How About "The Patriarchy" Was A Big Pussy? Would That Be OK?

I almost didn't want to post anything more about this topic, but the peculiar misunderstandings involved have been getting on my nerves, so what the hell. Hey. that's what blogging's for! You see, I'm a feminist. Look, I came out and said it! And so, it follows that I have a long-standing (and true, my boys) belief that our society puts bone-crushing pressure on women to evaluate themslves, constantly, as objects of male sexual desire. If you think about this context for a nanosecond, you will see that the suggestion that women should consider whether or not they look (potentially) sexy at the moment when their infant's head is crowning as the finale of labor is positively grotesque. Does it follow from this that I am trying to dictate what men's sexual responses should be? Not exactly. Let us consider some hypotheticals.

1. A man meets a woman and begins a committed sexual relationship with her. During the (early) course of it, she develops genital warts due to the HPV she contracted from a previous lover. She gets the warts removed, but the retinal scarring from seeing a warty vagina makes it impossible for the man to find her sexy ever again.

What are we likely to think here? Well, we are inclined to cut the guy a bit of slack, on the grounds that some fear of illness in himself motivates this disgust (even though it's likely that many or most of his previous sex partners were asymptomatic carriers of HPV). We are also likely to say that he was never all that interested in her to begin with, because if that was all that had changed about a woman with whom he was truly infatuated, it seems very unlikely to be a deal-breaker.

2. A man begins a committed sexual relationship with a woman, during the course of which they have unprotected sex, and he infects her with an STD, say, herpes. Let us stipulate that she agreed to this while knowing he was infected with herpes; he is taking medicine, they did their best to avoid outbreaks, she truly loved him, etc.. His retina is scarred during the course of her initial infection (which is unlikely to re-occur at the same severity), and having seen her lesion-scarred vagina he finds it difficult to regard her as sexy ever again, such that there are serious sexual problems in their relationship.

What are we likely to think here? Let's all be honest: we think this guy is an asshole. It seems very unlikely that in a discussion of some real-world case corresponding to these parameters anyone would bring up objections such as "well, it's not for us to say who will find lesions gross", or "if there is a man who really can't get it up after looking at some lesion-scarred vagina, it behooves us rather to be sympathetic to his sexual dysfunction, which is in no wise his own responsibility, rather than to mock him in any way." Or: "Belle Waring is a foul herpes-scarred woman who has a pathological concern that men may no longer find her sexually attractive"; is that likely to come up, really?

3. An article appears in the New York Times which gives rather solemn advice to men that, in the event they find themselves in the grip of a serious gastro-entereological infection, they not seek the help of their long term sex partner. It is a sad fact of this life that every once in a while people find themselves virulently ill; so sick that they are barely able to crawl to the bathroom to vomit; so sick that when they do so they find themselves uncontrollably voiding themselves out both ends on the cool porcelain tiles. But since there are some women who till never want to have sex with their partners again after they see them looking all poopy and have to clean up the bathroom, it might be wise for men to consider hiring a private nurse, calling on a parent or friend during this time, or just toughing it out, sending their lover to a bar while they retch and faint with the formula 409 until all has been restored to cleanliness. [Note that the pregnant woman who decides on her own nickel to spare her husband any potential unpleasantness will employ one of these alternatives as well: hire a doula, ask her mom or friend to be there, or suffer on her own with no one to hold her hand or speak for her to the medical team.] Not to say that all women will react this way, but since it's hard to tell ahead of time, and since the men who ask their partners to put a bucket by the bed for them to puke into may be risking the long-term sexual health of their relationships, then maybe they should take steps to avoid the whole problem by working out some such plans in advance. Also, since societal pressure on women to take care of ther sick partners is so strong, the men won't be able to trust their partners' claims of willingness; they will have to take it upon themselves to fix the problem without reference to her stated desires.

What do we think about these hypothetical women? Assholes. Also, unusually squeamish about the human body and its foibles; also, they don't actually love their partners very much and are self-centered and shallow. What if the article is based on the reflections of a psychiatrist treating women to whom this has happened, who are now bemoaning their lack of desire and regretting that they gave into the pressure to care for their mates? Hmm. Any mild sympathy there? A nano-sympathy, I guess; it's a sad thing when anyone loses the ability to enjoy sex with someone she loves. Nonetheless, on the whole, the verdict is very much: assholes.
N.B.: I have left out the stipulation that the women purposely gave their partners food poisoning, because getting someone pregnant is not a hostile act, while poisoning them is. I could not think of a satisfactory way to indicate that the women in this scenario intentionally brought about the men's physical distress. A perfect analogy to the childbirth case would require this.

What do we think about the New York Times writer in this case? Weird. A truly strange person. We think his advice is insane. If we knew of someone who took this advice we would think that person was nuts too. If a friend confided in us about her distress, and how she had lost interest in her husband after he got the flu, it seems possible that out of politeness we would nod in pretend sympathy, but inside we would be thinking: wow, I'm friends with a shallow, self-centered, inappropriately squeamish jerk.

You see where I'm going here? The vehemence of my reaction does not stem from some puritanical feminist impusle to dictate what is acceptable in the realm of male sexual desire. It stems from disgusted astonishment that anyone would suggest this: even in the midst of what might reasonably be regarded as the single most female thing a woman will ever do, a time when she is in pain and terrified, a time when the man who got her pregnant, while he may feel nervous, is undergoing no dramatic physical changes--even then, the primacy of male sexual desire, and the need to regard women solely as objects of that desire means that women should be considering their future sexiness. Not a thought is given to the possibilty that the women themselves are affected by the change from regarding their genitals as a source of pleasure to regarding them as something through which small humans might periodically and painfully emerge. Not the slightest reference is made to the cult of youthful beauty in our society which celebrates the post-pubescent female body and regards all others as repulsive; I can't have been the only feminist who wondered whether it was really only the birth experience which affected the men's desire. Many a post-pregnancy support group online has thread after thread in which women who have a two- or three-month old baby tell of how their husband is pressuring them to go to the gym, to lose weight while they are still establishing breasfeeding, to return to him his rightful object of desire which she has selfishly taken away and given to some squalling infant (and god knows he played no role in the whole thing!). [Please don't take this opportunity to tell me I'm trying to say feminism requires men to be attracted to fat chicks. Just don't, OK?]

Finally, to have every comments thread and many follow-up posts all immediately become...a discussion of male sexual desire! How it can't be commanded, how it's not under men's control, how it may require improbable female perfection and there's nothing sex-hating feminists can do about that, because it's a force of nature, like tides or something! Or erosion! Either you get hard when you look at something or you don't; you can't tell your penis to grow up! If you're a fat, balding 60-year-old guy and you can only get it up for 17-year-old-girls then that's just the way life is, and people should be sensitive to that! Anyone see why I might find this annoying? Bueller? Anyone?

UPDATE: Also, I neglected to mention this before, but, do any of my male readers have any idea how often women are advised to have sex sometimes even when they don't particularly feel like it, for the health of a long term relationship? Like, every single time the subject of sex comes up? Please just go read a few Cosmo "How To Keep The Spice Burning" articles and get back to me, OK? See? Now, here's the thing that's crazy: that's actually pretty good advice, if it applies to BOTH PARTIES in a straight or gay relationship. I'm not talking about some abusive, or un-dead vampire-type fatally flawed relationship; I'm talking about an ordinary, loving, long-term relationship in which the fires of your initial coming together (/Nelson Muntz) have cooled to the lower but more lasting temperatures of love. Why do I say this? Well, because if your partner is horny and you're not, it's just a loving thing to do to have sex with them. Also, sex is actually pretty fun, and even if you thought you didn't want to have sex right then, it's likely that 5 minutes later you'll be like "why did I think I didn't want to have sex? Teh sex r0x0rz!"  However, this applies to guys too. If you really love somebody, you'll be able to make the effort. Have these guys never heard of fantasizing about Angelina Jolie going down on Scarlett Johansson? Did the possibility of looking at some porn first not cross their minds? Fake it till it's real is not stupid advice in the world of sex. If you knocked the chick up, suck it up. Have sex enough times without bloody babies suddenly emerging from her vagina and the bad images will be replaced by good ones. Problem solved! Advantage: blogosphere.

Comments

[dsquared]

I have half a mind to set up a fake article in which a woman admits that after his vasectomy, she regards her husband as "basically half a man" and can no longer view him as a sexual creature.

[dsquared]

I mean seriously, when considering the virtues of vasectomy versus other forms of contraception, men ought to bear in mind that they will basically become fucking eunuchs and nobody will ever take them or their penises seriously again. It's a real shame that our culture labels women as "insensitive" or "old-fashioned" if they believe that nobody but a cornuto or girly-man would ever consent to having himself neutered like a puppy, because it means that there is no open discussion of this problem which might be common, or I might have just made it up, I find it hard to tell these days.

Really though, how is a woman meant to feel sexually attracted to an epsilon-minus "male" who can't give her a baby? It's probably got something to do with evolutionary psychology. God I wish adequacy.org was still going. I think I can work the Catholic Church into this one too.

[djw]

Well put, Belle.

I must say I'm more than a little troubled by the apparent popularity of the notion that it's just not done to draw any sort of conclusions about people's character from their emotional responses to events, as long as those responses are sincere and unintentional.

[Carlos]

I was going to do the flu analogy, somewhere around comment twenty, but was distracted (and I hate to say this, but also amused) by the flood of assholes and their apologists who would never get any, ever again -- never never never never never -- if they posted their opinions under their real names. (The fellow who did, I am sure, is a real hit with the ladies.)

God, why are these men so afraid of women? Does an enormous vagina dentata pursue Doc Slack in his dreams, like a Ms. Pac-Man out to consume his testicles? Next thing you know, these guys will be complaining that picking up a box of tampons at the bodega for the gf has wrecked their libido. 'Cause you know, women menstruate, and the chain of associations is just too horrid.

[Cala]

Or, alternately, you pee with that thing and you want to put it where?

Go Belle go! Well said.

[bellatrys]

in re food poisoning analogy: possible suggestion - there are a lot of people of both genders who think that food allergies, particularly to wheat or milk, are psychosomatic and try to "cure" their friends by tricking them into eating foods that contain these ingredients.

Because, see, wheat and milk are GOOD for you, they couldn't possibly be poisons, and so they're doing said friends a FAVOUR by helping them to get over their crazy fixation so they can enjoy tasty food like normal people.

So that would be a case of causing vomiting/diarrhea (even potentially-life-threatening) with no malice involved.

[Harry B]

Daniel -- I thought that all those worries were put to rest 30 years ago when Parky came out about his own vasectomy. (Michael, that is, not Cecil, who...didn't, as we know).

[dsquared]

yeh and he was never the same afterwards ...

[J. Cornell]

Belle, are you really surprised that the the comments thread and the follow-up posts became "a discussion of . . . male sexual desire" when the original article that everyone was commenting on and posting about was about . . . male sexual desire? Is this really something to be surprised by or to point to as evidence of the deep-rooted sexism of all the commenters?

[J. Cornell]

The NYT article did not, contrary to your suggestion in No. 3, tell women not to seek the help of their long-term partner. It said that some men who actually did help their long-term partner have suffered unanticipated effects from doing so, and that this is worth thinking about. I realize your politics -- as you make clear in this post -- militate against us even contemplating this situation as anything other than hateful, but there we disagree.

More important, to make your analogy in No. 3 actually accurate, it would have to be men who suffered not from a "gastrointestinal infection," but from an infection that, for whatever reason, involved the massive distention of the head of the penis, the expulsion of blood and myriad other fluids from it, and, often, the cutting open of the penis. Do you really think that an article that suggested that some women who watched this happen might see their libidos diminish would be dismissed as insane?

If you're going to set up a straw man, at least set up one that bears some resemblance to the argument on the other side.

[nik]

Based on the article: all of the men in the article went, they saw, they found they were having problems and talked to their doctor about it afterwards. None of them suggested not being there, they just spoke about their problem to a doctor. (As useful as Belle's advice regarding Angelina Jolie and Scarlett Johansson is - I don't think we can begrudge them professional help). As far as we know they were perfectly dutiful, I don't think they deserve the vilification they have got.

[Steve]

Blah blah blah blah blah.

How about this analogy:
The man has bumps on his dick. He has to get them removed. He expects his woman to not only still like him, and still love him, and support him, but watch the surgery removing the bumps, like watching the surgery removing the bumps, and declare to the world that she enjoyed watching the surgery removing the bumps. If anyone doesn't like bump-removing surgery, that person is a close minded neanderthal (because bump-removing surgery is beautiful, beaooootiful you goddamn fascist!).
I had always thought a nice compromise would be to be there during the birth, talking to my wife, comforting her, perhaps rubbing her temples, something like that, without actually staring at her crotch. Little did I know that such an attitude is close-minded, fascist and neanderthal. I guess I will have to ogle her crotch, clearly and publicly declaring to anyone else in the room that I find this mysterious, beautiful, and "I still find her sexy, everybody! Just so everybody knows! You! Nurse in the back! Did you hear me? I still find her sexy, ok? If you know any academic woman, tell her I said so, too."

What a bizarre situation. Thirty years ago, feminists didn't want women to be thought of as sex objects. Now, feminists are arguing that I'm sexist if I don't think of my wife as a sex object WHILE SHE'S GIVING BIRTH.

You've come a long way, baby.

Jeez

[Harry B]

I'm surprised you're old enough to remember, but point taken.

[dsquared]

Steve, does that straw man of yours have a straw wife? If so, what does her straw vagina look like?

[dsquared]

By the way, for the benefit of Slate readers arriving here from the "Intellectual Elite" column (god the advertisers must be chuffed that this is the intellectual elite of Slate), here's a little clue in italics:

this issue is not entirely about "how the men feel". some things aren't you know.

[LizardBreath]

The NYT article did not, contrary to your suggestion in No. 3, tell women not to seek the help of their long-term partner.

Actually, it does. Read the last paragraph.

I had always thought a nice compromise would be to be there during the birth, talking to my wife, comforting her, perhaps rubbing her temples, something like that, without actually staring at her crotch.

And such a compromise was suggested in Belle's original post. No one is requiring crotch-staring. Support, comforting, and if the man in question chooses to stare at the crotch in question, getting over the trauma of it all, are all that are suggested as a decent way to behave.

[Tad Brennan]

"Thirty years ago, feminists didn't want women to be thought of as sex objects. Now, feminists are arguing that I'm sexist if I don't think of my wife as a sex object WHILE SHE'S GIVING BIRTH."

You've got this exactly backwards and upside down, Steve.

The point is not that during birth you are supposed to find your wife affirmatively sexy as opposed to finding her sexually repellent.

The point is that there are some contexts in which you should have other things in mind than *any* assessments of your wife's sexual desirability.

If you protest and say that, as a matter of fact, in every possible context you are vividly aware of some rating of your wife's sexual desirability, positive or negative, then it seems to me you are giving a pretty good illustration of what it means to treat someone as a sex-object.

So your objection just seems to get the point exactly, well, *wrong*.

[J. Cornell]

What "Intellectual Elite" column?

And I read the last paragraph of the NYT piece. While the therapist was a dick for suggesting that the burden was on the women, the piece did not say "Don't seek the help of your long-term partner." It said: "Weigh the benefits of having your partner in the delivery room against the possible costs (that is, diminution of libido)." But I know: God forbid we actually consider whether some couples might end up with a better sex life if the father were not in the delivery room. Belle has handed down the rule, and we all must fall in line or else be dismissed as sexist pigs.

[belle waring]

steve: in my original post, I recommended standing at the head of the bed and holding your wife's hand, and noted in comments that no one said you had to be down there in the crotch area taking photos. that's because it seems quite reasonable to me that a man might not want to see all the gory action, just as a woman might nor. so, thanks for playing, but no.

[dsquared]

another straw man! with a straw wife?

[dsquared]

By the way, I do think it would be fairer if people were to argue against the claim actually made:

Belle has handed down the rule, and we all must fall in line or else be dismissed as sexist pigs.

The word actually used was "pussies".

[belle waring]

I love you dsquared, maybe someday I can have your babies.

[Shah Usbek]

Mr. Rightmann: The real problem with vasectomies, obviously, is when one of your wives becomes pregnant afterwards. Faced with the unmistakeable evidence of her treachery, should the outraged husband poison her before she gives birth, or afterwards, and if afterwards, what should he do with the infant?

Yours, Shah Usbek

[nik]

One of the "pussies" in the article also suggested standing at the head of the bed.

Regarding the controversial last paragraph: the woman is in a position of some authority here. The woman is the patient - so does actually gets to choose whether to invite someone in or not. Most men in this situation are (quite rightly) going to do exactly what they're told. The woman does get to choose how to response to this in a way that the man doesn't.

[dsquared]

Christ no, my feet have hardly recovered from the last time I went through all that. Purgatory it was and could I get a cup of tea?