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

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.

Comments

[tekanji]

What immediately struck me about the letter is that his personal analysis focused on his experience of the erotic, when the problem that began his line of thought is what his homophobic and misogynistic comments did to his girlfriend.

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.

Frankly, I'm 100% with his gf on this one. And, to go a step farther, I would have kicked his sorry behind out of bed and told him not to come back until he learned the appropriate time and place to discuss his hangups. Unless she coerced him into fulfilling her fetish, which is not the impression I got, then I have no sympathy for him. There's no excuse for turning around and saying those horrible things to her - acknowledgement of homophobia and misogyny are not a "get out of jail free" card for being a jerk.

Yes, it's all well and good for him to give lipservice to a concern about the baggage he carries around, but I find it hypocritical to go on about how he wants to be a good feminist man when he completely ignores what he did to his girlfriend. By giving in to his gf's demands but then turning around directly after and making her feel bad for asking it of him, he's played the dom/sub game outside of the bedroom, in a personal way, and in a way that she did not consent to be played. To top it off, he's used his "sensitive to misogyny" card in a way that is designed, whether he meant it or not, to make her feel like she's unreasonable for being upset.

Indeed, his letter expresses surprise that she remained upset after he effectively said, "I've been a bad boy":
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.

If he truly is pro-feminist, then he may want to lay off the dom/sub bedroom games until he can get his own baggage taken care of. Because, from what it seems like, the problem is not the power plays in the bedroom, but rather out of them. And he sure as anything doesn't appear to be able to keep the latter in check. From where I stand, that's called being an emotional abuser, not a good feminist.

[NYMOM]

Well you can't blame him.

After all for years gender neutralized feminists (and now MRAs) have been telling everyone that everything is abuse. Yelling at someone is abuse, there's financial abuse (cutting up someone's credit card or turning off their cell phone), refusing sex is supposedly abuse, refusing to cook dinner after an argument could be labeled abuse.

I mean, everything that involves the least little flicker of the needle to the right or left of the neutral emotional scale, can be labeled as abuse of some sort.

He's probably so brain washed at this point that this role playing (if taken too far) might actually kill the poor guy.

[Henry]

Thanks for posting this, Hugo, and thanks for the response.

I think one of the best parts of my relationship with my girlfriend is that we're both willing to gently, and when the time is right, encourage each other to try new things and enjoy sex as a shared adventure. As I think yesterday afternoon showed, at its best sex can help us get over those sexist values we're taught as we grow up; but that doesn't mean those values can be tossed aside in an instant.

I wrote about my experience because that's all I have; we've talked about it, and I'm still not entirely sure what she was thinking and feeling. I have an idea of why she was upset, but she wouldn't really tell me; and the only way I have of dealing with the situation is thinking about what I can do, and what this says about me.

I wasn't surprised that she was upset. I find these views of sex profoundly wrong and extremely upsetting myself. Nor was I making any kind of excuses for refusing to indulge her -- perhaps I picked the wrong time, but after doing it I tried to tell her that it was something I wasn't automatically comfortable with doing, because of this stupid stereotype that it was something 'guys don't do'. I wanted to tell her that I was glad she was helping me get rid of shit like this, but I don't recall if I actually said that or not. I'm sorry if not all of this was clear from my email.

[Henry]

NYMOM, clearly you have read neither my email nor Hugo's response in any detail. Please read more carefully before you attempt to psychoanalyze me, or blame my predicament on your (false) ideas about what feminists think constitutes 'abuse'.

[Hugo]

Yeah, folks; let's honor Henry's candor and his commitment to his relationship here as best we can; calling folks "brainwashed" doesn't help.

[sophonisba]

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?

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.

[Hugo]

Sophonisba, you're right -- at least partially. I don't think I ignore the problem of men's domination fantasies, but I did reframe the question within the portion you highlight. Food for thought! I'll have another go in a future post.

[bmmg39]

Okay, the virgin counselor is IN:

If one of you really does have these domination/submission fantasies (wouldn't be my cup of tea even if I WERE s/a), then how about you take turns in your "roles"? That way, no one is being the dominant one nor the submissive one all the time. Of course, you'd both have to be comfortable with it, and then, ah, have fun, I guess...

[Amanda]

Bmm, some people are not turned on by role reversal, simple as that. Dominating someone when you're not into it is particularly impossible.

[Henry]

bmmg39, that's what we try to do. Most of the time, neither of us is 'in charge'; but sometimes one or the other will want to do some very specific things. About two-thirds of the time one of us is taking control, it's me, just because she doesn't think she's good at it. She's wrong about that, and I try to encourage her, but I don't push when it's obvious she's feeling self-conscious -- she'll just blush and start giggling uncontrollably and we end up rolling around in a half-naked tickle fight instead.

[Amanda]

BTW, congrats on getting married, Hugo!

[NYMOM]

"If he truly is pro-feminist, then he may want to lay off the dom/sub bedroom games until he can get his own baggage taken care of. Because, from what it seems like, the problem is not the power plays in the bedroom, but rather out of them. And he sure as anything doesn't appear to be able to keep the latter in check. From where I stand, that's called being an emotional abuser, not a good feminist."

NYMOM said: Well I was actually responding to this poster in your defense as he/she (I couldn't tell from the handle) appeared to be implying you were emotionally abusive...

Sorry to disappoint everyone that I wasn't the one who started us off on this line of inquiry.

[tekanji]

NYMOM - I don't think it's a helpful discourse to marginalize abuse and the very real trauma that people who are victims of it go through. Where do you draw the line, when it becomes physical? I know for a fact that the precursor to phsyical abuse is mental/emotional, and that can go on for months or even years before the abuser is confident enough to lay a hand on hirs victim. It is that very verbal abuse that makes it possible for the physical abuse to start and continue; when you've been systematically and thoroughly cut down and made to feel sub-human it's a lot easier to justify physical punishment than if the person had just started hitting you right off the bat.

That being said, I am not accusing Henry of being a systematic abuser. I wasn't clear enough on this, but it was his actions and the way they were related in the e-mail set off some red flags for me. However, even if he is dedicated to being a good feminist (as seems to be the case from his responses), my commentary still fits into his question about the prevalance of misogynistic experiences. In my small time being alive, I have seen many kinds of emotional abuse. It is not always systematic and deliberate; indeed, it is often times an unintentional expression of a society that forces men into roles of dominance and women into roles of submission.

One of the beauties of engaging in various forms of power play is that these roles can be explored and subverted in a completely consentual environment, used to further the pleasure of all parties involved. However, as Henry found out, engaging in dom/sub activities doesn't eradicate the baggage we carry.

And, Henry, I'm sorry if I came across too harshly. I guess what I'm trying to say is that part of being a good feminist is not only in examining your own responses to situations, but also how they affect the people around you. When handling a sensitive issue like power play, it's important to realize that while consentual play may stop when you exit the bedroom that doesn't mean both of you leave behind the hierarchical baggage. The best advice I can offer you is to keep an ongoing dialogue about this and other issues with your girlfriend where it's clear that both of your voices hold equal importance.

Best of luck to you.

[The Gonzman]

I think the only time to have to worry about it is if one is coercive, either physically or emotionally. Then it becomes wrong.

If you aren't comfortable with something, say "no." If it shows incompatibility, say "bye." And men have that right too.

I'm pretty indifferent to bondage games myself, being able to take or leave them, but I am most assuredly a tie-er and not a tie-ee if the subject comes up. Ain't nothing wrong with that, and ain't nothing wrong with saying "I guess it won't work out" if she is fixated on doing the tying up - 'cause I ain't hip.

[Henry]

Gonzman, I think the problem tekanji is pointing out is that it's hard to tell where 'inside the bedroom' stops and 'outside the bedroom' begins. Which is quite well taken!

tekanji, I agree that one of the central (if not THE central) aspect of feminism is listening to what others think, feel, and are going through by virtue of your actions. This sort of sharing was exactly what I was trying to do; it's just, on reflection, waiting until later probably would've been the best course of action.

[PerfectBlue]

As a feminist submissive, this entry was an interesting read for me. There are many women in the BDSM community who are both strong feminists and dedicated submissives. We often struggle with explaining our behavior to ourselves and others. I don't think submission is in opposition to feminism at all, at least not in the context of BDSM relationships, for two reasons. Firstly, my personal definition of feminism is based on choice, not rejecting traditional values (which I personally think is an anti-feminist strawman). And secondly...domination games are based on trust and consent. When I'm being dominated, I'm being dominated under the condition that I am allowing this. And during our games, my partner is not getting anything out of it if I'm not getting anything out of it. If I wasn't enjoying our activity, neither could he. It's what safe words are all about. However...we still come up to the same thing. Does our arousal in the bedroom over a role we would fight tooth and nail out of it detract from our feminist credentials? It was actually fascinating seeing a pro-feminist man considering how finding these these bedroom games erotic might stem from deep-down misogynist views. Sexuality is a rich, complex thing, and while the questions are fun to ponder, and teach us a lot about ourselves, but ultimately, I think what matters most is that the communication, trust, and mutual desire is there.

[Henry]

Hmmm it's interesting to see how people have read this, especially Amanda. We're not talking about ropes or spankings. What she had me do is actually rather similar to the makeup thing a commentor brings up in Amanda's post (unfortunately, I can't comment there without breaking my anonymity) -- physically quite innocuous, but having a lot of significance with our culture's narrowly-defined masculinity. The things I enjoy and have her do when I'm 'in charge' are similar, and the double standard is mostly what upset her and triggered my anxiety. Oh, also, some people seem to be under the impression that this is a 'Henry is in charge all the time, and his girlfriend is submissive all the time' sort of thing. That's not it at all; we don't do this regularly, and there are plenty of times when she's the one calling the shots.

That said, I'm glad my anxiety was able to springboard a discussion about 'full-blown' S&M and gender roles.

[NYMOM]

"NYMOM - I don't think it's a helpful discourse to marginalize abuse and the very real trauma that people who are victims of it go through. Where do you draw the line, when it becomes physical? I know for a fact that the precursor to phsyical abuse is mental/emotional, and that can go on for months or even years before the abuser is confident enough to lay a hand on hirs victim.

That being said, I am not accusing Henry of being a systematic abuser."

NYMOM said: To be honest I don't care what you actually meant. As to even mention abuse in regards to what this man was talking about seemed a bit silly...

This blog is more and more starting to resemble one of those Maoist re-education camps where everything someone saids has to be analyzed to ensure we're all toeing the party line.

Now even having sex apparently has to be deconstructed to hunt for signs of politically incorrect behavior or subversive ideas.

Hey sex is boring enough for many people, let's not make it any worse...

[Henry's Girlfriend]

So I am still incredibly annoyed and I am not sure I can explain it. First of all I don't believe that we are dominant/submissive. My only experience before "henry" was being raped when I was 14 so I don't handle dominance. The problem that I have is that I don't understand the cultural double standards that are presented for women. To make my point, I am not so much talking about Henry, just speaking in general by something that the situation made me think about. I feel like what men want women to do and find sexy, if a woman mentions anything about a guy doing it they react as if it is below them. So what does that make the woman? Are we somehow dirty, or inferior, or is just a lot less expected out of us than men? How is something one act sexy for a woman to do and yet disgusting if a man was to do the similar act? I guess maybe it is hard to understand without the specifics that I will not speak of as I am already insecure with this much of my personal life being discussed, even anonymously. It is just something to think about, and something that is very disturbing to me.

[Tony]

Ummm, I disagree? I don't think there's a widespread problem of men think they are entitled to get some type of sex, but women aren't (at least, among people who bother to think about these issues). The problem is I really don't know what activities you're talking about, so I can't say "lots of guys do act that way and oppress women" or "you're taking an anecdote and assuming it's indicative of huge societal problems:.

[sophonisba]

'Henry's girlfriend': When I read the reference to an act that's 'normal' for women and gay men but not for straight men, I immediately thought of penetration. (Not assuming it was about that for you, and not asking you to confirm or deny - I totally understand your desire for privacy.) But it's pretty much the issue in terms of the cultural double standards you mention, and I absolutely think that the equation of penetration with domination is not natural, not ok, and not something to accept. I find, personally, that there aren't problematic sexual acts, per se, from a feminist standpoint. If I'm consenting and enjoying myself, nothing else about an act is relevant. What is problematic is the question, not of what a man is doing to me, or me to him, but what he's thinking about it. It does matter to me why he likes something, above and beyond the question of if he likes it. More than a few women have had the experience of innocently participating in whatever act because it was fun, and then getting the rude shock of discovering that their partners thought they were humiliating them - and enjoying that. It's not pleasant. And the act can be something as normal and kink-less as oral sex, or simple intercourse. Your annoyance and disturbance is entirely understandable and justified. Dominance/submission is not the default model for sexual relations, and it sucks when the first question people ask is which one is in charge.

Hugo - I'm sure it's hard to tell, because I only comment when I'm in extreme disagreement with something you've said, but I appreciate your courtesy and thoughfulness.

[tekanji]

NYMOM: You know, Henry (the person whose e-mail was in question, just in case you forgot) seemed to take the correct meaning from my post even with the erroneous implication that you objected to. He's been nothing but polite and understanding in his responses to me, even though I took a somewhat hostile tone to his e-mail in the first place. You, however, have been nothing but insulting to me and, in your first post, to him. And, in your most current post, you border on being insulting to Hugo, as this is his blog that you're calling "one of those Maoist re-education camps".

For the record, it's not any "party line" that I'm toeing around, it's a personal one. I've already apologized to Henry for my implication and I don't feel the need to apologize to you for something that didn't really involve you in the first place.

And, not that I think anyone but you got the wrong idea about this, but I was not deconstructing sex "to hunt for signs of politically incorrect behavior or subversive ideas", I was deconstructing parts of his e-mail because some of the language raised red flags for me. Henry had no trouble realizing that, so I really don't see what continues to make you so angry at me.

Henry's GF: I understand how you could be uncomfortable with your private life being discussed online, so I'm going to do my best not to pry and instead offer my support. Your concerns are not only valid, but also a widespread problem in our society (not confined to the bedroom). If you have time, I suggest reading some Marxist feminist literature, as that sort of idea is addressed as part of their theories. I'm sorry that these issues have caused a problem in your personal life, and wish you and Henry the best of luck in finding ways to deal with, and hopefully resolve, them.

[gets_better]

Henry's GF: I had rape experiences as a kid, too. Feminism helped contextualize the messages society gave that reinforced my rape, but in the end, it was an emotional and not political victory that gave me my sexuality back without getting triggered. I thought I'd mention that work too - since the feminist side is well covered here. I had a lot of experience in a previous relationship trying to intellectualize a basic sense of "yick" or "no", because my partner was trying to be a good guy: but in the end, yick or no is in itself enough. You don't need to explain it to anyone unless that helps YOU process those feelings.

I really had a lot of moments of not really being able to explain why some action made me feel lesser or worthless, especially when trying new sexual boundries. For me, what broke the cycle was allowing something to piss me off. For whatever reason. Quite possibly my reasons make sense given my history and my culture, but I decided I don't care. I won't explain why I don't like mint ice cream, and I won't explain exactly why an action hurt me. It just does or doesn't. If I'm hurt, there's stuff I like that gets me back into my head, and usually discussions of politics aren't the solution. So - since I've been in your situation, exactly - what I'd do these days is say: "Oi, that hurts and pisses me off. I don't know why I'm a little suspicious/hurt/upset of/at you, but this dynamic caused me to feel somehow lesser or worthless, and I don't like it."

Then I figure out what I need: "Can we snuggle?/I'm going for a walk./I'm having a bath./I'm going to go journal./Could you get me a cup of tea?"

Talking, for me at least, took me farther away from the place I needed to be: the place that my feelings - just for BEING - were to be respected.
Now, I'm not saying Henry's a jerk, or anything, because this emotional work is all about you, and what you want: he's just trying to get in from the outside.

Still, in my healing, analysis made me go into justification mode, which was the polar opposite of listening and respecting my own feelings. In bed with a trusted intimate, you're allowed to have whatever feelings you have without judgement, or questioning, or any sort of rationality. It's okay to be bugged that a partner's into you doing something that he/she isn't into reciprocating regardless of any cultural context, previous sexual experience, sexual abuse, or anything else. The fact that culture, your own history, or his baggage has created that dynamic? Whatever. Doesn't matter, in the end. You're allowed to be bugged, even if he wants something non-loaded like toe licking but doesn't like to lick toes. In the long run, you might decide never to lick his toes cuz it doesn't turn YOU on either: or to embrace your own deep fetish for toe licking, regardless of whether or not he likes it: or to only participate in 69 style toe licking: you have exactly half the power in your own bedroom and the rest of the world is exactly irrelevant.

A partner's only a jerk if you start making emotional requests of them that they refuse to hear - if you got triggered or upset but their need to process gets superimposed on that, or your request is not listened to. If your partner's got their own baggage to process, then they have a right to that feeling too; sometimes partners need space from each other. That's better than you caretaking when triggered, even if your partner's hurt is valid.

Anyway, that may be totally useless discussion for you (and Henry), but it really worked for me. Only justify if it helps YOU. Otherwise, it's just a negotiation of boundries between you and a partner. Don't do anything that feels yick: even if the act is a turn on for you, if it's not in a given season or session or with a particular guy, then hey. So be it. You're allowed to have your tastes change, too.

[gets_better]

Oh, and hey: it's okay to look at the cultural context, too - to own that, to say "there's a double standard and it bugs me". I'm not trying to minimize that revelation.

I just mean in the end what helped for *me* was choosing to say fuck off to the double standard, and play by my own rules: if a situation's making me uncomfortable, that I can control, and the hint of societal double standard in my own boudoire would be a bad turn-off for me.

So, although I love givin' blow jobs, I wouldn't like to give blow jobs to a guy who didn't already like to reciprocate. I just would be turned off by that. I wouldn't like him in my bits NOT having fun, or in my bits because he should be: but I'd be icked out by the implied double standard. Whereas toe licking? I could probably lick a (clean) toe if it made a friend happy, and yet happily not get myself. So obviously society is informing those feelings for me. But they're my feelings.

[NYMOM]

"I've already apologized to Henry for my implication and I don't feel the need to apologize to you for something that didn't really involve you in the first place."

NYMOM said: It involved me becaused others implied I started the 'abuse' line of posts, whereas it was you who started them and I just responded to your implications. Actually I was defending Henry initially against your implied assumption that he was emotionally abusive.