web analytics

A Feminist Floozy

The other day, someone suggested that I was a bit of a floozy, on this blog. That telling tales of previous loves was too much ‘kiss n tell’ for their liking.

I can’t go into the details of the conversation because I have been sworn to secrecy, however in truth, I wonder at the fairness of the accusers being able to launch the attack without redress. So I’m redressing. Setting the record straight.

Am I a floozy? Or a feminist?

I was called a feminist the other day on this blog, also!  So I’ve been called a ‘floozy’ and a ‘feminist’ recently – it’s been quite a month!

Hell, I’ve been called a feminist many, many times in my life. In some cases not only has the word been hurled in my direction but it’s been accompanied by a scathing suspicion about my sexual preferences.

All because I am a strong woman. A woman who boldly goes where no man has gone before!

I was tagged by A Modern Military Mother to discuss whether the search of a ‘zipless f*ck’ was indeed the hallmark of a floozy, or a feminist. She boldly described her own experiences as a university student and her liaison with the mute but sensual Beckenham-esque ‘zipless f*ck’.

I’m not going to go into the various liaisons I’ve had over a twenty year period of sexual activity. Sorry! The accusers at the beginning of this post would hang, draw and quarter me. They already believe that talking about sex outside of wedlock is tantamount to spilling the beans Belle de Jour, style.  But only for women. For men, it is a rite of passage, akin to notches on the bed post.

I remember reading Erica Jong’s book ‘Fear of Flying’ (which A Modern Military Mother has been reading), when I was 21. I was backpacking through Asia and Australia solo, and I was in-between relationships. The backpacking scene is full of young, attractive people finding their way, examining their views, their morals, their spirituality. I was propelled into the scene on the dissolution of my engagement to my very first love, and my subsequent ejection from the Pentecostal church I had been attending.

I was frankly alarmed at the restrictions on women’s behaviour that the church imposed. I keenly felt the double standard, and was increasingly distressed by the submissive, asexual behaviour that religion imposed on women. I believed then, as now, that it  is a human right to be able to freely express your sexuality, not simply a male right.

For nice girls of my generation, it was the last taboo. We were urged by popular media to discover ourselves and our passions a la Sex in the City, yet when it came down to the interactions between men and women the expectation was that we should be pure, Diana-esque, and virginal. In an age when the fight for decriminalising homosexuality was strident, the right for women to freely express their sexuality (whether hetereosexual or lesbian) was largely over-looked at the micro level. This was a huge internal battle for me. One minute I wanted to be able to follow my passion, but often at the very crux of the encounter I pulled back. Flashbacks of  long sessions at Bible Class where we were told that  woman who had sex before marriage were like drinking glasses  sullied with finger-prints that future husbands would find abhorrent, replayed on a loop in my mind at the most inappropriate moments!

Of course men were not glasses, their sexual behaviour was beyond reproach – it was transparent.

I remembered anthropological principles I’d learnt at university, that suggest that men are genetically required to sow their seed and tend numerous gardens (lady-gardens?) to ensure the propogation of the species. Women were simply to compy with the down and dirty job, of being the garden.

Well dammit, I had control in my life over everything else! I had control over my career, my finances, my health, and as a healthy adult, it was also my right to have control over who I invited to share my bed. Did this make me a floozy? Only in the eyes of some. Did it make me a feminist? Definately in the eyes of those who are bound by the man-made establishment and male dominated church.

Do I care?

Not any more.

Does my God care? After all it is my morality that we are considering, and my chance of entering the pearly gates!  I don’t think he does.  I think a loving God sees into the soul, and has far more understanding of his creation’s weaknesses and strengths. Do commandments that limit sexual activity out of wedlock still apply in an age of sensible contraception? Weren’t they societal rules enforced to limit population growth and impoverished bastards? Why do rules governing sex outside of wedlock apply only to women? Why are they more pertinent than the rules in Leviticus that encourage bigamy?

Is God more concerned with a woman’s sex life, than the state of her murderous, judgemental heart?

In that period of wandering, I learnt a great many things about myself, not least of which the tenor of my own morality. For me a sexual relationship must have at its heart a deeper affection than lust.  Whilst I understand completely the allure of the zipless f*ck, for me it  just doesn’t have the depth I require. It’s like eating candy floss. Oh, oh, oh, YES!  It tastes good, gives you a brief sugar rush, but there is no lasting value. I have also learnt over the years through my wild times, that I need a mental and emotional attraction to be entirely engaged. Without that, physical sensuality is hollow.

But perhaps the biggest lesson learnt, is that it is irrelevant whether other people label my behaviour as feminist or floozy, for what matters in the long run, is my understanding of my own human condition – complete with weakness – that truly matters.

I have also learnt that the journey to love and relationship is not a straight path, sometimes it can follow on from a dalliance at the right time in both your lives, at the right place – especially if that place, just happens to be Paris.

What do you think? Is it a simple judgement call – female sexual behaviour outside of wedlock = floozy? Or feminist? Or a human right?

Further reading: A Modern Military Mother and Very Bored in Catalunya

Image: Flickr CC
Cathredfern

You may also like...

  • http://twitter.com/RebeccaEmin Rebecca Emin

    What I’d like to know is, if it’s supposedly so dreadful for women to “do the deed” out of wedlock, yet it is ok for men, who are they going to be doing it with? It would imply a total lack of respect for any partners that men have pre-marriage if men are only considering virgins suitable and worthy enough for them to marry, no? Personally I think if either person in a sexual relationship does not respect the other then they are disrespecting themselves as well.

    You are free to say exactly what you want to say, Vix. I admire you for it.

    • Anonymous

      Well they can’t be doing it with other men cos the church would definately NOT approve of that! Sigh. Thanks hun for your comments, I appreciate your support.

  • Anonymous

    Ah the Church! As if there aren’t enough obstacles in life’s way as it is?

    Glad you’ve picked up the mantel and ran with this today as well. Interesting that we’ve wrote very different posts but have come to the same conclusion.

    • Anonymous

      I love your post and thought I’d commented there but it seems to have vanished! We have such similar views. Do you know I don’t think I’ve ever seen a pix of you. Are you sure you’re not my long-lost sister?

  • http://cocktailsatnaptime.blogspot.com/ Misssy M

    These double standards are very hard to shift. I had a horrific conversation with a male friend the other day. This is the gist of what he said, “Me and my four mates were out the other night and we were standing by the dance floor when one of them said. Do you know that I’d had something off of every single one of those lassies on the dancefloor” He thought that phrase his friend had used was hilarious.

    He then went onto say that after about five mins of chatting they all came to the conclusion that ALL of them had “had something off of” all the girls on the dancefloor.

    This is a man in his late thirties. I was appalled and said so. He still thought it was funny.

    • Anonymous

      Aren’t they just! The double standard is alive and well. I once knew a gentleman (puh) who would ring me when his wife was out, knowing that I was single and wanted to come around! He went to church every Sunday.

  • http://river-driftingthroughlife.blogspot.com river

    I’ve no idea what a zipless f*** is; enlighten me?

    Exploring sexuality out of wedlock is definitely a human right, not just for men. How else are we supposed to learn?

    • Anonymous

      Exactly river. Exactly. My thoughts entirely. xx

  • http://amodernmilitarymother.com/ A Modern Military Mother

    Brilliant as ever!! Once in a while a bag of candy floss as a rare treat is ok. It is but a treat but it is not by any means a staple diet. I love the way you have brought in the church – the relic of social order before the masses were educated to make informed and rational choices. It’s so insightful and I am pleased that you all haven’t revealed – it wasn’t the point of the debate. We are after all women of bold!

    • Anonymous

      yes I do have something of a sweet tooth! ;-p Thanks for your comments. It is an interesting point of course, how much of society’s moral compass is set by a church that no longer represents a modern face of God?

  • river

    Never mind, I found the answer on another blog.

  • http://bloggertropolis.blogspot.com/ Steve

    I think it’s a very simple judgement call. What someone does with their body and with another consenting adult is their business; what I can’t understand is why it is considered a moral issue? Is forming a friendship a moral issue? Eating? Sleeping? I mean it doesn’t matter whether you come from a religious or a scientific viewpoint, the human race is here to procreate and therefore certain urges are built into us. The only moral aspect is how we conduct ourselves with each other whilst in pursuit of those urges. It doesn’t matter how many partners you had / have or whether you had sex out of wedlock – it matters how you conducted yourself with those people, how you treated them and allowed them to treat you. And that is a very personal judgement call.

  • http://www.expatmum.blogspot.com Expat Mum

    Female sexual behaviour outside of wedlock is….no one else’s business quite frankly. (Unless she wants it to be.)

    • Anonymous

      Absolutely agree, how interesting it is that the old fashioned mores still divide us – male from female.

  • http://www.cocktailsatnaptime.blogspot.com EmmaK

    oh good for you for not caring!! God doesn’t care if you are having multiple orgasms with complete strangers outside of wedlock I can assure you. As we get older we learn that other peoples opinions matter not one whit

    • Anonymous

      Though I think you’ll agree that sounds kinda hot though. LOL!

  • http://www.londoncitymum.com London City Mum

    As always Vix, your way with words is just something else.

    Wonderful post, really thought-provoking.

    LCM x

    • Anonymous

      Thanks hun! xx

  • Notes From Lapland

    So, assuming it is not okay for women to have premarital sex with anyone but it is okay for men. and of course it’s not okay for women to cheat on their husbands, and men can’t have sex with other men…erm…who are these men having premarital sex with then? Farm animals?

    • http://suburp.wordpress.com/ kayK

      lol funny, there’s a logic to that :D

      • Anonymous

        Well I wondered that too. Though I did once hear the theory that the monks used to get together because at least it wasn’t a carnal sin…

  • Betsy Dsa

    One of your best posts!! Look forward to them every morning..though sometimes do feel like a voyeur!!

  • http://suburp.wordpress.com/ kayK

    great post, but i keep losing my comments via discus :(

    • Anonymous

      Not sure why that is? Can’t see any trace of it not being aproved. Maybe I’ll lodge a query with Disqus, and maybe I should have a squiz at alternative commenting systems.

  • Anonymous

    THanks very much! I must admit I feel like a voyeur watching my own life sometimes! LOL!

  • Pingback: The Zipless F*ck And The Death Of Feminism | Notes From Lapland

  • saleem

    Great post Vix, I must admit you are great at writing such nice stuff.

    Wonderful post, really thought-provoking.

    Impotence Treatment

  • sam

    Highly informative and nice blogpost. Very nicely written. Will follow your posts regularly.
    Impotence

  • Rob

    Actually, the whole point of female sexual restraint is/was so that the man who was expected to work hard to support the children could reasonably expect that the children he is working hard to support are his own. If you take away female sexual restraint then you remove a huge incentive to men to commit to the very long term relationships (aka marriages) that are needed to provide children with a solid, stable, well-funded upbringing. Contraception provides a very illusory sense of security: it often fails. The result is either an abortion or a child without a stable family to grow up in. There’s a strong instinct in men to protect and provide for their own wife and children. Few men want to put in 100% commitment support or look after another man’s child. You can choose between sexual freedom or the long term commitment of a good man to you and the children you have. The sexual moral code before the 60s had a purpose. It wasn’t just invented to annoy or oppress women. It provided the majority of people with family stability. In the long run, a stable family life is far more satisfying than multiple sexual encounters, the risk of single parenthood, and the risk that you won’t find a good man willing to make a long term commitment to you when you find you want one.