The Personal is Political: Sex, Sexual Politics and Politics
By Emma.
Guess what? I’ve had sex.
In fact, I’ve had lots of sex. Not as much as I would have like to at times, but lots none the less. I’m very glad that the best sex I have had is also with the man I married. I continue to have sex with him. He’ll be pleased to know I don’t intend to have sex with anyone else. But I was hardly a virgin when we met. Neither was he for that matter.
Right now I’ve got that off my ample, heaving bosom, here’s my question – does the fact that I’ve had sex make me any less intelligent? Does the fact that I have an ample heaving bosom make me any less intelligent? Does the fact that I have a penchant for tops which compliment and reveal parts of my ample and heaving bosom make me any less intelligent?
We live in 2011 and it’s a world full of sex. From vagazzles to the English Collective of Prostitutes. But it’s a world which remains very confused about sex and its relationship to gender politics. This is partly because feminists are just as divided as everyone else. So I can’t claim to be speaking for anyone but myself, but if I could change one thing about the tone of political discussion in this country (and most others to be fair) it would be to raise the level of debate above the shocked prurience of 12 year old public school boys.
There is plenty to be said about the way that a woman’s appearance is used to denigrate her publicly in a way that just doesn’t happen to men. In the wake of the Sky Sports debacle there is a real debate to be had about how women are still treated as second class citizens professionally. But it can’t be had by nuns and virgins. It must be had by real men and women with real life experiences.
I’m neither proud nor ashamed of my sexual history. But like every other human being on the planet, I talk about sex with my friends. As I happen to live in the 21st Century – some of this discussion is online for all to see. I’m neither proud nor ashamed of that. But if I choose to have a career in public life, someone somewhere will trawl through my facebook page (and those of my friends I suspect) and will find photos of me worse for wear, photos of me looking quite sauce and photos of me that they think will embarrass me (they won’t). I don’t have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with the idea that it should have any bearing on my ability to do the any job I am chosen for. It won’t and I won’t let it.
I don’t judge anyone on who they happen to have sex with. I judge them on how they treat people. That’s really all that matters. I will only accept judgement if I fail on these terms. I have of course not always lived up to the high ideals of treating people as well as I’d like, but I do continue to try. I will never accept that my sexual behaviour, with other consenting adults is a criteria to judge me on. I reject the premise of the question that there is anything to be judged.
Tags: Sex, sexism, The Personal is Political
Friday, February 4th 2011 at 14:36
Hear hear!
Saturday, February 5th 2011 at 15:35
So why the hell do you think that people are interested in your sexual history? It’s not intelligent, it’s not humourous, it’s not clever.
It occurs to many of us that those that have to pronounce their sexual history are normally either (a) inadequate or (b) promiscuous or (c)lacking friends.
Go away and get a proper life.
Saturday, February 5th 2011 at 16:09
You’ve had sex! No way! Don’t let your parents know…… they never had sex and would be so shocked.
Seriously, you seek to address a non news story. The fact that you are a stunningly beautiful woman who has sex is not the issue in the halls of the funny Etonian handshakers, it’s that you are popular but won’t have sex with them………..
Saturday, February 5th 2011 at 16:15
There’s missing the point, there’s spectacularly missing the point, then there’s the time when you are so far from the point, the point is a mere glimmer on a distant horizon…
Saturday, February 5th 2011 at 19:23
My understanding of your post is that you are a monogamous woman comfortable with her body, realistic that if you put your life online then some photos might become public which might not always show your best side, or too much of your best side! Also, you enjoy your curves and the fashion that flatters them, also a sign of confidence, being comfortable about your body etc.
The problem comes from these factors:
1 – social networking.
2 – blurring of private and public life.
3 – ordinary members of the public having instant global publishing at their fingertips and not being used to this.
4 – people’s natural curiosity about each other inc their previously private lives.
5 – jobs, the work environment, and being comfortable with each other so we can work well together, inc no distractions from web scandals and so on.
We live in an age of rapid change. Is it reasonable to be happy working next to someone who blogs about their private life with photos? Will they show the office party on there? Conferences? Other work events? Blurring the line between their work and private lives, and the business they work for. Will their colleagues be comfortable?
What if they are revealed to be a member of a controversial group in their private life? Swingers, extreme political party, group that is opposed to the boss of the business they work for, overtly sexual, violent, cruel sport, etc.
Would it be fair to sack an employee who makes others feel uncomfortable because of their internet activity that has revealed some salacious, or illegal, or cruel, or other activity that might be a cause for concern. Or just titilating and amusingly distracting!
And this is the modern quandary.
Not everyone “internets”. Not everyone is happy knowing all your views if we have to work well together, not yet because its never been that way before. This adjustment will take time, and possibly new laws.
Recent examples inc Sally Below and the sheet, and the publication of the BNP membership list.
I think some women might be a bit uncomfortable if their husbands worked alongside Sally Bercow, this could cause friction.
Likewise knowing someone is a member of the bnp might make you question their ability to do their job. Could a bnp member work in HR? Could they be a liability in a unfair dismissal claim?
Would you have respect and confidence in your boss if he was to marry Kate Price?
Would a board of directors?
Sunday, February 6th 2011 at 11:02
It’s very interesting to me that most of the comments assume I am happy with my body and am sexually confident. It actually couldn’t be further from the truth. But that’s the point. I as a very ordinary, unattractive person have sex and am open and public about my lack of shame in doing so, I can see why. But it sort of reinforces the point I am making – that we now see sex almost entirely through a prism of rigid publically acceptable norms – rather than through our own unfiltered moral understanding. Because I am open about sex, I must therefore be attractive, because practically everything we are told is that unattractive people having sex is even more shameful that attractive but important people doing so.
This needs challenging just as much as the notion that public figures shouldn’t be relaxed and open about thier sex lives, and I include Nick Clegg in this as much as Sally Bercow. I don’t care how many women Clegg has slept with. For me it does not speak to his character. I knew he’d slept with over 30 women before the election. I didn’t know he’d gleefully embrace devestating monatarist policies. I know which one I judge him on.
I have no idea who my boss is married to, so it could be Katie Price for all I know. I don’t care and neither should anyone else. He’s fantastic at his job, and that’s what matters.