Calling All Heterosexual Sex Transactional Perpetuates Rape Culture

An article in today’s Huffington Post has me absolutely livid.  The author, HuffPo contributor Toni Nagy, presumably is trying to make a point about how “dry humping” is a good idea for feminists (read: heterosexual women) as a way to draw out the courting ritual and be more selective about sexual partners.  What she in fact manages to do–all in a 723-word article–is essentialize gender, turn women into hollow stereotypes, and perpetuate rape culture.

How many people’s mouths would you stick your finger in? A lot. I would stick my finger in a lot of people’s mouths. But how many people would you let stick their finger in your mouth? Not as many! There is a biological difference between the way women and men experience sex, and each gender should view and treat sex in its own way. I think women need a velvet rope and a self-important doorman for their vaginas, monitoring who gets access. If you’re not on the list, you are not coming inside.

This is how Nagy’s article starts, firmly rooted in the second grade.  Sexuality, I don’t need to remind my regular readers, is not a linear transaction that we take part in by following a rigid script.  This includes heterosexual sex.  By distilling it down to the penis-in-vagina elements, Nagy clearly misses a thousand points.

But it gets better.  What’s so dangerous about this article is that it’s not satire. People are taking it seriously.  It appears on the Huffington Post front page, guaranteeing a huge number of page views, and it plays into familiar ladymag myths of the woman who, while “overly” sexual in her twenties, embarking on what Tony Nagy deems as every self-possessed woman’s “whore tour,” comes to view sex as a transaction, a game in which men and women play familiar roles.

Nagy plays into biological arguments that have shown up far too frequently in articles on heterosexuality recently–sex makes women want to bond, good sex is emotional, and women crave sperm.  She then treats sex as a prize that men have to earn, stating that “The harder a guy has to work to get into your pants, the better he will treat the girl wearing them. “

Watch out, ladies.  Don’t make him work hard enough, and your vagina’s value will be diminished.

So how does this article perpetuate rape culture, you ask?  Well, it puts another voice behind the proposition that sex is a commodity, as are women’s bodies.  It positions heterosexual sex as a game–though women are apparently expected to give it up young, a little twist on the usual narrative, as women age the dating game shifts back into transactional territory where value lies in access to a woman’s body.  That access, of course, revolves around PIV sex, because we should be picky about who puts their “finger” in our “mouth.”

Sex-positive activists, it’s time to amp up the education efforts.  Let’s keep talking about why articles like this are damaging to women and to our entire society.  Let’s attack these myths by providing examples of how sex can be fluid and varied.  Let’s remind everyone that gender is far more complicated than this picture would suggest, and that queer women exist.  If we don’t point out the cissexism, heteronormativity, and plain old sexism in arguments like this, no one else is going to do it for us.

Does Sexual Identity Make Physical Attractiveness Less Important?

I’ve been asking myself this question, because I’ve been thinking about the difference in how I’ve seen people relate, and go about dating, in the “vanilla” world versus those who claim a queer or alternative sexuality.  My theory is limited at best, I know, but I think that the more of those badges you put on yourself, and the more corresponding requirements you ascribe to a future relationship or sexual partner, the less of a role physical attractiveness plays (at least, some of the time and for some people).

The thing is, belonging to a subculture does limit your dating pool quite a bit.  When I look for a partner, sexual or otherwise, I’m looking for someone who is queer, interested in genderqueer folk and those who have the vulva-and-breasts combination of body parts, kinky and dominant, poly or open to someone who is non-monogamous, and willing to practice safe sex even in the absence of a penis.  I very rarely meet anyone fitting this description in my day-to-day encounters, and it does mean that a certain amount of talk is required before any sex–but also that I can pretty clearly enumerate at least the basics of what I’m looking for in a sexual partner.

If I contrast this to my experience in the heterosexual, vanilla dating world, I’m struck by how much more physical attraction seemed to enter into the picture there.  Currently, it’s low on the totem pole because the people I’m most physically attracted to are unlikely to line up with the above list of essentials.  Before I had this list in hand, physical attraction was a big part of narrowing down the dating field.  If 50% or so of the population is theoretically available to you (narrowed somewhat due to who’s available for dating/sex, but you’re still probably looking at 5-10% of the population, which is a lot of people), then you need something other than labels or identities to go by.  Of course, you can easily end up with a very attractive person that you’re not compatible with in bed, and this is why I actually kind of like my list, even though I’m not a huge fan of labels.  I’ve had enough sex where I was just mentally hoping and praying to have my hands held above my head, my queerness accepted, any little fragment of sexual desire met.  I think it would be helpful if “vanilla” and “straight” people interrogated their sexual desires and then figured out frank, shorthand ways to find sexual partners based on whatever desires are most important to them.  Maybe if this was the norm–if sex positivity and frank discussion about sex were also the norm–physical attractiveness would be phased out as the assumed method of identifying a potential partner in our society.  And I think that would be a step in the right direction.