Monthly Archives: September 2005

Considering debate

Posted on by

Lots to do this morning.  I’m pleased to note that I’ve got an extended version of an earlier post up at Inside Higher Education this morning.   Turning blog posts into publishable articles is something I’ve been meaning to do for a long time now, if only in hopes of reaching a wider audience.

I can report that in the fine tradition of Eleanor Smeal and Phyllis Schlafly, or of Timothy Leary and G.Gordon Liddy, my friend and sparring partner Glenn Sacks and I are considering doing some public debates together, perhaps on college campuses or in other settings.  Despite our obvious ideological differences on issues of feminism and men’s rights, Glenn and I have formed a cordial working relationship.  What’s more, we’re both pretty darned entertaining; I imagine that we could do a lot of good work together.  We’re in the preliminary discussion stages, but if any readers are connected with organizations that might be interested in having Glenn and me come by, do feel free to contact me.

At the risk of offending many colleagues, I’ll say this:  most of the leadership of the pro-feminist men’s movement in this country is not terribly media-savvy.  There are a few shining exceptions, particularly Jackson Katz and Michael Kimmel, but it seems that a lack of media interest and a certain degree of shyness on the part of many leading pro-feminists leads to the exclusion of our perspective from the public conversation.  Though I can’t say that I’m qualified to become a national spokesperson for pro-feminist men (my movement credentials are far less impressive than many, and some of my views are more than a little idiosyncratic), I do feel that I’ve got  sufficient years of professional and academic experience in gender work to put myself out there.  Glenn Sacks is quite well-known in the men’s rights community; in that sense, I’d be honored and delighted to be his public foil.   He and I are both confident that we could do a considerable amount of good for our respective movements if we pursue this current project.

Of course, at the risk of being accused of affected modesty, let me say that I think Glenn will surely have the upper hand in our debates.  Running a radio show with precise to-the-second time constraints, not to mention dealing with hostile callers,  is a very different thing from lecturing –without commercial interruptions — for an hour or two to students held captive by the power of the gradebook!  Still, eleven years of drama training in my childhood and adolescence may come in handy, and I hope to be able to keep up with my opponent.

At their worst, debates simply provide opportunities for two sides to lob tired rhetorical grenades at each other.  In bad debates (and I’ve been in a few of those), each participant is thinking less about what the opponent is saying, and more about what she herself ought to say when it’s her turn again.  Each talks past the other.  In good debates, each is challenged by and made better by the other.  As a result, the issues that are on the table become more comprehensible for the viewers or listeners.  Both the pro-feminist and men’s rights movements have everything to gain by having new and greater opportunities to carry their messages to a wider audience.  And while I have no doubt that getting this project going will be a lot of work, I’m excited by the chance to work with such a kind and competent adversary.

“…then query whether religion has any real influence on anybody at all”: Divorce, faith, and new beginnings

Posted on by

In response to my previous post, dear XRLQ writes:

I’ve heard the overall divorce statistics are roughly the same between nominal Christians and nominal non-Christians, but I’ve never heard it was the same across denominations, which would be more than a little odd since some think the Biblical proscription against divorce establishes a mortal sin, while others think it was one of God’s little April Fool’s jokes, and most others fall somewhere in between. If divorce stats really are evenly spread among these groups, then query whether religion has any real influence on anybody at all.

First off, the statistics.  As Lynn reminded me, the best recent study on Christians and divorce is that done by George Barna (himself an evangelical) in 2004.  A summary of the results is here.  Here’s part of Barna’s report:

Although many Christian churches attempt to dissuade congregants from getting a divorce, the research confirmed a finding identified by Barna a decade ago (and further confirmed through tracking studies conducted each year since): born again Christians have the same likelihood of divorce as do non-Christians.

Note:  Barna isn’t talking about nominal "Christmas and Easter" Christians; he’s talking about those who have had a "born-again" experience.  He notes that Hugo is not as anomalous as some might think:

Multiple divorces are also unexpectedly common among born again Christians. Barna’s figures show that nearly one-quarter of the married born agains (23%) get divorced two or more times.

And for those interested in denominational figures, Barna notes:

The survey showed that divorce varied somewhat by a person’s denominational affiliation. Catholics were substantially less likely than Protestants to get divorced (25% versus 39%, respectively). Among the largest Protestant groups, those most likely to get divorced were Pentecostals (44%) while Presbyterians had the fewest divorces (28%).

While there are many different Presbyterian churches, I’m struck that what is considered a "moderate mainline" denomination reported fewer divorces than the Pentecostals, the fastest growing wing of global Christianity, and one usually associated with a strict adherence to Biblical mores.

But while statistics have their place, I’m struck by XRLQ’s remark: If divorce stats really are evenly spread among these groups, then query whether religion has any real influence on anybody at all.   

Oh, XRLQ, I do query.   But from my vantage point, I don’t see the high divorce rate among evangelicals and "born-agains" as evidence of a failure of religion to truly impact people’s lives.  After all, as I’ve written before, I think divorce can be, in some instances, a positive and healthy experience — even if it is rarely, if ever, the best possible outcome for a marriage.  The fact that two people who belong to a church choose to get divorced does not prove that the church has failed them, nor does it prove that the husband and wife are "bad Christians."  Indeed, the question we have to ask is, "How did your faith affect your decision to get divorced?’  And then the follow-up: "How did your faith affect the way you and your partner divorced?"

The latter question is vitally important.  My most recent ex-wife and I divorced while we were both active members of All Saints Pasadena.  While few folks in the community sought to intervene to save our marriage, many offered us counsel on how to go through the process gracefully and lovingly.  Though I am not in contact with my ex, our divorce was civil and kind. Comparing this most recent divorce to my earlier ones (which took place when I was "unchurched"), I can say with complete and utter certainty that my faith empowered me to be a far more thoughtful, patient, and loving "ex-husband" in the divorce process than I would otherwise have been!  It was my faith that helped me to not to say vicious and unkind things; it was my faith that helped me though the painful process of moving out and setting up a new life.  If there’s such a thing as a "good divorce", my third wife and I had one — and our personal beliefs and our church community helped us to make it so.

My faith also allowed me to believe that things could and would be radically different this time, with my new wife.  I fell head over heels in love with she to whom I am now married very quickly, not long after the end of my previous marriage.  As crazy as I was about my gal, I was terrified as well.  Heck, being divorced three times by one’s mid-thirties is an embarrassing statistic even by Los Angeles standards!  I also was afraid that in some sense I didn’t have what it takes to make a marriage work; that old fear that I was "broken" and "toxic" resurfaced.

But in the three years since then, I’ve been surrounded by love and embraced my extraordinary spiritual mentors, both at All Saints and elsewhere.  From the ashes of another brief marriage, my faith helped me to pull out of a morass of self-pity and begin the hard work of looking at myself and making necessary changes.  Without God, without a community of others to love me, I would long since have given up.  Without "religion", without "faith",  I wouldn’t be stupefyingly happy with this amazing wife I have; I’d likely be an aging skinny bachelor, living on TV dinners and having a series of superficial and unsatisfying "relationships" with a series of no-doubt totally inappropriate women!

So, when XRLQ suggests I ask whether religion makes a difference, I have to say, "Heck, yes!"  While my faith may not have been a prophylaxis against the end of a marriage, it was the key to a graceful and civil divorce and the cornerstone of my personal rebuilding project in the aftermath of great pain.  It is the foundation of the candid, challenging, and incredibly fulfilling relationship my wife and I have built together over the last couple of years of our courtship.  For all of this, I am immensely grateful to a God who loves me without conditions and far more than I deserve!

So yes, we Christians divorce right alongside everyone else.  Yes, our most conservative and impassioned believers have no lower divorce rate than those who have a more subdued or lukewarm faith.  But Barna’s figures don’t tell us the whole story.  And while I don’t think anyone has done a study on the willingness of divorced Christians to remarry after multiple divorces, I wouldn’t be surprised if the research were to show that the deeply faithful were more likely to believe in the possibiility of a fresh start.

Long post on buying the cow, free milk, and marriage

Posted on by

In the discussion section below this post, we’ve somehow gotten sidetracked on to the topic of men, feminism, marriage, and changing sexual mores. 

If there’s a cultural myth I find loathsome, it’s the notion that men are losing interest in marriage because sex with women has become widely available outside of marriage.  This showed up in some of the comments, and I wanted to take some time to respond.

As the saying puts it, "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"  I’ve heard many of my more conservative friends offer one variation or another on that old story, explaining why it is that one male friend or another is proving reluctant to marry his girlfriend.  I know that a great many of the young women I’ve taught in my gender studies classes got one version or another of that message from their parents; I’ve read countless journal entries about cows and men and milk and sex.  So I can’t say I’m surprised to see someone resurrect the old line in a discussion of sexual mores.

First off, for those folks who are convinced that earlier generations of Americans always punished pre-marital sex, do please take a good course on the Puritans.  Failing that, let me recommend a great book by a man who is a dear friend:  Sexual Revolution in Early America, by Richard Godbeer of the University of Miami (FL).  It’s an indispensable corrective to many of our myths.  And as any student of family history knows, depending on whose study you read, anywhere from 10-40% of brides in eighteenth-century New England were pregnant on their wedding days — judging by the records of healthy first-born children delivered eight months or less afterwards.  (Perhaps there was an epidemic of hardy preemies in Boston three centuries ago?)

But I correct student misconceptions for a living in the classroom.  It’s not what I want to do here on the blog.  Rather, I have to say that as a Christian, a married person, and as a man, I find the notion that women ought to withhold sex in order to convince men to marry them to be profoundly objectionable. It certainly reflects a very limited view of men, women, and the nature of marriage! It also ignores what I think is the real reason for falling marriage rates: not sex, but economics.  As more and more middle-class women become financially independent, more and more of us of both sexes can choose to be "picky" about whom we marry.  We can make it on our own in a way that earlier generations could not; that means that marriages are more likely to be reflect our romantic and spiritual choices than our need and our dependence.  On the whole, I tend to think that’s a good thing for both men and women. 

Obviously, I believe in marriage, and I’m thrilled to be married to this beautiful and amazing woman. But I didn’t marry my wife so I could finally have sex with her.  She didn’t marry me so that she could have a roof over her head.  Rather, we chose to embrace marriage as an expression of our devotion to each other and our mutual eagerness for the unique "crucible" experience that marriage brings.  As I’ve said before, I believe in marriage because I believe it to be a uniquely powerful vehicle for personal growth. I also believe it can provide a safe, nurturing environment for children. 

For the most part, these are modern reasons.  I didn’t get married to have licit sex.  I didn’t get married because I’d starve without a wife.  I didn’t get married to meet other’s expectations; heck, when it’s your fourth wedding, some people think you shouldn’t get married ever again! I got married because I am in love with the woman who is my wife, because we challenge each other in all the best ways, and because I truly believe that she and I will be better equipped for love, service, and transformation together rather than apart.

I’ll be honest.  Despite my evangelicalism, I’ve always worried that the "no sex before marriage" rule has the (possibly) unintended consequence of encouraging folks to marry before they are emotionally and spiritually mature enough to handle such a relationship.  No, I don’t think experience is the best teacher; yes, I know many successful marriages where both parties were virgins on the wedding night.  But I’d hate to think that someone was marrying me just so that they could finally have sex with me!  Indeed, I’d go so far as to suggest that for those of us raised in a more sexually tolerant and affluent culture, when we go to the altar with our college degrees and our IRAs and our own set of past physical experiences, we can offer our new spouse the radical assurance that we are truly marrying them for who they are, not for what we will finally be allowed to do!

The divorce rate among evangelical Christians (who presumably "waited") is equal to that of secular folks.  That may say something about the culture’s influence on the church, of course, but it also makes clear that abstinence before marriage is hardly a reliable vaccine against future divorce!  Mind you, I’m not suggesting folks go about "sowing oats" heedlessly.  Promiscuity is rarely healthy.  But when we idealize a more innocent past, and make an idol out of virginity and marriage, I’m not sure that’s particularly healthy either.

The young men I work with and my male peers don’t see women as "cows".  (Vulgar, sexist humor notwithstanding.)  For the most part, they don’t see sex as "milk" to be taken "for free".   The fellas I run with and work out with are either reasonably happy in their marriages or they are single men looking to get married.  The teenage boys I work with may be very horny (the same can of course be said for many of their sisters), but they too talk of marriage.  Two years ago, during a discussion about sex, I asked a group of two dozen All Saints kids from impeccably liberal families, "How many of you want to get married someday?"  All the boys and most of the girls raised their hands.  Interestingly,three girls were the ones who said they never wanted to be married, for a variety of reasons.  (One young woman remarked privately that when and if gay marriage becomes fully legal, she’d love to wed.) 

Most of the teens I work with expect to have sex before marriage.  Many, of course, are already sexually active.  But the fact that "my kids" have had sexual experiences does not seem to noticeably dim their desire to someday marry; rather, it has the salutatory effect of making them less eager to marry very young!  They want to marry when they’re well and truly ready financially, educationally, emotionally, sexually, and spiritually.  And because most aren’t waiting, they expect that they will be able to make that marriage decision — when the time comes — motivated by a profound desire to unite with another human being, not a craving for a physical experience that they have never known.

Do our All Saints kids have a sound view?  Perhaps.  But given that divorce statistics in the liberal churches are no "worse" than those in conservative ones, my more traditional friends will have a hard time defending the notion that "waiting" is the best guarantor of lifelong marital bliss!

In defense of addiction

Posted on by

Monday mornings are very busy here.  I’ve got lectures to prepare, mortgage companies to call, and students with whom to meet.  I’m rarely in blogging mode at this hour, but hope to have a more thoughtful post up later in the day.   The comments below my last two posts have turned into a relatively interesting rehashing of the classic canard that the sexual revolution has failed women.  (And the old "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" line has made an appearance as well.)  I’ll have some thoughts this afternoon.

My next marathon (Long Beach) is now just five weeks away.  I feel reasonably ready.  I’ve dropped twelve or thirteen pounds since my sluggish performance in San Diego in June, but I haven’t been doing much up-tempo speed-work.  I’ve realized over the years that running at a moderate pace gives me the same endorphin high as track work — with a good deal less pain.   As I get older, I’m less willing to beat up my body for the sake of cutting down time.

I know that my focus on personal fitness comes across as narcissistic (and in times of national tragedy), almost offensively obtuse.  At the same time, I also know that my devotion to my body’s performance offers me the opportunity to commit more energy to other activities.  Teaching seven classes a week, regular volunteering within two spiritual communities, and steady writing (I’m going to get some articles out this year, lord willing) would be impossible for me if I didn’t give the time to my body.  I’d either have to drink or go mad, and neither option is anywhere near as appealing as a brutal session of Pilates or a few tough hours pounding the trail.  People say, "Hugo, can you afford to spend so much time and money on working out?"  I always answer, "I can’t afford not to!"  I do believe I have more energy, more perspective, more ability to listen compassionately, when I have burned up all my little demons in exercise.

I suppose this is where I have some affection for our president.  Not his politics, mind you.  But I’ve heard the criticisms of his obsession with exercise (the running, and now the mountain biking), and I’ve always felt protective of a man who at least in that regard, I see as a kindred spirit.  Without pushing the point, my life narrative and his are not terribly different; I know what it is to prolong adolescent recklessness and heavy drinking far beyond what is chronologically appropriate.  I know what it is to surrender to a Higher Power, and to experience the profound transformation that comes with a "born-again" commitment to Christ.  But I’ve also noted that for those of us who are touched by addictions, the "disease moves laterally."  When we surrender our drinking (or other bad behaviors), our addictiveness simply switches to something more positive.   I have no doubt that both President Bush and I are addicted to exercise; I also have no doubt that it is the regular opportunity to indulge that addiction that frees us up to meet our responsibilities.  (Not that I am suggesting that my burdens are anywhere near as weighty as his).   Without that outlet, he could not do what he does; I’m not sure I could either.

I don’t know if the president feels closer to God when he works out.  I know that I do, especially in the long painful sessions.  Though I love to work out with companions, sometimes I like to run alone, if only because in the latter stages of a major run, I start to talk out loud to God.   When all that pain mixes with the endorphin high, I feel uniquely vulnerable and open.   Perhaps it’s just my body’s biochemistry that creates the perception of being spiritually connected, but whatever the source, I am utterly dependent upon it.  And given the benefits that it has brought to my life, and given what it has enabled me to do for those around me that I was not able to do before, I’ll zealously defend my runs and rides and gym sessions against all those who suggest my time and money be spent elsewhere.  And when called for, in this one regard, I’ll defend the president as well.

Follow up on profeminism and sexuality

Posted on by

I’ve been quite pleased by the thoughtful comments below yesterday’s "In the Bedroom" post.  I’m also grateful that Amanda (who now gets linked by Newsweek!) responded in a fine post of her own.

Some things I’ve been considering:

1.  Obviously, "Henry" is not really named Henry.  I haven’t identified him in any way, but I’m still somewhat ambivalent about my decision to post his letter and comment upon it without his girlfriend’s consent.  She chose to comment here as well, and her anonymity is also guaranteed.  But of course, she knows who she is.  And I wonder if it’s entirely appropriate for me to discuss an intensely private aspect of the life of another human being — even anonymously — without her prior consent.  In particular, as a self-styled pro-feminist, I wonder if it’s not downright problematic to do so.  That’s less on Henry than it is on me; I’ll continue to reflect and invite responses.  "Blog in haste, reflect in leisure" is one of my standard mottoes, after all!

2.  Sophonisba quite rightly took issue with the way I brought up the problem of dominance, fantasy, and pro-feminism.  She quotes me and then responds.  I had written:

"If our fantasies and our politics don’t mesh, does it mean our political commitments are just superficial? If we are aroused by the "erotics of asymmetry", have we failed Feminism 101? To put it bluntly, if our girlfriend or wife asks us to tie her up or spank her, what’s a male feminist to do? If we say "no", we frustrate her desires; if we say "yes", aren’t we playing along with a patriarchal role that teaches women to take delight in being dominated?"

She said:

What a blatant attempt to reframe the problem. I’m awestruck. The email was all about a man’s honest expression of HIS OWN desire to dominate a girlfriend who went along with it ("because I found them arousing and she was comfortable doing them"). Now the subject changes to women’s domination fantasies, because they take the discomfort away from men and dump it squarely on women’s shoulders. Now the imaginary moral dilemma is, Should I satisfy her desires, or should I be a better feminist than she is? Oh, such horrible choices! Your "putting it bluntly" is asking a completely different question, because it’s much easier. Women’s rape fantasies are a commonplace; men’s are taboo.

Sophonisba is absolutely right that I reframed the problem; what’s embarrassing is that I did it entirely unconsciously.  The primary issue that Henry’s girlfriend was raising that wasn’t addressed was this:

Henry’s discomfort with stepping outside of traditional male roles.  (From this bit in his letter: she asked me to do something which I would not have done spontaneously.  I did it, but also added that it was kind of hard for me because it’s ‘not something that guys do’, it’s ‘gay’ and ‘something girls do, not guys’.

To his not inconsiderable credit, Henry realizes it’s something he "needs to get over", especially because his language is, as his girlfriend has pointed out, so sexist.  She asked: How is one act sexy for a woman to do and yet disgusting if a man was to do the similar act?  We don’t need to speculate about what that act is; we do need to address a basic question: what do pro-feminist men do with their own "training" that leads them to feel this double-standard so intensely?  How do we overcome it?

As I said yesterday, I don’t think that there’s a manual for "pro-feminist sexuality", beyond the basic rules of consent, mutuality, candor, and a willingness to help one’s partner cope with the physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences of what is happening.  (And if you think about it, that’s a tall order). But part of that commitment to mutuality is a willingness to work to overcome past experiences, cultural baggage, and fears associated with stepping outside of traditional sexual roles.

I don’t mean to make sex seem incredibly "unsexy" by suggesting that it ought to involve a great deal of work.  Most folks, quite understandably, want sex to flow easily, to be a "no-brainer" (in the literal sense of the phrase); they want an escape, a release, a little warmth and joy before falling asleep.  Men and women of all ages, particularly in the early stages of relationships, already bring a host of anxieties to the bedroom.  (Does he like my body?  What if I can’t "get it up"?  How do I compare to his/her last lover?  Am I exciting enough?)  Adding on a dose of feminist theory doesn’t seem like a recipe for enhancing anyone’s delight!  But at the same time, as Henry and his girlfriend have made clear, few things are less sexy than old double standards and roles that leave one –or both –parties feeling small, dirty, violated, or "less than."   Simply doing "what feels right" is, in and of itself, unreliable as a guide to carnal happiness, if only because what feels "natural" to us is too often dictated less by our deepest and truest selves and more by the noxious cultural baggage with which we are all raised. 

One classic problem that so many men struggle with, often particularly pro-feminist men, is the problem of power.  We live in a culture where men are often taught to measure their worth by the sexual pleasure they bring to their female partners.   Ask any woman whose husband or beau has been obsessed with her orgasm in order to prove himself a competent lover!  It’s a tricky subject, because it’s clear that a decent man, particularly a pro-feminist one, ought to be concerned with his partner’s pleasure.  But as more than one wife and girlfriend has noticed, plenty of men have difficulty distinguishing between the real wants and needs of their very real partner,and the desire to gratify their own egos.

It trivializes pro-feminism, of course, to suggest that a "good guy"’s chief goal ought to be his partner’s orgasm.  As long as a fellow is thinking that real pleasure is something that he gives to his partner, he’s still seeing her as an object.  If he always takes the dominant role (perhaps as the more experienced one), he’s not allowing his partner to discover her own sexual agency.  It may be a familiar and comfortable role for him (and for her), but sex at its transcendent best ought, at least some of the time, be about more than the familiar and the comfortable!  Part of living out pro-feminism in our intimate lives is taking the risk to subvert all that we’ve been taught about what is truly erotic.  Yes, we risk discomfort.  But the rewards are profound, and no one says that in the process, you can’t laugh a great deal.  Too many folks seem to bring a humorlessness to the whole business, and that’s rarely a turn-on.

In the Bedroom: a Musing on Profeminism and Desire; a Response to “Henry”

Posted on by

First off, let me just say Hugo has been in sports heaven this week:  the US Open (Matilde’s "out time" was delayed last night to see the end of the Agassi-Blake match); the start of college football (I am a bit worried about my alma mater’s quarterback situation); and a fine week of World Cup qualifiers. (I’m disappointed that England lost to Northern Ireland; not happy about Colombia’s poor performance so far; Scotland has been doing well; but I am particularly pleased that Israel has a real shot at qualifying for the first time since 1970.)

I continue to grieve the Katrina tragedy, and my beloved and I are continuing to give as best we can.  The paper today mentioned that the SPCA had rescued chinchillas in New Orleans; I’m amazed that any of those magnificent creatures survived without air conditioning for so long.

Anyhow…

This morning’s short poem has desire as a theme.  Desire and its contradictions is the theme of an e-mail I recently received from a young man I’ll call "Henry".  (Obviously, not his real name).

Henry wrote:

This afternoon, while playing sexually, (my girlfriend and I) ended up doing certain things (little
domination/submission games) because I found them arousing and she was
comfortable doing them, but then she asked me to do something which I would not
have done spontaneously.  I did it, but also added that it was kind of hard for
me because it’s ‘not something that guys do’, it’s ‘gay’ and ‘something girls
do, not guys’.  I wasn’t making excuses — that’s homophobic and misogynist
bullshit, of course, and I said so, and it doesn’t stop me from making the
effort to get over it — but it’s baggage I’m bringing into the relationship
from growing up in such a misogynist society, and it’s something I have to
actually make the effort to get over.  She immediately drew back from me –
emotionally, not so much physically — and said it annoyed and upset her that
there’s this double standard, and it makes it seem like these things are ‘dirty’
and ‘girls are dirty or worthless because we’ do these things.  I agreed, tried
to reiterate that I think it’s misogynist and wrong, and said that it’s
something I try to think about, but she still seemed rather upset.  She had to
leave soon after that, but she did want to hear more about what I thought later. 

I think her worry is that I find certain things, especially the mild domination
and submission games, erotic because of that misogynist baggage, and that this
makes me a misogynist.  I’ll admit — though it hurts to do so — that this
could very well be the case:  I don’t think I’m a misogynist, nor do I want to
be one, but it’s hard to deny the roots of many of the things I find erotic in
patriarchal gender roles.  On the other hand, it’s not that I feel like I have
to be ‘in charge’ because ‘I’m the man’; I just find it erotic when one person
is in charge, and it’s often me instead of her because I’m more comfortabe
taking charge. 

So this leads me to all kinds of questions I can’t seem to get a solid grip on.
Am I a misogynist, at least in the context of my personal experience of sex,
because of what I find erotic?  If so, what’s the best way to deal with this –
can we change the way we experience eros?  How can we deal with the general
prevalence of misogynistic experiences of sex?  Is this sort of anxiety common
among feminists?  Male feminists?  Feminists who enjoy domination/submission
games with their partner that happen to coincide with traditional gender roles?
Why is it so hard for men to break away from misogynistic and homophobic
attitudes, even when we don’t care about being masculine or about the way other
people perceive us?

(Bold emphasis is mine).

Henry’s query raises many questions that I’m not qualified to answer.  Certainly, there are folks in the feminist and pro-feminist communities who enthusiastically embrace sexual role-playing and performance.  I have acquaintances in the "fetish" community who are ardent feminists, and in their non-sexual lives are strict and persistent advocates of political, social, and economic equality for women.   To a man and a woman, they claim that what might be tactfully called "the erotics of asymmetrical power" doesn’t undermine their work towards egalitarianism and justice.  They insist that a private delight in domination or submission can coexist easily with a public commitment to radical equality.  I take their word for it.

But what interested me about Henry’s letter was the question of male pro-feminism and sexuality.  One of the enduring myths about male pro-feminists, I’ve noticed, is that they are all inclined to be sexually passive, at least with female partners.  (Of course, that myth sits uneasily alongside other myths, such as the one that we’re all gay, or all sexual predators using a facade of compassion to "hit on" vulnerable women).  The assumption is that we are all, to a man, terrified of blending "patriarchy with passion".  As a result, we presumably all insist that our sexual lives with wives and girlfriends be characterized by perfect reciprocity, or perhaps even a vaguely apologetic timidity on our parts!  That sounds about as arousing as a golfing junket with Tom Delay.

It’s a silly myth, but it has a tiny grain of truth.  As Henry makes clear, it’s hard to grow up in this culture as a heterosexual, pro-feminist man and not be affected by what our misogynistic culture decrees to be erotic. It’s a rare young man in this country who can get through adolescence without having his libido shaped,if not outright re-directed, by pornography, mainstream advertising, and the cruel culture of his peers.  It’s not surprising that so many men, like Henry, end up with a certain degree of guilt.  If our fantasies and our politics don’t mesh, does it mean our political commitments are just superficial?  If we are aroused by the "erotics of asymmetry", have we failed Feminism 101? To put it bluntly, if our girlfriend or wife asks us to tie her up or spank her, what’s a male feminist to do?  If we say "no", we frustrate her desires; if we say "yes", aren’t we playing along with a patriarchal role that teaches women to take delight in being dominated?  It’s enough to give a young and committed pro-feminist a migraine!

I don’t have all the answers, but I can say this: both my faith and my feminism tell me that sex, at its best, is about radical giving.  It’s about trust, yes, and also about a profound concern for the other’s pleasure and well-being.   Ideally — and most of my Christian friends would say that this ideal is only possible in marriage — the bedroom becomes a safe place for each partner in the relationship to escape the burdens of cultural and social expectations about what is "acceptable", "normal", and "appropriate."  In longer-term relationships, each person gets to gently (sometimes playfully) push the other to explore and discover.  Husband and wife, boyfriend and girilfriend, become companions on a journey — each encouraging the other to take risks, to move beyond the comfort zone.  Always, a humble respect for the dignity of the other is vital to a healthy sexual relationship.  But a respect for each other’s dignity does not preclude truly mutual exchanges of power; a loving relationship is not one where one partner never gets to "do" another or lie back and "be done."  (And that’s as graphic as Hugo gets on this blog).

But while I acknowledge that individual relationships can be feminist, healthy, and still have sexual role-playing, I still haven’t addressed the question of where those roles come from.  Certainly, most folks are going to be more comfortable taking on one particular role most of the time.  Frequently, though by no means always, that means a man may want (like Henry) to take charge, while a woman (like Henry’s girlfriend) may want to let him.  They may both find it erotic — and familiar, because it does mirror our cultural beliefs about men and women.  But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make an effort to "get over" some of that patriarchal baggage in the bedroom!  Yes, Henry’s girlfriend was right to challenge him to go beyond his comfort zone.  After all, is that not one of the best purposes of a romantic and sexual relationship, to push us beyond our comfort zones?    (At other times, of course, the best purpose of a marriage or a love affair is to provide profound comfort; it’s all about, as we all surely know, about time and place!)

There’s no manual, thank God, entitled:  "How Pro-Feminist Men Have Sex." When two adults, even young adults, come into a sexual relationship, they bring with them not only cultural perceptions about sexuality, but also their own highly individual, nearly unique mix of personal history and physical desires.   It would be a waste of time, I think, to proscribe certain specific acts as being "unacceptable" from a pro-feminist standpoint, with this caveat: pro-feminist men ought to be concerned not merely with the consent of their partners, but with their partners’ genuine enthusiasm.  Sometimes that will mean asking difficult questions; sometimes it will mean taking the initiative without asking questions; sometimes it will mean trying new things that stretch one right out of one’s comfort zone.

Ultimately, guilt is rarely sexy.  Then again, getting stuck in a rut of acting out culturally familiar roles in the bedroom isn’t a recipe for a lifetime of joy, either.  In the end, part of what it means to be a pro-feminist man is a constant willingness to be challenged; a willingness to grow and learn and explore; a willingness to subvert cultural expectations, but also, perhaps, a willingess to embrace traditional roles as an acceptable, even joyous part of erotic play.  It’s not easy.  But sex wasn’t meant to be easy.  It was meant, I think, to give us profound joy, a deep and abiding sense of connectedness to the other, and it was meant, I do believe, to force us to transcend our selfishness and our fears.  That’s a tall order, and it seems to take a lot of us a lifetime of happy practice to figure it all out.

Thursday Short Poem: Kunitz’s “Touch Me”

Posted on by

Continuing the "marital theme" of the week, I’ve chosen this fine Stanley Kunitz poem.  Kunitz is perhaps our oldest living great American poet; he turned 100 this year.

Touch Me

Summer is late, my heart.
Words plucked out of the air
some forty years ago
when I was wild with love
and torn almost in two
scatter like leaves this night
of whistling wind and rain.
It is my heart that’s late,
it is my song that’s flown.
Outdoors all afternoon
under a gunmetal sky
staking my garden down,
I kneeled to the crickets trilling
underfoot as if about
to burst from their crusty shells;
and like a child again
marveled to hear so clear
and brave a music pour
from such a small machine.
What makes the engine go?
Desire, desire, desire.
The longing for the dance
stirs in the buried life.
One season only,
and it’s done.
So let the battered old willow
thrash against the windowpanes
and the house timbers creak.
Darling, do you remember
the man you married? Touch me,
remind me who I am.

In addition to the stirring final lines, I often remind myself of this great truth:

What makes the engine go?
Desire, desire, desire.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Happy News

Posted on by

As I had hinted in the comments below my previous entry, this Labor Day weekend was to be a very special time.  My beloved and I were married on Sunday night in front of many dear family members and friends.  We took a very short two-day honeymoon on Monday and Tuesday, and this morning, I make this post from my desk at work.

My commitment to the the privacy of the woman who is now my wife remains absolute.   Though I am not a major public figure, I don’t blog anonymously.  (I’m not exactly unknown either in the remarkably small world in which I teach and work.)   I’d like to keep my marriage safe and protected from what is sometimes the rough-and-tumble world of the blogosphere. Thus, details of the wedding, photos, etcetera, will not be forthcoming.  Sorry.

I will say this:

I am immensely grateful to the many friends and family who have supported me and my bride in the months and years leading up to this past weekend.  We are told it takes a village to raise a child; in my case, at least, it took a community of relations and intimate friends to help make a man.  I am so grateful to my spiritual advisers and directors, each of whom challenged me constantly.  One thing I’ve learned: if we are to make certain that the past is truly the past, and not a predictor of future behavior, we have to prayerfully seek to transform ourselves at the seed level.  I worship a God of second, fourth, and ninety-seventh chances — but that God is always asking me to be more loving, more giving, more like His Son.  It’s been a difficult, but immensely joyous road to the beginning of this marriage.

I can tell you this much: my wife has chosen to take my last name.  I would never have asked her to do so.  But she, of her own free will, has chosen to become Mrs. Schwyzer.  I cannot begin to tell you how humbled, honored, and moved I am by her decision. It was hers — and hers alone — to make,  but it has made me inexpressibly happy.  In a very real sense, I feel more trusted (and, concomitantly, worthy of trust) as a consequence!   If that rests uneasily with my professed feminist ideals, so be it.   It may be a mild disconnect between my language and my life, between my politics and my person, but I make no apologies for either my joy or for my gratitude.  And folks, out of respect for our recent nuptials, if you’ve got something negative to say on the subject, send me an e-mail, but please leave it out of the comments section.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

More on Katrina

Posted on by

Dylan at Grace Notes tells me that today is "Blog for Hurricane Relief" Day.  If you click on the latter link, you’ll see hundreds of blogs and the charity to which they suggest folks send donations.

It’s always tough to pick the "best" charity to which to give. For years, my approach to disasters was simple: in times of domestic crisis, support the Red Cross; in times of international crisis, support World Vision.  When I became active in the Mennonite church, however, I felt called to support Mennonite Disaster Services.  And when I returned to worshiping at All Saints, my support began to shift towards Episcopal Relief and Development.  (If I remember correctly, the latter was formally called the "Presiding Bishop’s Fund").

I wonder — is it a healthy sign, or a sign of brokenness, that each separate church has its own relief agency?  On the one hand, having denomination-based relief agencies like those I’ve mentioned allows like-minded believers to pool their resources, and may even inspire greater generosity.  Some folks, myself included, may feel that there is some sort of extra intangible merit to giving to a faith-based charity rather than a secular one.  Smaller charities may be able to use their resources more effectively. On the other hand, isn’t there a risk of constantly reinventing the wheel?  Is it possible that what ends up happening is that the Mennonites, Catholics, Jews, Episcopalians, Reformed and other denominational agencies end up needlessly duplicating each other’s work?   How well do these groups coordinate together?  Does it matter where we give, or does it matter only that we give?

I’m going to go with the latter today.

Of course, my passion for animals — the most overlooked victims of disasters like this — leads me to want to support the work of the Humane Society’s Disaster Center, or American Humane.  Though the human suffering is immense, I am confident that the resources are greater to cope with people than with animals, both wild and domestic.  But where should animals rank on the priority list at a time such as this?  Is it my own sentimentality, combined with a lack of true empathy and sound theology, that leads me to worry as much about seals and dolphins and lost dogs as I do about my fellow humans?

I gave to the Red Cross on Tuesday, and today, I’m splitting my second donation of the week between Episcopal Relief and Development and the Humane Society.   Agonizing over where to give the money is, in the end, of little use to anyone.  Giving is what matters, and just as everyone else is doing today, I urge my readers to pick a charity close to their hearts and give.