Epiphanies

A discussion on this article: http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/10/25/hpv_shot_cdc_recommends_gardasil_cervarix_for_boys_as_young_as_1.html
led to the following realization: The extreme right (not to be confused with the mainstream right) wants to legislate one's ability to get a blowjob, yet fights for one's right to carry guns, and maintains that legislating about that violates the second ammendment.

So I decided to poll both female and male friends about which right they prefer - the right to carry guns, or the right to receive oral sex. Doing so led to another epiphany, which I will share in a moment, but first:

Given the ridiculous stigmatization of the HPV vaccine by the American right, I would like to proudly say that I, S have been vaccinated. There is a rumor that the vaccine is only for virgins, but its actually recommended for all women below the age of 26. For more info, please go to: http://www.cdc.gov/hpv/vaccine.html

Now, on to the epiphany:

Last night I had an epiphany about the radical right*: They want to give you the right to carry guns but take away your right to get a blowjob. (In this case, one might think that "you" is gay men, but I am pretty sure that Baltimore has some laws that outlaw fellatio, even when its female on male.)

So I decided to do a poll for my male friends: If you had to choose between the right to carry guns and the right to get a blowjob, which would you choose?**

While technically the term "get a blowjob" places the man in the passive role, in order to 'get" this blowjob the implication is that he is "taking" it - ie, there is an exchange in which the man plays a less-active-but-still-not-completely-passive role.

I then tried to think of an equivalent term for female oral sex, but there was none. There is "to be eaten out', a phrase that relegates the women to the status of object, as in she is being eaten, as opposed to giving and taking, which takes place between two subjects.

There is to peform oral sex, but in this case, the other person is having oral sex performed on them - again, relegating them to passive object.

I am sure there are slang phrases for these sexual acts that I am unaware of, but these are the common ones, and I think it is no coincidence that they disempower women while reserving some form of agency for men.

I think that our society equates power with the phallus, so there is no way any type of phrase involving a phallus will completely disempower men. It is men, not women, who are expected to exercise sexual agency.***

Our entire society is built around this false concept of masculinity, in which men who are not powerful are somehow seen as "weak', and I think it is as harmful to men as it is to women, by giving them these impossible standards that they have to adhere to in order to be "masculine".

It is only when we as feminists recognize the harm that sexism and chauvinism do to men, and start adressing that harm, that we will be able to win over men to our movement en masse.

But I am getting far afeild. My point is: Semantics matter. They impact how we think in ways we are unaware of - and often, the semantics of the English language send a subliminal message that men are powerful and women are not; that men are empowered and women are not.

A postscript on languge, though not on semantics: When we use the word "hysterical", the root of that is the Greek word for "womb" and refers to the fact that women's wombs were thought to make them crazy. I actually think I know some men who still beleive this, in a way - how many times has an an angry woman been asked by a guy if she has PMS? I actually heard it argued Hillary couldn't be president, bc what if she met with a diplomat when she had PMS, and yelled at him, therefore ruining America's international relations with that country. No one ever said Obama couldn't be president because he's a straight man and what if a really pretty diplomat with amazing tits walked into the room, and he couldn't stop staring, and just did whatever she wanted, thus causing America to sign some sort of international agreement that harmed its interests - and this after the Clinton era.

* I am not judging the entire right by its radical faction, don't worry.

** I was actually surprised by the amount who answered guns.

*** In the Middle Ages, Western culture saw women as demonic beings who were full of nothing but sexual desire and would tempt men to sin, or as passive, asexual beings who men used to gratify their urges. I think this still impacts our culture in ways we are often unaware of.