S(ex)ual intercourse – the Wikipedia entry (pun intended)

Oh Wiki, you shameless prude.

Vaginal sexual intercourse, also called coitus is the human form of copulation. While its primary evolutionary purpose is the reproduction and continued survival of the human species, it often is performed exclusively for pleasure.

I’m not really sure about the pleasure part, considering the fact that I once took a very fun freshman seminar that dealt, along with a whole lot of other monkey-business, the issue of Bonobos (which are, in actuality, apes – not that you care about the difference). Bonobos are fascinating, particularly when it comes to the way they use sex as a kind of commodity – particularly when it comes to building alliances and getting their fur searched for lice. Although then again, they also clearly appear to enjoy themselves. Scientists have long been speaking about why Bonobos do the things they do. The opinions I received in class were largely of the utilitarian variety – “they do it because it is practical, because nature is practical.”

Bonobos (our long-lost cousins, really) make me wonder about the latter half of that Wikipedia description – can sex ever be performed exclusively for pleasure?

I’ve often argued that it can, and so have many others. But even if we define pleasure as something that is both physical and emotional, we can’t overlook some of the more, er, practical purposes behind a sexual act that is not performed with the intention of conceiving a child (let’s lay aside both prostitution and Mother Nature’s own clever designs on the matter).

Sex is also a means of bonding, de-stressing, and even staying healthy. Masturbation is widely recognized to be a good way to relieve built-up tension by sexperts (I don’t know who made up that term, but I adore this person anyway) – and so is actual intercourse. And don’t even get me started on gay sex!

Wikipedia references Alex Comfort’s views that “three potential advantages of intercourse in humans, which are not mutually exclusive: reproductive, relational, and recreational… For example: A fertile couple may have intercourse while contracepting not only to experience sexual pleasure (recreational), but also as a means of emotional intimacy (relational), thus making their relationship more stable and more capable of sustaining children in the future (deferred reproductive). This same couple may emphasize different aspects of intercourse on different occasions…”

But Comfort (who’s outdated, and a bit creepy – though not necessarily in the above passage) and, in turn, Wikipedia present “recreational sex” as a kind of limited category. The fact that this form of behaviour can be beneficial in more ways than one is left out. And maybe this has to do with the fact that we would like to compartmentalize our sexual experiences, as in – “I did it just for fun,” or “We’re really trying to get pregnant,” or… whatever.

I don’t think that anyone ever really has one reason for screwing someone else – not to be too blunt about it, or anything. Even the “right” reasons are sometimes not enough – so much of sex is about power, prestige, the ability to cut your eyes slyly in the direction of a particular person and murmur “yes, we did it.”

Then there are the seemingly “weird” reasons – the idea that sex can bring you closer to God, the blurred boundaries between religious and sexual ecstasy. I know women who talk about angels as if they were the most purely sexual beings that they’ve never (never say never?) seen – and I distinctly recall enormous, embarrassing billboards for a show called “Guardian Angel” whilst on holiday in Ukraine – the billboards consisted almost entirely of male muscle in all its packaged glory.

The more I think about this, the more I tend to believe that our entire definitions of the “purpose” of sexual intercourse are both too vague and too specific at the same time – because we keep trying to draw a line between “good” sex and “bad” sex – and said line can be unfathomable and often doesn’t belong anywhere.

Oh, and, you know… Pure pleasure – it just doesn’t bloody exist. And I’m beginning to think that I was being quite puritanical when I argued that it did.

Thoughts?

“Unfeigning Masculinity”

Hokay. So. The awesome, awesome Gerard Butler fans (I tip my hat and snap my stocking to these ladies) recently did this interview with the man himself.

Putting aside the general issues of hotness, Hollywood, and historical accuracy, Gerry Butler had this to say about the way in which the film “300” may appeal to women:

“…I think that there is something about the unfeigning masculinity of these characters, both the way they act and the way they are and the way they look. I can’t help thinking it’s going to be more attractive to women. I don’t just simply mean the physical shape, but in the way they are. It feels like because we haven’t tried to look in terms of the…there is something there that is kind of honest and unapologetic about the Spartans… by the end of the film you kind of love and respect them all the more for that because we never bet for anybody including the audience. There is something simple and masculine and honorable about that and I think, to me, I’m not a woman, but I can’t help think that would really appeal to them. That’s what I’m hearing. And that’s right from the top dog. Hilary Clinton herself.”

– Interview hosted on GerardButler.net

What he may be on to is the reason for which women like me love epic action films (sometimes even more so than our male partners) – they present a chiseled (both inwardly and outwardly) version of masculine heroism – men that use their power NOT to slap their wives around, for example.

I’ve been lucky to have a great man by my side for a number of years now (and hopefully will get to keep him for many more) – while he doesn’t run around in a loincloth, throwing spears and giving inspirational speeches with words like “honour” and “glory” featuring prominently, his presence in my life has helped me reflect on my desires (especially the desires I had as an adolescent) and see them in a whole new light. You want someone who can and will support you, especially when you yourself are at your most vulnerable. And you don’t want this vulnerability to be an excuse for any sort of abuse or degradation.

There is something horribly violent and banal about human nature and our own perceptions of masculinity in this context – and epic action brings these attributes to the surface as well, if you happen to read them closely (and sometimes you don’t even have to do that). But what they can ultimately offer is a kind of absolution – the idea that something magnificent does occasionally grow on poisoned soil.

Which all goes to say, of course:

Is it March yet? 😉

Amanda Marcotte Explains It All

And I like it [for the especially clueless – I am not a fan of Amanda’s style of prose – I AM glad she decided to step up to the plate and tell her version of events, even if I don’t agree with the majority of her arguments]

I could argue with Amanda until I foam at the mouth – over a number of points – but I will also argue, also until I foam at the mouth, that the way she was treated was despicable.

The phrase “dirty politics” doesn’t do the current state of affairs justice. It should be “filthy politics,” “choking-on-my-own-vomit politics,” at the very least. And, as I said earlier, I don’t know if I could handle that sort of thing.

I’d rather be raked over the coals for a work of fiction I wrote.

And I’ll be careful what I wish for, yes.

Not the Valentine I had in mind, but still

Crikey! Guess who’s in the henhouse now!

The priestess of Paglinism returneth, and I almost missed the party.

Gratuitous hair reference? Check.

Gratuitous insults toward bloggers? Check… OK, I agreed with her on that one in part, even though I am one of the great unwashed.

Gratuitous oohing and aahing over a blond sex symbol? Indeed. Though then again, like Paglia, I believe that Anna Nicole Smith (RIP) had a lot more to offer the entertainment world than you would have guessed just by glancing at her.

Shit, I’m agreeing with Paglia on more than one thing. This may mark the onset of dementia…

Things fall apart

*** I wanted to say something all morning since I saw this during breakfast (yes, I’m a dork), and am FINALLY on break!***

Certain things that were said to me in Amanda Marcotte’s (in)famous Duke lacrosse thread have floated up here.

I ignored ginmar’s trolling – I ignored her every time she attacked me personally. Her style of conversation is poisonous – I saw not point in responding. I believe that it is precisely that style of conversation that tends to discredit a lot of the things that ginmar tries to get across. I think this entire episode was extremely unfortunate, more so for Amanda than myself.

Amanda’s comments to me in that thread were harsh and, I believe, unfair, though not nearly as vitriolic as anything that ginmar said. I don’t believe that Amanda = ginmar. Neither do I believe that feminists should no longer be taken seriously, or that someone like Amanda deserves to be viciously attacked and raped (I am referring to the hate-mail that has come her way in recent days, of course). I do believe that Amanda should reexamine her style – particularly in regards to how she treats her opponents, if said opponents disagree with her respectfully (no one should have to suffer trolls).

I would like to thank Cathy Young. Not because she lavished me with attention, or because she’s my buddy (well, I don’t know her at all, but she does like fanfic – so let’s give credit where credit is due), but because she fired back at ginmar for something that was an entirely inappropriate, hurtful comment. No one else was going to do it, obviously. I wasn’t going to do it. I am, oddly enough, used to this kind of crap. Maybe I shouldn’t be.

I would also like to thank Ilyka, who stood up for me, and whose blog continues to be an – excuse the Hallmark greeting card style – an inspiration.

I’m done pouting whie simultaneously wading through the bullshit for the day. I’m going to have my coffee. Onward, soldiers.

P.S. I’m not a rape victim. I’ve experienced sexual assault and abuse, but the now equally (in)famous North Carolina definition of rape does not apply to me – in case you’re curious.