Sunday, March 9, 2008

The Fair Deal

Virginia Braun, Nicola Gavey, and Kathryn McPhilips begin the article by suggesting that sex is socioculturally produced. If sex is occurring in certain contexts only this is shaping a discourse of sex that eventually becomes limiting to possibilities of sexual activities. Wendy Hollway proposes three discourses in heterosexual sex. The first being the biological sexual drive in men where they need orgasm. The second is a discourse which embodies a typical romantic model where the woman acts as the “gatekeepers of male sexuality”. The third is more a of libertarian discourse where sexuality is expected and good as long as no one is getting hurt. These discourses have undoubtedly influenced our sex discourse in the West. The main goal of the article is to talk about reciprocity in heterosex. More specifically to “identify how a discourse of reciprocity is articulated in accounts of heterosex and heterosexual relating, and discuss the effects such a discourse might have in practice”. (238)

Both Vance and Siedman identify a reciprocal ethic of sex that is mutual, respectful, and responsibility. In Our Bodies Ourselves it is suggested to “think of intercourse as reciprocal- you open up to enclose him warmly, you surround him powerfully and he penetrates you” (239). I can’t help but wonder how important it is for women to have this picture or mindset about sex. And why don’t men have to think about it in the same way? Isn’t it more important that two people are having the same idea about what the sexual encounters mean, rather than having two people think independently—figuring out whatever works for themselves?

The article discuses how this discourse of reciprocity has been included in integral writing, and not just among feminist writers. Reciprocity in marital sex has been promoted in the 20’s and 30’s, and through the equity theory which is based on reciprocity. And overall, relationships that are equal / balanced are preferred. When addressing “marriage between equals”, Hare-Mustin talks about how a message of perceived equality for the woman may work in some cases to “conceal relations of actual inequality” (239).

Reciprocity in heterosex is centered on the idea of giving and receiving. However, the giving still seems to be gendered, women more than men, and so it can be argued that reciprocity continues to be unequal—it is still about the male giving to the female. The article states that perhaps the “reciprocal gift discourse is just as problematic as others…men are positioned as active, as agents, giving and taking pleasure”. So what is seen to be reciprocal is not actually real reciprocity. Braun, Gavey, and McPhilips are curious how a discourse of reciprocity functions and interacts with other discourses in the way that it promotes ‘norms’ for heterosex. Theoretically they analyze how this discourse is socioculturally constructed, and in this way, see how reciprocity as a discourse can “enable and constrain people’s options for how to be and act in the social world” (241).

Through many interviews Braun, Gavey, and McPhilips discovered that women are subject to “coital imperative” through sexual relations with men. A discourse of reciprocity is subject to a “he” language, in which the orgasm is still a result of what he gives her. In this discourse orgasm is seen as the ultimate goal, something both people should get. However, it seems reciprocity can encourage both people to orgasm, but giving the woman her orgasm so he can get his. This can be problematic because if the sexual encounter does not end in orgasm, then something must be wrong. If the woman doesn’t orgasm then the male is left with guilt, feels as if he “used” her, or failed in someway. Reciprocal sex means trading, giving and taking simultaneously. So then what does reciprocity really enable? The limits of this discourse suggest that male orgasm signals an end to sex, and female orgasm functions “as a justification for this desire / activity” (247). It also reinforces a traditional role of men and women in that women want sex to feel loved and men want sex to feel pleasured. Women may find themselves feeling it is “difficult to escape the straightjacket of passive female activity and / or find room for their sexual desire within heterosexual relationships” (248). Reciprocity becomes not about having equal pleasure but about men succeeding in giving pleasure. A woman orgasm is a sign of male competence, therefore, perpetuating a current discourse of inequality in heterosexual relations.

However much I agree with a discourse of reciprocity, I am discouraged by how many limits still exist. Although reciprocity disrupts a traditional discourse that is so prevalent today, and offers women power and privilege in experiencing orgasm, it denies both men and women the ability the break through traditional gender roles. I would like to see a discourse where there were truly no constraints or pressures for any gender.

1 comment:

hannah said...

I also would like to find a discourse that is free from gendered constraints and pressures. The problem is, as the authors pointed out in their conclusion (255-256), that our relationships exist in a social context that brings a heritage of inequality and problematized coitus. I think it's a reasonable argument to say that in our current social context, no heterosex discourse will be without problems. What I appreciated about this article was that they seemed to fairly evaluate the positive and negative aspects of a reciprocal discourse. Furthermore, they brought up the problems in a way that says that all reciprocal discourses will struggle with them but was not overly deterministic by stating that no one can overcome these problems (see 255, "both/and approach"). I felt that this was a very accurate assessment, and I think a relationship can deal with these problems successfully and in a feminist manner--but only by being conscious of these problems.