sexually aggressive women - acting in favor of or against patriarchy?

[Rosa Partizan]

This is something obviously controversial I've read different opinions about here. What do you think about the type of woman that is very confident with her own sexuality, claiming unconditionally her own satisfaction, maybe also being vulgar and offensive, just getting what she wants. To summarize it, the type of woman that is subject of her own sexuality instead of being an available object. Do you think this is something that patriarchy (and men) find desireable or something that is rather repugnant to them? Or do you think it depends on other factors? What are your thoughts on that subject - object dichotomy?

[PhoenixAsh]

This is something obviously controversial I've read different opinions about here. What do you think about the type of woman that is very confident with her own sexuality, claiming unconditionally her own satisfaction, maybe also being vulgar and offensive, just getting what she wants. To summarize it, the type of woman that is subject of her own sexuality instead of being an available object. Do you think this is something that patriarchy (and men) find desireable or something that is rather repugnant to them? Or do you think it depends on other factors? What are your thoughts on that subject - object dichotomy?

Hmm. It depends what you mean by vulgar and offensive. Also I don't care what patriarchy and men want...I care about what I want. And I am not interested in women who swoon, flattering but boring...although mutual swooning can be kind of nice from time to time, I only get interested in women who actively contradict and challenge me...most of the time I fall for women who I have the biggest and fiercest fights with.

[Rosa Partizan]

maybe everyone gets do define what "sexually aggressive" means to them. Vulgarity is not necessarily a part of that.

[PhoenixAsh]

maybe everyone gets do define what "sexually aggressive" means to them. Vulgarity is not necessarily a part of that.

Sure. I think so.

Sexually assertive women would surprise the hell out of most men. Some will be turned off or will be repelled by it. Some won't. I usually am not (when the advances are welcome). Mostly this is an issue with male perception of women and female behavior. So they just have to deal with it.

I think, and I don't want to revisit other debates, women behaving how they want to behave free of internal limitations about sex and gender would be totally contradictory to patriarchy and surprise the fuck out of most men.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Well, Rosa already knows what I think about this topic, but I'll reiterate it here.

I absolutely love women who are agressive and forthcoming about their sexual desires. I love women who are not content with just being passive, but are as lusty and active as the other partner(s). A woman who can fascinate me intellectually as well as physically. She wants to get as much out of sex as I do.

Some men are terrified of strong women. I adore them. And fuck the patriarchial bullshit that pigeonholes a woman's position in the sexual landscape.

[RA89]

Depends what you mean exactly.

If you mean aggressive in terms of approaching guys, I think most males would like that as many complain of the burden put on men having to do most the approaching.

If you mean in the bedroom, it's down the individual, most secure men would prefer a sexually aggressive girl than a prude imo.

If you mean in terms of promiscuity, then yeah most men would find this repugnant for many different reasons. In relation to patriarchy, maybe in some way this behaviour would be desired in the sense that many males want to have sex with lots promiscuous girls when they're younger and then settle down with a partner who has a low sexual partner count.

[Hrafn]

I sometimes am a bit terrified by "sexually aggressive" women, as much as I am by men - maknly because I tend to, at least in my own mind, to be quite the opposite.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't think it matters much on a social level, or put another way, the oppression of women can be elastic. If assertiveness is not the expectation, it can be an expression of an interpersonal challenge to these norms; but it also can then be reworked into a new "type" of personality or expectation for behavior. For example, I used to live in Los Angeles and around the entertainment industry there was a certain expectation that female employees be "bros"... To make crude jokes, to participate in an ironic/unironic objectification of other women along with the male employees... As well as objectify men in a sort of parody of male cat-calls to women, to demonstrate how down they were with the male dominated workplace by going to strip clubs with coworkers etc.

It's sort of like an extreme version of women who go out of their way to distance themselves from feminism. So in that case being assertive was just another narrow alley of what's acceptable and furthermore it is a sort of cultural accommodation of male dominated professional atmospheres. Women are so rare, that they have to prove they won't spoil the boys club atmosphere by raising any "issues".

In the abstract is there anything wrong with women "being a bro" and hanging out with guys? Of course not, nor is there a problem with women acting like "tomboys" or "princesses" or "prudes" or sexually aggressive.... Not in the abstract. The problem is more being forced to fit into "tomboy" or "princess" or whatever other categories. Maybe it's sort of like when I was growing up and people were really openly homophobic and they hated "flaming" gays for being so out and they hated closeted gays for being sneaky and timid!

I also think there's a slight danger in thinking of personality behaviors in connection to which is better or worse for systems of oppression. I mean people are different and among males some are socially and sexually aggressive while others are reserved and don't pursue sexual relationships as much as is expected. But men don't have the oppression to deal with and so it's understood that people are different. For women, their behavior is seen in relation to men and so they are socially expected to fit into some category or fit some behavior pattern. Too sexual, too fridges, too outgoing, too passive, too masculine, too girly, etc. criticized no matter which way one turns. It's not the behavior itself that helps or hurts oppression, the demand to comply to some set of expectations is part of the social control and management of women. We don't need to add our own "not liberation-oriented enough in behaviors and attitude" to the mix.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

This is something obviously controversial I've read different opinions about here. What do you think about the type of woman that is very confident with her own sexuality, claiming unconditionally her own satisfaction, maybe also being vulgar and offensive, just getting what she wants. To summarize it, the type of woman that is subject of her own sexuality instead of being an available object. Do you think this is something that patriarchy (and men) find desireable or something that is rather repugnant to them? Or do you think it depends on other factors? What are your thoughts on that subject - object dichotomy?

I don't know about patriarchy and men, but I do. When it comes to womyn I love that. I don't think passive female sexuality is wrong, I don't think aggressive female sexuality is wrong. There is nothing problematic about either. I love your sarcasm by the way. ;)

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

What is funny is when people assume an aggressive grrrl prefers passive men, my ideal man is hard to find because he is more aggressive than me.:wub:

[Lynx]

I fail to see what is controversial here. Sexually aggressive women is a common male fantasy. That being said, there is hardly anything that is not a male fantasy. In real life, such behavior would be welcomed and criticized. It may be outside the norm, but it isn't illegal (in most jurisdictions).

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

It sounded sarcastic to me

[synthesis]

It sounded sarcastic to me

Sarcastic in what sense?

[RedWorker]

What do you think about the type of woman that is very confident with her own sexuality, claiming unconditionally her own satisfaction

Why should I think something about that, or why should my opinion even be relevant, in the first place? People are free to make use of their sexuality however they want.


maybe also being vulgar and offensive

Well, I don't like rude people. I don't think many people do.


Do you think this is something that patriarchy (and men) find desireable or something that is rather repugnant to them?

Some men like more sexually dominant women, others the opposite.

[Slavic]

What ever gets you off.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Sarcastic in what sense?

The entire thread is poking fun at this older thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/feminist-views-submissive-t188503/index.html). At least that is how it seems.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Well, I don't like rude people. I don't think many people do.

Oh you break my 2tone heart. :rolleyes: