their own personal whims and fantasies. It presupposes that the woman’s fair right for an orgasm is selfish; that men need to firmly realign sex so that they are back on top (pun intended) and that if they so choose to hand out an orgasm—as if it is a fucking Christmas present—the woman should be grateful. Women, though, are not tools of male sexual gratification. And, again, I don’t believe I actually have to write that down. The act itself of sex, whether it be a one-night stand or something more serious, should be a matter of two people physically, sometimes emotionally, engaging each other for mutual satisfaction. This is idealistic, sure, but also makes the firm point that it is not just men who enjoy the act, and never men who get to control the terms of the act. This is what 15 Ways To Turn a Good Girl Bad is about: control, based around the inarguably flawed reasoning that women owe men something. I would’ve thought archaic shit like this wouldn’t pass muster anymore. But, clearly, I know nothing according to this insipid, rancid skid-mark stain of writing, lost so far up its own misogynistic arse it can see Tony Abbott residing just above its lungs reciting hashtags from #notallmen while cradling a copy of The Game under his arm.
