gemcode: A type of alpine parrot called a kea (Default)
Cosmopolitan reports that a procedure for preventing cervical cancer might, possibly, have an unintended side effect of severely reducing sexual sensation:

[T]he research just isn’t there: Studies on LEEPs mostly focus on cancer prevention or pregnancy complications. A 2010 one out of Thailand did find a small but statistically significant decrease in overall sexual satisfaction after a LEEP, and an Italian study that same year showed a loss of sexual desire. But both concluded that the cause is likely psychological versus the result of damage to the cervix. In 2015, a review in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology suggested that LEEPs can affect sexual function...but that more research is needed.

Without strong evidence to back them up, several women Cosmo spoke to say they face an endless procession of doctors who don’t believe that their sexual dysfunction could be caused by the procedure. And the trauma of being disbelieved only compounds, for them, the trauma of feeling that an essential part of them has been irreparably damaged. No one gave them another option. Instead, to stay alive, Sasha, Emily, and the others had to give up one of the things that makes life worth living.

Cosmo particularly foregrounds the undervaluing of women's capacity to orgasm, and that's definitely part of the issue, here:

In the field of urology, doctors regularly discuss the possible sexual side effects of surgery on the male reproductive organs—and Dr. Irwin Goldstein says this should happen in gynecology too: “An era has to come when we accept that there are risks to operating on the cervix."

I was also struck, though, by the way in which this presents such a clear example of misusing rationality to dismiss women's subjective experiences. Scientifically, sure, it makes sense to say "we don't yet have enough evidence to say." Medically, however, a standard of "we won't take seriously the possibility of a side effect until you can prove it happens" is downright irresponsible.

I don't doubt that, to many of the doctors dismissing these potential side effects, the dismissal seems "rational" to them. Feelings are just feelings; the sensible rational person is skeptical of such things. Especially (alas) if the feelings in question are women's feelings. But in medicine, of course, there are all manner of effects that you can't learn about except by asking the patient about their subjective experience. In this situation, a lack of respect for subjectivity in our rational discourse has deep and profound costs.
gemcode: A type of alpine parrot called a kea (Default)
When I was a teenager, I can remember being told that there is an important difference between lust and love. "Lust" is primarily sexual. It's irrational (in a bad way). It's selfish. "Love", by contrast, is not centred on sex in the same way. It's more romantic. It can still be irrational, but in, like, a cute way. It's kind, and giving.

The lust/love dichotomy suggests implicitly that a central way to classify desire for another person as "good" or "bad" is to ask "How central is sex to these feelings?" If sex is more central, consider that this might be a bad type of desire. If sex is less central, it's probably a good type of desire.

Many people would quibble, of course, with the conclusion that desire for another person is necessarily "bad" if sex is central to it. I generally agree with this kind of sex-positivity. But I think this critique misses something by ignoring the second implication of the lust/love dichotomy: the idea that if sex is less central to your desire for another person, then this is love and probably good. This implication is also suspect.
 
Consider the following story about Congressman Patrick Meehan:

Meehan, who is married with three children, allegedly professed romantic interest in an aide who was decades younger than him — first in a written letter, then in person. According to seven people who spoke to the Times, the woman saw the congressman as a father figure, not as a romantic partner. When she did not reciprocate his feelings and started dating another man, Meehan reportedly grew so hostile that she filed a complaint with the congressional Office of Compliance, started working from home, and eventually decided to leave her job.

Another story explains that Meehan thought of this employee as his 'soul mate':

He said he told the aide “that I was a happily married man and I was not interested in a relationship, particularly not any sexual relationship, but we were soul mates. I think that the idea of soul mate is that sort of person that go through remarkable experiences together."

A lot of people would react to this story by saying that Meehan was lying to himself -- or just lying to his aide -- in claiming that he was "not interested" in "any sexual relationship". They may not be wrong about that! But are the other, less sexual feelings that Meehan chooses to focus on entirely false?

A commenter who accepts the lust/love dichotomy might say that the deep romantic feelings that Meehan professes when he says he has found his "soul mate" are merely a form of self-deception. After all, he clearly does not love this woman. He treated her terribly! He drove her out of a job! And if this is not love, then it must be lust. Accordingly, Meehan's feelings must have been more sexual than romantic, and any professions to the contrary must be mere deception.

I am not convinced. It seems to me that the more sensible reaction to this story is to conclude that we ought not to dignify romantic desire with the designation "love" merely because sex is not central to it. 
Romantic desire, like sexual desire, can be either bad or good. Those of us who are not aromantic have the ability to feel a deep and abiding desire for connection with someone. This desire for connection can lead to beautiful things if it is reciprocated and allowed to flourish. When frustrated, it can be deeply painful to the person who feels it, and that pain can make people just as destructive and angry and selfish as the pain of frustrated sexual desire.

Recognising that love and romantic desire are not the same thing has important consequences. For one thing, it can help us to resist romantic coercion. Because we understand that sexual desire can be destructive, we often find it quite easy to agree, as a society, that a person has the right to refuse unwanted sexual desire. By contrast, the widespread conflation of romantic desire and love can make it trickier to refuse romantic desire while still receiving societal approval. Refusing sexual desire is entirely appropriate; refusing romantic desire is heartless.

It is noteworthy that attempts to resist this form of coercion frequently still pay lip service to the lust/love dichotomy. Consider the rebuke to "nice guys" that "women are not vending machines that you put kindness coins into until sex falls out." In order to counteract the false assumption that it would be wrong and heartless to refuse romantic desire, this rebuke creates a shield using a different false assumption: that "nice guys" are only in it for the sex, anyway.

Romantic coercion is no kinder than sexual coercion. Sexual coercion attempts to assert control over your body; romantic coercion attempts to assert control over your mind and your emotions. Even if this could work, it would be wrong, for the same reason that many of us would object to being kidnapped even if the kidnapper planned to hook us up to a happiness machine.

In the real world, though, romantic coercion generally doesn't work. Indeed, a great many people of all genders have had the experience of feeling like it would be bad to reject someone's romantic feelings, attempting to return them out of guilt, and having the whole relationship come crashing down not long after, causing even more pain than a simple refusal would have.

Making a distinction between love and romantic desire would make it harder for people like Congressman Meehan to be convinced of the purity of their motives. It is understandable, in our society, that a person could think to themselves "I feel romantic desire, romantic desire is the same as love, love is kind, therefore nothing I do to this person in the name of romantic love could possibly be unkind." It's important to recognise that this is false. Romantic desire absolutely can be unkind. It's up to us to make sure that it is not.

gemcode: A type of alpine parrot called a kea (Default)
I was recently reading Constance Grady's article on Vox about the inadequacy of some of our language around sexual harassment and assault:

It’s not that we don’t have a vocabulary for talking about sexual violence, because we do. But that vocabulary is inadequate. It is confusing and flattening in ways that make it hard to talk about sexual violence without either trivializing it, obfuscating the systems that enable it, or getting so specific as to become salacious or triggering.

It's a good article, and worth reading in full.

I've been aware for some time, of course, that language around sexual violence can be a groundbreaking innovation, when it comes to helping people process what is happening or communicate it to others. But I didn't fully consider, until reading this article, that our language might still be inadequate. And then I remembered that when I was a teen, I had my own word for, well, for a something that I didn't have any other word for. I called it slime, in the privacy of my own head. There was a guy who started annoying me regularly, so I figured I should just ignore him the way you're told to ignore bullies, and as a result he used to sing nursery rhymes at me, with his face about six inches from mine, every week -- I only saw him once a week -- because I wouldn't pay attention to him. Slime was the feeling I had when one time he reached out to touch me on the cheek.

Slime was the guy in his 40s who used to put his hands on my waist to unnecessarily "position me" before I walked on stage. Slime was the man who leered at me when I adjusted my very annoying bra strap when I was only twelve. Slime was knowing that any other boy could become fixated on me any time he wanted, and treat me just as badly as nursery rhyme guy, and I wouldn't have any defenses against it because ignoring him wouldn't make it stop.

It wasn't until I became an adult that I learned that sexual harassment could describe some of these situations. It definitely described some of the later iterations of nursery rhyme guy -- he went with nursery rhymes at fourteen, but by the time we were both sixteen he had graduated to making repeated explicit comments in the hope that he'd get a reaction to that. I wonder, in retrospect, whether I could have demanded that a responsible adult make him stop sexually harassing me, or whether I would simply have been fobbed off in the way that teachers like to fob off complaints so that they won't have to deal with them.

Sexual harassment is a very useful phrase. But I think Constance Grady is right that it's insufficient. It's very clinical and serious. We need clinical and serious words to describe these things, but we also need words that are not clinical or serious.

Skeevy describes some of these things. Creepy describes a few more of them. Indeed, it's interesting to note that the definition of the word creepy has been hotly contested in many of the same ways that, as Grady notes, sexual harassment has been contested -- and with far less justification. After all, a person inquiring after the precise meaning of sexual harassment may simply be asking for clarification of a new rule. This can be done in bad faith -- as when, for example, the rule is interpreted in the most uncharitable way possible in order to discredit it -- but it can also be done in good faith.

The fuss around creepy has less justification. There's no law against creepiness. You can suffer social consequences for it, of the "if you make people feel bad feelings, they will try to exclude you" variety, but that is all. Yet there are plenty of people who are willing to say that "branding" a man as creepy is unfair, that it's just punishing the socially awkward, that there need to be criteria before you can use that word, criteria that won't sweep up "innocent people".

Internet feminism has responded to this demand with impressive perceptiveness, and creepiness now sort of has a new definition as a result. It now frequently refers specifically to the practice of manipulating social conventions in order to get away with doing things that make people uncomfortable. True creepiness is a form of coercion, drawing on other people's politeness and goodwill as armour to shield yourself from having to truly respect others, and something can "feel creepy" if it is starting to feel like it might be an instance of this.

It's great that we have a word for this particular sort of behaviour. But what creepy used to refer to was, well, a sort of nebulous crawling feeling. It was a feeling that could arise in a number of situations -- notably, of course, the one above, but also other situations where the person involved might not even mean to do anything wrong. It could even refer to outright prejudice, such as the classism that makes visibly impoverished people just feel sort of ... wrong. And, of course, because it had this breadth, it was an ineffective weapon at stopping these genuinely wrong behaviours that it also referred to, and that's why it had to change. Creepy isn't a feeling any more. It's a specific behaviour.

We still don't have a word for the feeling. You know the one. Slime. And I don't think we'll ever get a word for that feeling that can stand uncontested until we are willing to let women's feelings about sexual violence and sexual bullying stand uncontested without needing justification. "This boy touched me on the cheek" is never going to win anyone over as a description of sexual harassment. Nor was this boy really creepy in the sense of pretending not to be coercive. I mean, he was bullying me pretty openly. But the point I want to make is, I know what I felt. I felt slime. And someday we'll have a word for that, as a society. Not a word for a specific behaviour, just a word for the feeling it induces.

I don't think we should jump the gun on this one, and try to make up a word and promote it. Teenage girls are excellent language innovators. They are also the group most likely to feel slime. They make up words for slime on the regular. When we're ready, as a society, to hear them, one of those words is going to make it big without the need for any sort of campaign.

Work on hearing girls and women. The word will take care of itself.

Profile

gemcode: A type of alpine parrot called a kea (Default)
gemcode

May 2023

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
1415161718 1920
21222324252627
28293031   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 2nd, 2025 10:14 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios