Was Männer wollen

[fraences]

Was Männer wollen


Eigentlich scheinen die Männer mit ihrem Sexleben ganz zufrieden zu sein, jedenfalls, wenn man der neuesten Umfrage der Webseite Askmen.com, dem „2011 Great Male Survey“, glaubt. Rund 40 Prozent der Befragten in den USA, Großbritannien, Kanada und Australien gaben nämlich an, im Bett ausreichend Befriedigung zu finden – obwohl nach oben hin anscheinend noch Spielraum ist!

Über 50 Prozent der Befragten glauben, erkennen zu können, wenn eine Frau einen Orgasmus vortäuscht. Ebenso viele ärgern sich darüber – sie sind enttäuscht, wenn sie ihre Partnerin nicht befriedigen können.

Wenn die Umfrage-Teilnehmer an ihrer Partnerin etwas ändern könnten, dann wäre das ihre Launenhaftigkeit. 14 Prozent würden gar nichts ändern und 11 Prozent ihre Lust auf Sex.

40 Prozent der Männer würden nie für Sex bezahlen und 28 Prozent nur für ein absolut einmaliges Sexerlebnis, in dessen Genuss sie sonst nie kommen würden. 16 Prozent würden zu einer Prostituierten gehen, wenn sie sexuell völlig frustriert wären. Nur 13 Prozent finden es immer okay, ihre Partnerin für Sex zu bezahlen.

50 Prozent der Umfrage-Teilnehmer sind mit ihrer Penisgröße völlig zufrieden. 23 Prozent hätten gerne ein Upgrade. Wenig überraschend: Keiner der Befragten wünscht sich einen kleineren Johannes.

Wenigstens zwei Mal pro Woche sollte Sex in einer gesunden Beziehung schon drin sein, meinen 70 Prozent der Männer und wenn sie ihre heißesten Fantasien ausleben könnten, dann stünde ein flotter Dreier ganz oben auf ihrer Liste. Auf die Frage, ob sie ihrer Partnerin diesen geheimen Wunsch auch gestehen würden, antworteten 70 Prozent der Teilnehmer mit „ja“. Darüber, ob ihre Liebste dann tatsächlich zum Gruppensex bereit war, gibt es allerdings leider keine Angaben!
Betrügen uns Männer in ihrer Fantasie?
So weit, so gut – leicht beunruhigend finden wir nur, dass über 30 Prozent der Befragten in der Vergangenheit auch schon mal von Sex mit der besten Freundin ihrer Partnerin fantasiert haben. Allerdings scheint den Jungs das auch ganz schön peinlich zu sein: Inzwischen versuchen die meisten diese Unart nämlich zu unterlassen. Immerhin 22 Prozent haben gar kein Interesse an den Freundinnen ihrer Liebsten und 11 Prozent hätten zwar schon Lust zu fantasieren, halten sich aber „mit Mühe“ zurück. Na, herzlichen Glückwunsch zu dieser beeindruckenden Leistung!
Erleichtert sind wir allerdings zu hören, dass wenigstens die Hälfte der Männer einer Frau niemals Liebe vortäuschen würde, um sie ins Bett zu locken. Und an die Ehe glauben die Herren anscheinend auch: Knapp 70 Prozent gaben in der Umfrage an, gerne heiraten zu wollen.
Gut, dass es da draußen also doch noch jede Menge Gentlemen der alten Schule gibt, die nicht ständig ans Fremdgehen denken. Jetzt müssten wir beim nächsten Date nur noch an den Richtigen geraten – eigentlich schade, dass die Namen der Umfrageteilnehmer anonym gehalten werden!

http://de.lifestyle.yahoo.com/was-m%C3% ... 00187.html

[Aoife]

Das erklärt einiges, Fraences

Ich habe gerade heute abend angefangen einen neuen Gedanken zu entwickeln:

Wir sollten ein Ausstiegsprogramm anbieten - für Priester, Beamte und Moralisten. Ich bin mir sicher dass das die Welt zu einem besseren Platz machen würde ...

Liebe Grüße, Aoife

[Svea]

2mal die Woche, ich glaube ich muss das meinen Freund zeigen, *seuftz*

[friederike]

          

Was Männer wollen
40 Prozent der Männer würden nie für Sex bezahlen und 28 Prozent nur für ein absolut einmaliges Sexerlebnis, in dessen Genuss sie sonst nie kommen würden. 16 Prozent würden zu einer Prostituierten gehen, wenn sie sexuell völlig frustriert wären. Nur 13 Prozent finden es immer okay, ihre Partnerin für Sex zu bezahlen.
http://de.lifestyle.yahoo.com/was-m%C3% ... 00187.html

Offensichtlich sind also 60 Prozent der Männer "ansprechbar"! Gar nicht schlecht, auch nicht unplausibel.

Die Umfrage wurde in den angelsächsischen Ländern gemacht, die die Prostitution mehr oder weniger behindern.

[ehemaliger_User]

Das mit den zweimal hat schon Luther als empfehlenswert beschrieben...

Ich denke aber, die Enttäuschung, dass die Partnerin keinen Orgasmus bekommen gilt weniger der Partnerin als sich selbst. Warum sollten sonst viele Männer auch bei bezahltem Sex am Orgasmus der Partnerin interessiert sein?

[Adultus-IT]

Beim s.g. "flotten Dreier" würde mich interessieren in welcher Konstellation dort die Wünsche beschreiben werden.
Klar....sicher denkt man in den meisten Fällen an M/W/W .
Oder anders gefragt...wenn die Liebste bereit ist... zu dieser Konstellation....wären die Männer auch bereit auf den etwaigen Wunsch der Partnerin nach W/M/M einzugehen?...oder ist das Ego da gekränkt ?
Würde ein betreffender Prozentsatz der Partnerin gegenüber auch zugeben....ja Schatz... auch ich selbst würde das mögen?


Gruss Adultus - IT Micha

[Mitch]

Stimmt wohl, ehemaliger_User. Der Männlichkeitswahn lässt sich nicht bestechen^^ Selbst wenn es für die Kunden eigentlich auch Stress ist.
Ein gut gefaketer Orgasmus ist dann die Illusion, für die wir zahlen.

Eigentlich ist mmw dich klasse. Man muss sich nur halb so viel kümmern :p

Grüße

Michel

[ehemaliger_User]

Das erkannte schon Françoise Cactus:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3O08RieWwQ[/youtube]

[friederike]

          

Warum sollten sonst viele Männer auch bei bezahltem Sex am Orgasmus der Partnerin interessiert sein?

Sind sie aber. Rein empirische Feststellung. Warum sollte man sich sonst als Frau die Mühe machen, zu "faken"?

Das es bloss Eitelkeit ist ("ich hab's ihr besorgt"), glaube ich eigentlich nicht. Es gehört zur Erotik dazu und erhöht den Genuss.

[ehemaliger_User]

@Friederike

Warum brüsten sich dann viele Männer in Freierforen und in Gesprächen im Club ständig damit, es ihr "besorgt" zu haben? Obwohl sie es gar nicht wollte?

Und natürlich können diese Profis echte von gefakten Orgasmen unterscheiden. Und empfinden den Orgasmus der SDL als besonderes Geschenk (besonderer Sympathie).

Dass ein Orgasmus Deinen Genuss erhöht kann ich mir gut vorstellen. Mein Genuss wird durch einen Orgasmus der SDL nicht wirklich beeinflusst.

[Arum]

          

Warum sollten sonst viele Männer auch bei bezahltem Sex am Orgasmus der Partnerin interessiert sein?

Ich selber bin es immer weniger, besonders seit ich schon einige Male erlebt habe, wie die Damen diesen ja oder nein vorgetäuschten Orgasmus (oder wenigstens den offensichtlichen Genuss) als Machtsmittel zu benutzen versuchten, zur Kundenanbindung also, auf so'ner Art und Weise, wo man so fast zur Stammkundschaft gezwungen wird. Ich bestehe somit immer mehr auf den eigenen Genuss, ohne deswegen gleich auch unfreundlich zu werden, den SW gegenüber.

[friederike]

@ehemaliger_User, @Arum,

die Frage wird kompliziert, wenn man generalisiert.

Die beste Einstellung, finde ich, ist, wenn es der Kunde der SW überlässt, ob sie einen Orgasmus haben möchte und kann. Eine SW sollte aber, das ist meine Meinung, grundsätzlich offen dafür sein, also ihre Kunden nicht nur "über sich ergehen lassen".

Selbstverständlich darf eine SW nicht eigenen Genuss verlangen und einfordern. Der Kunde geht vor.

Dass Sexarbeiterinnen durch gefakete Höhepunkte die Kundenbindung erhöhen wollen, stimmt sicher - dafür macht man es ja. Aber wie alles nicht ganz Echte bleibt ein schaler Beigeschmack. Vor allem, wenn es nicht gut gemacht ist und unglaubwürdig ist. und dass ein erfahrener Profi-Kunde einen vorgetäuschten Orgasmus erkennt, stimmt sicher. Deswegen täusche ich nicht gerne einen Orgasmus vor, sondern bin lieber ehrlich. Ich sage meinen Kunden, was auch stimmt, dass ich Sex auch geniesse, wenn ich nicht einen Höhepunkt habe. Wenn ich komme, natürlich, dann habe ich meinen Genuss, wobei ich ein eher stiller Typ bin.

Trotzdem ist meine Wahrnehmung, dass es den Genuss auch des Kunden erhöht, wenn die SW kommt, und viele Kunden wollen dies erreichen. Das kann wirklich aufdringlich sein, vor allem, wenn der Kunde nicht beachtet, dass die Frau ja auch noch andere hat. In diesen Fällen täusche ich einen Orgasmus vor, aus eigenem Interesse. Die Typen, die in den Freierforen schreiben, gehören wohl oft in diese Kategorie der Aufdringlichkeit. Noch dazu sind sie indiskret. In einem der Foren hatte ich kürzlich das zweifelhafte Vergnügen einer "Rezension", wobei mein (in diesem Fall tatsächlich echter) Orgasmus beschrieben und positiv bewertet wurde. Das tut man einfach nicht, finde ich.

[Arum]

@Friederike,

das Problem ist eben auch, aus welchen Gründen Kunden SW einen Orgasmus besorgen wollen. Es gibt eben immer auch die Möglichkeit, dass sie dies aus einem gewissen Schuldgefühl heraus erreichen wollen. Hat der Feminismus uns eben allen beigebracht, es sei grundsätzlich falsch, wenn der Mann beim Sex nur an sich denkt. Um so mehr bei SW. Und wenn es dann nicht gelingt, zweifelt man die eigene Männlichkeit doppelt an. Daher, so denke ich mir, die Aufdringlichkeit. Es soll und muss unbedingt gelingen. Und hat es dann geklappt, muss es auch aller Welt mitgeteilt werden, nur um sich selber zu beruhigen und zu überzeugen, man sei nicht einer von dieser egoistischen, männlich chauvinistischen Sorte.

[Jupiter]

Friederike, generell ist es doch so, dass es den Mann freut, wenn die SW beim gemeinsamen Spiel "abgeht". Das gegenseitige Aufgeilen gehört doch zu diesem Spiel und der SW dabei Entscheidungsfreiheit zu den Varianten geben (magst du jetzt .....). Den weibliche Orgasmus sehe ich dabei sensibel, ob ich einen vorgetäuschten Orgasmus immer erkannt habe, weiß ich nicht, ich habe dazu nie gefragt. Dabei bin ich auch der Ansicht, dass der Orgasmus der SW in einem Internet-Bericht nichts zu suchen hat.

Zum Eingangsbericht von Fraences: Wenn ich eine attraktive Frau sehe, wenn ich dann noch etwas Kontakt habe, wie das Beispiel mit der besten Freundin der Partnerin, dass ich dann, wenn ich ehrlich bin, auch an Sex denke (warum nicht); denken heißt ja nicht, den Versuch zu machen, dies umzusetzen.

Gruß Jupiter

[friederike]

          

.... generell ist es doch so, dass es den Mann freut, wenn die SW beim gemeinsamen Spiel "abgeht". Das gegenseitige Aufgeilen gehört doch zu diesem Spiel ...

Das finde ich ehrlich gesagt auch ... Ich schaue auch gerne zu, wenn "Mann" abgeht ....

[Svea]

Oh ja, und das schlimme ist, es macht mich wiederum Glücklich, wenn ich ihn kommen sehen...

Leider hatt mich noch kein Mann zum O. gebracht während eines verkehrs,- obwohl die Gefühle sind auch voll schön,- ich genieße es halt sehr.....

[Adultus-IT]

          

Leider hatt mich noch kein Mann zum O. gebracht während eines verkehrs,- obwohl die Gefühle sind auch voll schön,- ich genieße es halt sehr.....

Liegt sowas immer an den Männern ???


Gruss Adultus - IT Micha

[Svea]

vielleicht bei Mädels habe ich seltener Probleme.

[Aoife]

Hier ein (leider English) Beitrag, der IMHO sehr schön die der Umfrage aus dem Eröffnungsposting zugrundeliegende Erwartungshaltung hinterfragt/kritisiert.

Ich stelle den Text hier ein, das Original mit vielen klickbaren links findet sich hier:
http://learn.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/view ... post=78518


What's wrong with heteronormativity?



Yesterday a couple of things happened in quick succession which left me feeling strange and sad. They both called something into question which I have thought about, spoken about, and written about so much for so many years that I regard it as obvious. Having it questioned left me struggling to find words at all.



Reflecting on this today I'm reminded that, of course, this is not something which is obvious to everybody. So I thought I would write a post where I try to articulate what it is that I usually take for granted: that there is something wrong with heteronormativity.



Apologies that this blog entry ended up being rather extensive. If you don't have time to read it all then you can jump to 'the short version' which I've provided at the very end.



What is heteronormativity?

The first thing that happened was that a group of colleagues and I received a response to a complaining letter which we had written to a television company. We had complained about a recent documentary about sex which they aired. One of our main problems with the programme was that virtually all of the sex that they included in it was heterosexual sex (heterosexual couples kissing and cuddling, or – when it got more explicit - somebody with a penis penetrating someone with a vagina). A small part of the final episode was given over to considering why some people are attracted to the 'same sex', but the vast majority of representations of sex were heterosexual. The response from the television company was that they didn't really see a problem with their representations given that 'the majority of the British population is heterosexual'.



After receiving this email, I took a bit of a break and read a few news articles which my friends had linked to online. I found a particularly interesting one about a legal case where a woman wanted the right to wear a collar to work because she was into BDSM (bondage and discipline, domination and submission, and sadomasochism). After finishing the article I looked through the comments which people had written on the website. I was struck by how many of them argued that the woman should keep her sexuality to herself, 'leave her sexual proclivities at home like most people', stop 'going on' about what she does in private, in her bedrooom, etc. A similar issue has recently come up in psychotherapy and counselling, whereby some people have argued that lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) counsellors should not let their clients know about their sexualities, and that being open about them could be harmful.



All of these are examples of heteronormativity: the idea that attraction and relationships between one man and one woman are the normal form of sexuality, that sex itself should involve a penis penetrating a vagina, and that any other forms of sexuality, or gender, are not normal, or at least not as normal as this.



The first example which I gave of heteronormativity is pretty obvious. The argument from the television company is that it is okay to present heterosexuality in virtually all of the examples of sex on the show because 'the majority' of people are heterosexual. The second example is perhaps a little less clear, but none-the-less I think it is an example of heteronormativity. People generally have no problem with a person wearing a wedding ring to work, having a picture of their heterosexual partner on their desk, or talking about what they did with their heterosexual partner at the weekend. The suggestion that it might not be okay to wear clothes, or have conversations, which imply that a person is lesbian, gay or bisexual, or a BDSM practitioner, is heteronormative because the same kinds of things which are challenged - or regarded as strange - here go unquestioned for non-kinky heterosexual people.



These second kind of challenge also reveals that people are generally assumed to be heterosexual (and interested in heterosexual, non-kinky, sexual practices) unless proven otherwise. This is another example of heteronormativity. People who are not heterosexual (or who are kinky, or non-monogamous, or otherwise outside the heteronorm) have to make a decision whether to let people know this or not, whereas people inside the heteronorm know that people will make the correct assumptions about their sexuality, relationships, gender, etc.



Why is it a problem?

So what the television company, and (by implication) many of the people commenting on the collar story are saying is that heterosexuality is normal, and therefore it is fine to depict it as such, and to see people as strange who do not fit within it, and to put different restrictions on their behaviours than we do on heterosexual people.



I'm guessing that many of the people concerned would agree that homophobia, biphobia and transphobia are bad things: it is not okay to be prejudiced towards, or to harm people people on the basis of, their sexuality or gender. However, they don't see a problem with regarding people outside of heteronormativity as somehow 'less normal' and treating them differently on the basis of that.



Why do I think this is such a problem? There are many reasons, but here I am going to focus on three rather practical ones. First, rather obviously perhaps, heteronormativity is bad for people who are outside of heteronormativity. Secondly, it is based on some quite problematic ideas about what is normal, and whether that should be what we base our treatment of other people on. And finally, perhaps less obviously, I would argue that heteronormativity is also bad for people who are within it.



Heteronormativity is bad for people outside of it

Psychologist Catherine Butler wrote a short story, which was eventually produced as a film, called 'homoworld'. This imagined a world in which heteronormativity was reversed: where being gay and lesbian was seen as the norm, whilst heterosexuality was regarded as peculiar and requiring explanation. It is a useful exercise for people who are heterosexual themselves to reflect upon what it might feel like to be outside of the sexuality norm. For example, the characters in homoworld have to decide whether to come out (and deal with the stress of possible rejection or prejudice) or to hide their relationship (and deal with the stress of keeping such an important thing secret). They also have to cope with questions from others about the ways in which they decide to commit to their relationship or to have children. On a very everyday level, they are surrounded by lesbian and gay representations: on billboard advertisements, in pop songs, and on the street where it is generally only lesbian and gay people who are kissing or holding hands.



It can be useful also to check out the heterosexual questionnaire, and the straight privilege checklist, to get a sense of how heteronormativity feels for those who are outside of it. These tools raise awareness of the fact that it is not just outright homophobia which is bad for LGB people. It is also tough if everybody around you feels that it is okay to ask what you think caused your sexuality, or to question whether you are really that sexuality, or whether it might be better just to keep quiet about it. Similarly, there is a degree of privilege, comfort and security, in having a sexuality which nobody else feels discomforted by, which isn't used as a reason to question your masculinity or femininity, which isn't the basis of derogatory language (e.g. 'that's so gay'), which is not seen as the totality of who you are, and whereby you are not expected to speak for everybody else who has that sexuality. The monosexual and cisgender privilege checklists are similarly useful in relation to bisexuality and trans.



Psychologists know that dividing people into 'us' and 'them' is often the first step towards treating 'them' differently, and even cruelly. So we can see that heteronormativity and homophobia cannot be as easily disentangled as people might hope. When we heternormatively separate 'normal' heterosexual people out from other groups (e.g. LGBT, BDSM, non-monogamous, asexual), we reinforce divisions which then make it easier for those groups to be ridiculed, stigmatised, and attacked. We know that biphobia, transphobia and homophobia still exist at worrying levels: there are still countries where people can be put to death for these things, and in the UK the extent of LGBT bullying and discrimination is still extremely problematic. If we are serious about ending hate crime and prejudice we need to look beyond just criminalising transphobia, homophobia and biphobia, towards addressing the heteronormative society which suggests that it is acceptable to see LGBT people, and other groups, as 'different'.



Heterosexuality might not be normal, and why are we so concerned with normality anyway?

This is all very well, you might say, but the television company is right that surveys have found that most people are heterosexual. Perhaps it is just bad luck for those who are outside of heteronormativity. We can't stop presenting heterosexuality as the norm just because it is hard for a few minorities that we do so. Facts are facts.



There are many answers to these challenges. First we might think about the findings of those surveys which are mentioned. The percentage of heterosexual, and non-heterosexual, people found in such surveys depends an awful lot on the questions which are asked and the way that they are asked. In the UK, the national census does not ask questions about sexual identity for precisely these reasons. The national treasury estimated that between 5% and 7% of the UK population were LGB, whereas the International Household Survey found that 1.5% of people said they were LGB. However, a further 3.8% said that they were 'other', didn't respond, refused to respond, or reported that they didn't know. Given high levels of stigma and prejudice we might well suggest that these surveys are actually measures of 'out' LGB people who are happy to use this terminology (which not all cultural groups use, for example). The NATSAL survey, which asks about 'sexual experiences' rather than sexual identities, found that 8-10% of people in the UK had had sexual experiences with a partner of the 'same sex' in 2000. This had gone up from 3-5% of people in 1990, so clearly experiences, or at least reporting of them, is not static over time. Also, people may well answer differently to a postal survey (whether they answer at all, and whether they answer honestly) than to an in depth interview, for example. This could partially explain why Kinsey's famous study in the US found that over a third of men reported some 'homosexual' contact.



So we can question whether heterosexuality really is the norm. By some ways of assessing normality (number of people who identify as heterosexual on a survey), we could argue that it is. However, if we turn to behaviour, particularly if we include all of the groups who fall – in some way – outside of mainstream heteronormativity, then we would conclude that it is not. In fact, non-kinky, monogamous, 'opposite sex', relationships and attractions would certainly be the minority if we considered all those people who have had some kind of 'same sex' sexual experience, those two thirds of people who enjoy some kind of BDSM practices or fantasies, the high number of people whose gender identity doesn't fit into traditional masculinity or femininity, and all of the people who are in some way non-monogamous.



But even if we went by the most conservative of statistics, we might ask how big a minority it has to be before we include a group of people as part of the norm, or at least stop treating them as different from everybody else. Analogies could be made here with other minority groups such as ethnic and religious minorities, and those with certain disabilities, although there are clearly different issues with different types of 'difference', and they often intersect with one another. Discussions of sexuality often focus on trying to prove, or disprove, naturalness or normality, but we might ask a bigger question of whether either of these is really a good foundation to base our treatment of people on. We can think of example of very unusual things (being highly intelligent, or a person like Gandhi or Nelson Mandela) which we would agree are good, and very 'normal' things (like being unkind or standing by when others are in trouble) which are not. We might also start to ask questions about why we focus so much on some divisions that it is possible to make between people (about sexuality and gender, for example) and not on others (for example, about eye-colour, food preference, or handedness).



Heteronormativity is bad for people within it

My final point is that heteronormativity is not just problematic for people who are located outside it. It is actually pretty bad for those inside it for many reasons as well. These have been particularly brought home to me in my work as a sexual and relationship therapist. Almost every seemingly heteronormative client who I've seen in this capacity has expressed an overwhelming desire to be 'normal' and often a desperate fear that they might not be, which has frequently made their life a misery. Normality is often privileged over everything else including having pleasurable sex, positive relationships, and open communication.



First, given the degree of stigmatisation of those who are outside heteronormativity there is a lot of pressure on those who are inside heteronormativity to stay within it. They know that stepping outside means, at least, being questioned and seen as less than normal, and, at worst, being attacked, oppressed, and discriminated against. This means that heteronormativity can feel like a dangerous and precarious place to be, especially in these days where everyone is also expected to be quite sexually adventurous in order to prove that they are interesting people with exciting relationships. The lines between heteronormativity and the 'outside' can seem pretty blurry. Where, for instance, do bicurious women fit, or metrosexual guys, or people who buy the fluffy handcuffs and jewelled riding crops sold by mainstream sex shops, or those who have a new monogamous arrangement where it is okay to occasionally get off with somebody other than their partner at a nightclub?



So those who have some kind of desires and inclinations beyond rigid heteronormativity, and who act on these, often live in some degree of fear of others finding this out and of how they might be treated if they do.



Others try to remain completely within heteronormativity, but this often brings with it problems as well. Many people, for example, simply do not tune into their sexuality at all for fear of what they might find if they do so. Instead, they focus on trying to have a certain kind of sex with a certain kind of partner the number of times per week which they have been told is 'normal'. Quite often, this results in problems such as people being penetrated finding it painful or difficult and/or people penetrating finding that they lose their erection or ejaculate too quickly (see www.cosrt.org.uk). Statistics on these kinds of 'sexual dysfunctions' go up to between a third and a half of people, suggesting that they are extremely common. However, we might question whether it is right to see these as 'sexual dysfunctions', or as 'societal dysfunctions' whereby people are being told to have a certain kind of sex which isn't really what they'd most enjoy. Sex therapists often find it useful, when working with these kinds of problems, to get people reading about the vast diversity of sexual practices and fantasies that human beings have, either by reading collections of fantasies and/or making checklists of what they might like to try. It can also be helpful to question the idea that everybody needs to be sexual in order to be regarded as healthy or normal. All of this involves questioning heteronormativity.



Moving from sex to romantic relationships more broadly, we can see that heteronormative models of everyone needing a opposite-sex partner to spend their life with can be very tough on those who are single, or who go through relationships break-ups, as well as sometimes encouraging people to stay in relationships which are not good for them, and sometimes meaning that people leave relationships too quickly due to expectations of the 'perfect' match.



What does an alternative look like?

It is often easier to point out what is wrong with something - like heteronormativity - than it is to offer anything else to put in its place. To end this blog (which has become rather long already!) I will try to offer some quick ideas which might be of help to people like the television companies and commentators who I mentioned earlier, if they are convinced by my arguments.



First of all it is vital to point out that it isn't just heteronormativity that is a problem. Any kind of normativity would be equally problematic. There is a tendency for those who step out of one kind of normativity to quickly produce their own form of normativity in its place. This is pretty understandable because being on the outside is a scary and precarious place to be, and we seem to be drawn to seeing the world in 'us and them' kinds of ways. However it is also unhelpful, and reinforces the very divisions that we are saying are so problematic. For example, it isn't great for LGBT people if, on coming out, they are faced with a whole load of new and rigid rules about how to be properly lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans. Similarly, for the person who is struggling with sex in the ways which I wrote about above, it isn't great if the only other option that they can find is another kind of normativity where everybody is expected to be hugely sexually creative and try everything once.



So the answer is not just to come up with another kind of normativity that we expect everybody to adhere to. However, what we can do is to replace the normativity model with what Gayle Rubin calls a model of 'benign variation'. This is the idea that there is a diversity of sexual desires, practices and relationships, and – so long as they are engaged in consensually and ethically – they are all equally fine. Here we are not concerned with how normal something is: a person can equally take part in something which is completely unique to them, or which most other people have experienced.



What would this look like in practice? Here are a few ideas, but I would be very interested in hearing other's thoughts.

Programme-makers, advertisers, magazine editors and so forth would be less concerned with representing what is 'normal' and would instead go out of their way to ensure that the full diversity of sexual practices, relationships, bodily forms, and so forth, were represented in their materials. In addition they would take care not to present any sexual practice, identity or relationship as ridiculous or problematic on the basis of its unusualness.

Instead of asking whether something like wearing a collar to work was a more or less normal activity, we would afford each person with the same rights to express their sexuality or relationships through their appearance.

Researchers in this area would be less concerned with questions of what are, or are not, normal sexualities, and with trying to find explanations for certain sexualities. Instead they would attend to documenting the diversity of sexualities that exist, to exploring the lived experiences of different people and communities, and perhaps to examining which ways of understanding sexuality are most positive in terms of decreasing stigma and discrimination.

Educators and parents would be keen to ensure that young people grow up with an understanding of the range of possible relationships and identities available to them, rather than the idea that some of these are better than others. The focus would be on ethics, consent, and communication, and on tuning into our own bodies, desires and feelings.



The short version

What is wrong with heteronormativity?

It leaves people feeling alienated and alone.

It is bad for LGBT people and other people who are outside of it.

It sets up an 'us and them' which enables homophobia, biphobia and transphobia to exist.

It is questionable whether the 'normative' form of heterosexuality actually is normal.

Our treatment of others should not be based on how normal, or not, they are.

It is bad for those who have some desires or feelings outside the 'norm'.

It puts pressure on those who are inside it to stay inside it, and may prevent them for finding the kinds of sex and relationships that work for them.



What can we do about it?

Move to a model of sexual diversity rather than normality/abnormality.

[Adultus-IT]

          

vielleicht bei Mädels habe ich seltener Probleme.

Du hast was vom "Verkehr" geschriben und das Wort setzte ich gleich dem Geschlechtsverkehr zwischen Mann und Frau. Hilfsmittel...Finger...sonstige Liebkosungen und Zunge kamen mir dabei nicht in den Sinn....aber damit sollte es doch auch einem Mann gelingen.

Gruss Adultus - IT Micha