In the year 2009, there are evidently some people who still don't know that cunnilingus exists.
Also: That the linked piece was not published by The Onion.
For the record, and since the author contends, "Keep in mind that if you want to disagree with this analysis, you'll have to explain why the historical parallel doesn't apply," here is my brief explanation:
1. Because the pederasty practiced by men in the upper classes of ancient Rome is not the same thing as what we generally refer to today as "homosexuality," i.e. consensual sex between adults.
2. Homoeroticism is, indeed, "to a large degree, socially constructed." Or, another way of putting it: The lack of homoeroticism is, to a large degree, socially constructed. Are straight women more likely to view themselves along a sexual spectrum and less inclined to limit their sexual experiences to men because women's bodies are so ubiquitously sexually objectified throughout our culture that we've socially constructed their homoeroticism; or are straight men less likely to view themselves along a sexual spectrum and more inclined to limit their sexual experiences to women because men are socialized against and bullied into denying any feminine/non-hetero aspect? I would suggest a combination of both, personally—but the reason is really beside the point. We already exist in a culture in which one sex is more disposed than the other toward fluid sexuality. Despite that reality allegedly putting "feminism and homosexuality … on a collision course," feminists are the most likely of straight women to be found arguing for more gender, sex, and sexuality fluidity, not less.
3. Our society is far less dependent than previous generations may have been on maintaining the institution of marriage to ensure all its members are cared for. Modern American women have greater control over their reproduction and more opportunity than their ancient Roman counterparts. Modern American children have more rights than their ancient Roman counterparts. Etc.
I could go on all day, but you get the point. Suffice it say, I don't think "tomorrow's women" have anything to worry about with regard to same-sex marriage.
Especially, ya know, the lesbians.
[H/T to Mr. Petulant.]
Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.
blog comments powered by Disqus