![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Reading about heterosex and feeling a little down at how male hegemony is just so closely intertwined with the way we see sex - it's like even when we think we're in an egalitarian relationship where the woman is treated the same as the man, our accounts of sex reveal systemic inequalities. :/ I find myself wondering if it's possible to have non-hegemonic heterosex and the thought that maybe it's not is incredibly depressing.
(Extracted from Virginia Braun, Nicola Gavey and Katrhyn McPhilips, “The ‘Fair Deal’? Unpacking Accounts of Reciprocity in Heterosex,’ Sexualities 6:2 (2003): 237-261.)
"The way these activities were described, as in these two extracts, often represented her orgasm as something that she had as a result of what he did or gave her. In contrast, his orgasm, achieved through intercourse, was not typically framed as her giving – instead, it was something ‘we’ did together, or about where his orgasm took place. In these accounts, the man is represented as more active in the production of orgasm – both hers and his own – than is the woman. In this way, it is a subtle account of the relative passivity traditionally expected of women in heterosex (e.g. see Gavey and McPhillips, 1999; Gilfoyle et al., 1992)."
[...] "Numerous studies have pointed to the links between male sexuality and performance/competence (e.g. Gilfoyle et al., 1992; Kilmartin, 1999). It also points to how ‘saturated’ heterosexual reciprocity is with unequal status. If a woman’s orgasm is ‘given’ by a man, as it is in the discourse of reciprocity, men stand to gain positive identity positions (sensitive and unselfish) through this discourse. Furthermore, the caring, sensitive man partaking in reciprocal heterosex is also imbued with ‘sexpertise’ (Potts, 1998, 2002) – the competence to know how to meet the complex challenge of producing orgasm in the female body, as well as the more straightforward task of his own orgasm. Women’s ‘gift’, on the other hand, is recognized less as an active gift than as a taken-for-granted expectation. As such, the positive identities to be gained by women through the discourse are less clear (although the negative implications of not participating are clear)."
[...] "It is ironic . . . that the ‘enlightened’ male discourse, in which men take some responsibility for their partner’s pleasure, is yet another example of men abrogating power to themselves, as they take away women’s ability to be an independent sexual agent. (Gilfoyle et al., 1992: 224)"
(Extracted from Virginia Braun, Nicola Gavey and Katrhyn McPhilips, “The ‘Fair Deal’? Unpacking Accounts of Reciprocity in Heterosex,’ Sexualities 6:2 (2003): 237-261.)
no subject
Date: 2008-09-01 03:34 pm (UTC)There is also the fact that straight sexuality is by nature hegemonic in our world - so as long as you take part in this system you are being hegemonic, kind of like just because we were born white we're part of an hegemonic system of skin color. You don't create meaning in a vacuum - so just because you, as an individual, did something in a non-hegemonic way doesn't mean that it is part of a larger hegemonic framework.
For example something that we were discussing yesterday with a friend - on an individual level there is nothing wrong with a straight woman who is honest in her desires and wants to sleep with another woman to know what it's like. The problem is that, no matter how she frames her experience, in a heterosexist world, it's always going to be part of a larger context where heterosexuality is valued above other sexual orientations and where her experience is perceived as her dabbling into something 'spicy' or 'sexy' or 'unusual' but (thank the gods) she went back to normal.
So for me a lesbian who has a single experience with a man for example is less problematic because she's not enacting a hegemonic script in the same way (other issues arise, but that's something else).
I think part of trying to challenge hegemony is admitting that we all partake in it, willingly or not, whether we're aware of it or not. It sure doesn't feel too good, but it's a necessary step. You say your acts only have the meaning you give them, but that's not really true - they also have the meanings that other people attach to them, and they relate to the structure that they help construct. Did you watch the video of whiteness? It kind of touches upon that - how we need to own our whiteness, and the privilege that comes with it, so we can do anything about the hegemony of whiteness in this world.