I am a member of an email listserv which, on occasion, is visited by “trolls,” folks who don’t contribute to discussions but who do place “personal ads,” sometimes very physically explicit and specific ones, looking for sexual partners. These posts have always bugged me, and they inevitably get a lot of response from those of us on the list (myself included) about how trolling is prohibited—“See, right there in the rules.”
Like I said, I don't like these "trolling" emails, and I much prefer to keep date-seeking off a discussion list-serv and on the dating sites. However, with the last round of “trolls,” I realized something interesting—that when a person comes on the list, describing how she thinks or what his hobbies are and ALSO happens to state that zhe would like to meet folks for conversation, NOBODY jumps on their case about being a troll. It’s only if someone describes hir body or mentions that zhe is seeking something physical, whether cuddling or sex, that anybody describes hir as a “troll.” Hmmm...
I have often heard people say they get offended at these “trolls” saying that they feel objectified—“They are not interested in ME; they are only interested in my BODY.” And I have heard that same complaint over and over again about people in other places where people meet people—dating sites, bars, etc. But I have never once heard anyone disparage a person by saying, "Oh, they're not interested in ME; they only are interested in my MIND (or heart, or spirit).”
Which begs the questions--what constitutes "ME" anyway? Is it my body, my mind, my spirit, my soul, some combination of one or more of those? How does one differentiate among those? And are the desires of the body less than, lower than the desires of the mind?
I would say that culturally, the answer to that last question is “yes.” Thanks, in part, to the Gnostics and later the Victorians (and who else? Help me out historians!), intellectual and spiritual pursuits are perceived as "higher" than physical ones. Many spiritual practitioners encourage us to transcend the body. Some branches of feminism taught us that wanting sex was inherently disempowering. And in our culture, connecting to someone mentally and emotionally is largely seen as “good,” but primarily wanting to connect physically with another human, either sexually or non-sexually, is seen as “bad,” “dirty,” or “superficial.” In many minds, connecting physically is ONLY acceptable after people have ALREADY connected emotionally and mentally. You’ve heard the quip: “Sex is dirty; save it for someone you love.”
Thanks to the work of Howard Gardner, many of us know that there are multiple intelligences: Linguistic intelligence ("word smart"), Logical-mathematical intelligence ("number/reasoning smart"), Spatial intelligence ("picture smart"), Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart"), Musical intelligence ("music smart"), Interpersonal intelligence ("people smart"), Intrapersonal intelligence ("self smart"), and Naturalist intelligence ("nature smart"). Gardner’s belief, which I share, is that all intelligences are equally important to nurture, even though the culture-at-large, and especially schools, reward linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligence over others. Those who demonstrate body-kinesthetic intelligence, on the other hand, are rewarded only if they are unusually skilled at kinesthetic tasks—professional athletes, for example. (And let me not fail to mention the porn star Belladonna—the most amazing sexual athlete I have ever seen.)
All of us rely on several intelligences. We may have a few that are predominant and a few that are not well-developed at all. Similarly, I would also suggest that there are at least as many relationship styles as there are “intelligences,” and that a few are predominant in each of us. There are many ways to be attracted to someone, and each of us relies on a different combination of “attractions” in order to relate to other people. Some of us want to share physical touch, be it sexual or non-sexual, only after we feel an emotional connection via mental or linguistic means—long conversations or copious emails, for example. Others’ sexual desire is stimulated primarily by visual cues—we see someone we find physically attractive and want to share touch with them. For others, the sound of someone's voice might be a primary turn-on, and for others smell does the trick. Others of us use touch, sexual and/or non-sexual, to gain the information we need to make an emotional connection in the first place—like Helen Keller did. Keller could not rely on visual or auditory information to communicate or connect with another human; she had only touch to rely on. Most of us use more than one and sometimes all of these avenues to connect; it is the order in which we do them and the ways in which our minds prioritize them which seems to vary.
Though I am not as limited in my options as Keller was, and though I am certainly not as skilled kinesthetically as an athlete, I rely heavily on my tactile intelligence in connecting and communicating with others. I get information not available to me through other means by touching hands, hugging, cuddling, and/or sharing sex with someone. Though I also rely on visual, linguistic, auditory, and other cues to connect with a person, I can never truly feel like I know someone before I physically touch them. I also need to touch someone in non-sexual ways to figure out whether or not I might want to have sex with them, and falling in love over the internet is just something I can't do. (Which means those trolling posts don't work on me, not one bit.) Does that mean I need to have sex with everyone? Nope, not at all, but it does mean that to feel close with anyone I do need to touch them in some way. And if I don’t want to touch someone, I will never be able to be close to that person. It’s just the way I work.
I’m not suggesting anyone abandon their personal attraction or relationship style(s) if they work for you. As long as your relationships are fully consensual and do not violate the rights of anyone else, you have my blessing.
I do, however, want to challenge the idea that relating physically is somehow more superficial than relating mentally, emotionally, or spiritually. I want to challenge the belief that a person wanting you “just for your body” is somehow MORE objectifying than, say, another person’s attraction to hir perception of your “mind.” I want to challenge the notion that “purely physical sex” is necessarily casual, meaningless, and crass. Purely physical sex, can, in fact, be transformative, embodied, fun, life-affirming, and/or validating.
To be sure, I have come across plenty of people for whom "purely physical" does involve discounting the humanity of the other person--just a body to fuck, a notch on the belt, a lay to be had. A relationship based on a physical connection can be objectifying, but so is ANY relationship based on any projection--whether that projection is based on a physical quality or an intellectual or emotional one. ("She seems so nice-- she'd be a great wife and mother." "She's a writer--she must be smart." "She's got big tits and is wearing that tight little shirt--I bet she's an easy lay.") It is not the physicality of a relationship that is the problem; it is objectification and projection that have the potential to nonconsensually dehumanize.
Our bodies is one legitimate and powerful avenue of learning about the world, of getting to know ourselves and other people. A physical/kinesthetic approach is equally valid as a mental, spiritual or emotional approach to the world (and some would say indistinguishable). A physical relationship can be as deep or as casual, as short-lived or longstanding as any other kind of relationship.
It’s time we begin to lay to rest the body-phobia that is inherent in our culture. And there is no place better to start than by challenging and stripping away the internalized body-phobia within ourselves.
Like I said, I don't like these "trolling" emails, and I much prefer to keep date-seeking off a discussion list-serv and on the dating sites. However, with the last round of “trolls,” I realized something interesting—that when a person comes on the list, describing how she thinks or what his hobbies are and ALSO happens to state that zhe would like to meet folks for conversation, NOBODY jumps on their case about being a troll. It’s only if someone describes hir body or mentions that zhe is seeking something physical, whether cuddling or sex, that anybody describes hir as a “troll.” Hmmm...
I have often heard people say they get offended at these “trolls” saying that they feel objectified—“They are not interested in ME; they are only interested in my BODY.” And I have heard that same complaint over and over again about people in other places where people meet people—dating sites, bars, etc. But I have never once heard anyone disparage a person by saying, "Oh, they're not interested in ME; they only are interested in my MIND (or heart, or spirit).”
Which begs the questions--what constitutes "ME" anyway? Is it my body, my mind, my spirit, my soul, some combination of one or more of those? How does one differentiate among those? And are the desires of the body less than, lower than the desires of the mind?
I would say that culturally, the answer to that last question is “yes.” Thanks, in part, to the Gnostics and later the Victorians (and who else? Help me out historians!), intellectual and spiritual pursuits are perceived as "higher" than physical ones. Many spiritual practitioners encourage us to transcend the body. Some branches of feminism taught us that wanting sex was inherently disempowering. And in our culture, connecting to someone mentally and emotionally is largely seen as “good,” but primarily wanting to connect physically with another human, either sexually or non-sexually, is seen as “bad,” “dirty,” or “superficial.” In many minds, connecting physically is ONLY acceptable after people have ALREADY connected emotionally and mentally. You’ve heard the quip: “Sex is dirty; save it for someone you love.”
Thanks to the work of Howard Gardner, many of us know that there are multiple intelligences: Linguistic intelligence ("word smart"), Logical-mathematical intelligence ("number/reasoning smart"), Spatial intelligence ("picture smart"), Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart"), Musical intelligence ("music smart"), Interpersonal intelligence ("people smart"), Intrapersonal intelligence ("self smart"), and Naturalist intelligence ("nature smart"). Gardner’s belief, which I share, is that all intelligences are equally important to nurture, even though the culture-at-large, and especially schools, reward linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligence over others. Those who demonstrate body-kinesthetic intelligence, on the other hand, are rewarded only if they are unusually skilled at kinesthetic tasks—professional athletes, for example. (And let me not fail to mention the porn star Belladonna—the most amazing sexual athlete I have ever seen.)
All of us rely on several intelligences. We may have a few that are predominant and a few that are not well-developed at all. Similarly, I would also suggest that there are at least as many relationship styles as there are “intelligences,” and that a few are predominant in each of us. There are many ways to be attracted to someone, and each of us relies on a different combination of “attractions” in order to relate to other people. Some of us want to share physical touch, be it sexual or non-sexual, only after we feel an emotional connection via mental or linguistic means—long conversations or copious emails, for example. Others’ sexual desire is stimulated primarily by visual cues—we see someone we find physically attractive and want to share touch with them. For others, the sound of someone's voice might be a primary turn-on, and for others smell does the trick. Others of us use touch, sexual and/or non-sexual, to gain the information we need to make an emotional connection in the first place—like Helen Keller did. Keller could not rely on visual or auditory information to communicate or connect with another human; she had only touch to rely on. Most of us use more than one and sometimes all of these avenues to connect; it is the order in which we do them and the ways in which our minds prioritize them which seems to vary.
Though I am not as limited in my options as Keller was, and though I am certainly not as skilled kinesthetically as an athlete, I rely heavily on my tactile intelligence in connecting and communicating with others. I get information not available to me through other means by touching hands, hugging, cuddling, and/or sharing sex with someone. Though I also rely on visual, linguistic, auditory, and other cues to connect with a person, I can never truly feel like I know someone before I physically touch them. I also need to touch someone in non-sexual ways to figure out whether or not I might want to have sex with them, and falling in love over the internet is just something I can't do. (Which means those trolling posts don't work on me, not one bit.) Does that mean I need to have sex with everyone? Nope, not at all, but it does mean that to feel close with anyone I do need to touch them in some way. And if I don’t want to touch someone, I will never be able to be close to that person. It’s just the way I work.
I’m not suggesting anyone abandon their personal attraction or relationship style(s) if they work for you. As long as your relationships are fully consensual and do not violate the rights of anyone else, you have my blessing.
I do, however, want to challenge the idea that relating physically is somehow more superficial than relating mentally, emotionally, or spiritually. I want to challenge the belief that a person wanting you “just for your body” is somehow MORE objectifying than, say, another person’s attraction to hir perception of your “mind.” I want to challenge the notion that “purely physical sex” is necessarily casual, meaningless, and crass. Purely physical sex, can, in fact, be transformative, embodied, fun, life-affirming, and/or validating.
To be sure, I have come across plenty of people for whom "purely physical" does involve discounting the humanity of the other person--just a body to fuck, a notch on the belt, a lay to be had. A relationship based on a physical connection can be objectifying, but so is ANY relationship based on any projection--whether that projection is based on a physical quality or an intellectual or emotional one. ("She seems so nice-- she'd be a great wife and mother." "She's a writer--she must be smart." "She's got big tits and is wearing that tight little shirt--I bet she's an easy lay.") It is not the physicality of a relationship that is the problem; it is objectification and projection that have the potential to nonconsensually dehumanize.
Our bodies is one legitimate and powerful avenue of learning about the world, of getting to know ourselves and other people. A physical/kinesthetic approach is equally valid as a mental, spiritual or emotional approach to the world (and some would say indistinguishable). A physical relationship can be as deep or as casual, as short-lived or longstanding as any other kind of relationship.
It’s time we begin to lay to rest the body-phobia that is inherent in our culture. And there is no place better to start than by challenging and stripping away the internalized body-phobia within ourselves.
2 comments:
I dunno if I agree with that position, kinda. The standards we've grown up with (assuming typical Western standards) are geared towards making yourself, or encourages you to promote yourself as, physically attractive. The gender-specific broad-brushstroke standards are pretty commonly known: thin, big breasts, tan, etc. for women; toned, rugged looks, defined muscles for men. These are generally what people strive for when they're at the age where it's more important to attract someone of a compatible sexual preference. (Meaning, when people are aggressively looking to form relationships, not that I'm knocking older people, honest.)
It's part of the physical attractiveness cliches: diet-to-the-point-of-unhealthiness, makeup, clothing styles, tanning--some people (notably guys) even do crazy shit like steroids to try to mold their physical self into their image of what's attractive.
The polar opposite of that is the cliche of people that let themselves go after they get married or are in a comfortable, long-term relationship. Those people are generally mocked or objects of ridicule, no?
But, it's rare (at least, for me) to hear about people who perform specific actions to make themselves seem more intelligent. Less rare, but still not nearly as common as physical attractiveness enhancing, are people who seek help to be more emotionally attractive--confident, emotionally secure, etc.
So... if physical attractiveness is considered less or lower, culturally, why is the primary drive to make ourselves *more* physically attractive?
(I think a part of it is genetic - physically attractive people most likely have a higher chance of passing good physical genes to offspring, rather than asthmatics or gimps.)
In the end, I think everyone has aspects of all forms of intelligence within their "attraction quotient." It just differs by person and is, at least somewhat, reflected in how they focus on making themselves attractive in each specific way. :)
Part II! :)
Talking out my ass here, I think tactile/physical communication can be major cause of body-phobia. From my perception, it can be easier (or more reassuring) to understand people when using forms of communication other than physical. Verbal or mental (I'm not separating them for this purpose, don't beat me up, please!) communication mistakes can be easier to recover from than physical. Kinda like, "bad topic, lets move on" can be less relationship-damaging than touching someone in the wrong way.
Many moons ago, I was in a relationship with a woman who was an abuse victim. She had some definite non-standard ways that she wanted to be touched and she told me about them straight-up. I then knew some of the 'positive' physical communication. Cool. However, there was specific forms/situations of touching that triggered Bad Stuff, and it wasn't (to me) an easily recognized pattern (and she was reluctant to talk about them until after we had an issue with something). It kinda became a crapshoot of what was an ok way to touch and what wasn't. I know the uncertainty affected our relationship negatively.
That's what I'm kinda getting at--and if there's an easy answer, please help!--the uncertainty, physically. People have very different "personal space" requirements and at what point does the line get crossed between being affectionate and creepy? Since I'm not a tactile-attraction type person, I defer to the other person for that initial physical touching/communication. Until I understand what's encouraged and acceptable, it's too uncertain that it's the "right" physical communication.
Post a Comment