Why Sex Isn’t a Spectrum

The word “sex,” as in whether you are male or female, is not unrelated to the word “sex,” as in getting busy in the bedroom. Sex organs are named for their function–they are used in sex. Sex is the process by which a species reproduces. For humans, sex also may (or may not) be a jolly fun time for its participants, but such entertainment potential does not inform its scientific labeling.

Reproduction in humans is a process that involves exactly two roles and only two roles. Someone provides the gamete called sperm and someone provides the gamete called ova (and in humans, gestates the offspring in a womb). There is not a third gamete.

A given individual can play the male role in reproduction if equipped, the female role if equipped, or neither role if their sex organs are dysfunctional or anomalous. Being “equipped” depends upon normal chromosomal and other development.

Intersex conditions represent a disorder of sex development, not an introduction of new and additional kinds of sex development. They don’t provide a third gamete or perform a third role, much less a “spectrum” of gametes or roles.

The idea that sex is a spectrum comes from the view that a person’s sex is primarily interesting or erotic or an impetus for self-expression, and overlooks its function. It’s an ideological concept, not a scientific one.

 

 

Teen Vogue Anal Sex Guide: Fixed it for You

Does my version seem unlikely, absurd, perverse?

That’s because we view women’s bodies as public property and men’s as sacrosanct. He doesn’t “belong” in her bottom any more than she “belongs” in his, but society understands who is and isn’t for violating, and changing that script is always shocking.


Not every heterosexual couple is having, or wants to have, “penis in the vagina sex.” If your boyfriend is finding that using his penis during sex is not for him, it’s helpful to know the facts.

I have got him covered. Without all the run-of-the-mill hoopla, here is the lowdown on everything your boyfriend needs to know about receiving anal sex from you, his girlfriend.

Why anal?

Anal sex, though often stigmatized and shamed, is a perfectly natural way for your boyfriend to receive sexual activity. Men have been receiving anal sex since the dawn of humanity. Seriously, it’s been documented back to the Ancient Greeks and then some. So, if he’s a little worried about receiving anal, or is having trouble understanding the appeal, just let him know that it isn’t weird or gross.

Just because you have a vagina does not mean your boyfriend’s anus is off limits. The anus is not as malleable as a vagina, which has the ability to accommodate an infant’s head by design. The anus is very tight, so he’ll have the unique feeling of having something in his rectal area. It is often described as a feeling of fullness which can be delightful for him.

How to ask your boyfriend if he’s ready to receive anal

Asking to perform anal on your boyfriend can be a bit daunting. Have a one-on-one with your boyfriend and let him know that inserting something into his anus is something you want to try. Be honest about your feelings about it. In a healthy relationship, you should be able to discuss anything openly.

Start slow, seriously

Here is the real deal. Your boyfriend can’t just decide he’s going to start receiving anal one day and then go for it, anchors away!

You need to start penetrating him slowly. The anus is a muscle that needs to be worked up to having larger objects inserted. Start by inserting your finger or a small (I do mean v small) butt plug to warm him up. As he feels more aroused and comfortable, work the object inside. Gently move it around to loosen up the area.

Lube is a must

Lube is absolutely required, but condoms aren’t. You can’t get an STI by inserting objects into your boyfriend’s anus.

Original Link

 

 

Gratitude

I just had the good fortune of making an emotional, spiritual and sexual connection that I did not know was in my universe of possibilities, with someone I deeply respect and who challenges me to be a better person.

That has filled me up to the top of my soul, to the extent that it’s distracting me from my current priority. That’s ok. I’ll get back on track.

“Love is what anchors us to the Earth,” says Ann Patchett. I remain baffled that someone would give up something so precious for dogma.

But this is not about that. This is about her. My gratitude to the universe for making her exist.

Sexuality: Anything but Sex

Back in the days when folks were less troubled by identity woes, we started with three sexual orientations that encompassed the only three ways someone might relate to the two sexes (sexes being defined as people with particular sex organs):

  • homosexuality
  • heterosexuality
  • bisexuality

And then these inspired people to make up new words in the same vein that aren’t actually about sexuality (as they are unassociated with and exist outside the sexes):

  • demisexual
  • sapiosexual
  • pansexual
  • etc

Then, “cotton ceiling” rhetoric and the myth that sexuality is an attraction to a gender instead of a sex erased at least two of the “original” sexualities (homosexual and heterosexual), calling both bigoted, and permitting only the existence of bisexuals who are unparticular about sex organs but who can be organized into those who like lipstick and those who like neckties.

Thus, it’s now only ok to be sexual with something other than sex organs.

The definition of fetish is:

Sexual arousal from the use of nonliving objects or a highly specific focus on non-genital body part(s).

And so with transgender ideology, sexuality has been wholly replaced with fetish.

 

 

 

 

Dear Trans Women: Part 1, by Judith Bell

I’ve often wanted to do a post on discrimination versus systemic oppression, but Judith Bell nails it in this amazing post. If trans women only read one post in its entirety by a gender-critical feminist, I hope it’s this one.

Highlights:

“I, a woman, can speak with unwavering authority on the topics of sex as it pertains to women, gender as it pertains to women, womanhood, the female experience, and feminism. I can speak with authority on my own oppression. I can speak with authority on the patriarchy and its abuses. More importantly, you cannot.”

“You cannot be a woman, because femaleness is a bodily experience. Conversely, femininity is a cultural experience.”

“Women are expected to do free domestic labor, free sexual labor, free reproductive labor, and free emotional labor as a matter of course…”

Woman Defined as Fuckable Object, Part 2

I once took a history class in which the professor convinced me beyond all doubt that we inherited an enormous amount of our cultural legacy from the ancient Romans. Highways, water systems, coins, mass entertainment, the legal system, the calendar, and the list goes on and on.

A book I’m reading for sociolinguistics cites research on “sexual categorization in ancient Rome” that illuminated yet another area in which our society inherits its attitudes.

The modern LGBT community loves to cite the ancient Romans as evidence of casual and accepted homosexuality, but this is very much a mischaracterization of the situation.

Rome had no conception of homosexuality at all, and no, this is not because homosexuality, as we conceive it today, was so common as to be unremarkable. Rome had no conception of heterosexuality either. Rome’s sexual categorization was divided into “active” and “passive” participants.

Sex was defined as penetrating an orifice with a penis. Sex was something men did to (not with) other people. Lesbianism was inconceivable — without a penis, women could not “do” anyone.

Instead of heterosexuality and homosexuality, the Romans had 9 sexual orientations which encoded the sex of each participant and the orifice being penetrated.

All of the “active” roles were normalized for males. As long as males were penetrating, even if they were penetrating males, they were doing sex in the accepted and non-deviant way. “Passive” was the deviant role for men.

All of the “passive” roles were normalized for women.

There were no equal relationships in Rome, same sex or otherwise. Instead, men kept people around for fucking, of whatever sex happened to be available. Sex, of any sort, was a display of dominance and male supremacy, not a sign of sexual preference. To call it “rape culture” would be an massive understatement.

In fact, “the labels for a vaginally penetrated woman, femina and puella, mean simply ‘woman’ and ‘girl’.”

I want you to think about that for a moment.

The word for woman, and indeed even girl, was a synonym for her position when having one of her orifices penetrated.

We know, today, that women are thought of as fuckholes, but in Rome, that idea wasn’t even in the closet. Can you imagine if day-to-day life consisted of hearing statements like, “There were ten men and ten fuckholes shopping at the market today,” because that’s just how half the population is named?

So it is against this inherited cultural legacy of undisguised male sexual domination:

Because of course that’s what we are. Men have always thought it and apparently can’t let it go so easily.

 

 

 

 

 

 

When Gay is Not Gay

I grew up in a redneck, rural town. From a very young age I observed an interesting but not unusual pattern of machismo in the teenage boys in my town.

Insults between two males could, and often did, imply that the one doing the insulting had performed penetrative sex upon the one being insulted (or would do so in the future). These insults, much to my confusion as a kid, did not imply that the insulter was gay, but did imply that the insulted was gay. This type of insult was beyond common in my neighborhood.

Although a particular teenage boy was definitely not gay-tolerant and would have been utterly horrified to be thought of as gay, it was completely cool and indeed masculine for him to say, during a match of insults, something along the lines of “that’s not what you said when my dick was in your mouth last night.”

Indeed, I once observed a particularly fast-paced insult match in which one boy kept implying he’d ruined the other’s ass some evening prior, and after many rounds, when he slipped up and said “my ass” instead of “your ass,” the watching crowd gasped in horror and declared him the loser of the match.

How curious it seemed to me at the time that only one party of a homosexual sex act between two people should be considered gay.

At some point later, when I’d grown up, left town, and given up on wondering why macho redneck men do what they do, I came across an interesting point in some article which I’ve now lost track of: that men bond by subjugating women.

This bit of wisdom turned on a light bulb in my head. This was why men took their male coworkers and clients to Hooters. It was an opportunity to belittle women, not an opportunity to risk what I thought should have been the potentially embarrassing experience of becoming aroused in the presence of casual acquaintances.

This was why men had strippers at bachelor parties. This was why men watched porn at parties.

In this light, I understood why gang bangs and “sharing” women among friends, which I’d also heard rumor of in my small town and at college, did not trigger gay panic in male participants.

The message here is clear: the definition of sex is subjugation.

As long as you are putting someone in their place, you are performing sex in the way required and approved for men. It doesn’t matter if other men are present. It doesn’t matter if other men are who is getting put in their place.

As a logical corollary, men who have receptive sex are women.

This is a patriarchal view that does not see the participants in any sex act as equals.

“Straight men who have sex with transwomen aren’t gay,” I heard a MtF say recently, and not for the first time. The point he meant to make was that transwomen are women, which I take issue with.

But for those who define sex as subjugation, this statement turns out to be correct.

As is my ex’s apparent definition of womanhood as “sexually submissive.”

All of which forces me to concede that perhaps the claim “transwomen are women” is, at least for some, less a logical inconsistency (as I characterized it here) and more a hatred of women.