Men in Cages: I Could Have Done A Better Job With This Topic . . .

So, as those of you who pay attention to the news are probably aware, much ado about sex toys down in Alabama right now.  (I never pay attention to the news (even the sex toy news), thus, I only found out about this sex toy hysteria recently when Emily sent out an intra-tub memorandum on the topic.)  Once I became aware of the sex toy scuffle, however, you better believe I read up on it. 

I'd summarize the whole to-do for you, but all the awesome jokes have already been made elsewhere.  And you know me - I like to keep it fresh.  Well, actually, I can't resist; I'm going to be un-fresh for a minute here.  (And by "be un-fresh," I of course mean "blatantly plagairize.")  How hilarious is this bit?  "[T]he law doesn’t prevent people from using these devices.  The law merely prohibits the sale of sex toys . . . [So it's okay for us to use sex toys so long as we make them ourselves?]  Give me a break!  Who has the time or skill to manufacture their own sex toys?  Besides, if we were that good with our hands, then perhaps sex toys wouldn’t be necessary in the first place."  Oh man, that's funny stuff.

Anyway, since I'm not going to discuss the realities of the situation, I thought I would do some feminist musing about why people object to sex toys.  That sounds good, right?  Okay then - on with it.

The feminist intellectual is likely to assert that men are threatened by vibrators.  If a woman can purchase a pulsating piece of plastic, what need does she have for a pulsating piece of penis?  A woman with a vibrator is a liberated woman!  A woman who wants not for a man!  A woman who has no reason not to eradicate the male of the species!

Eh, I don’t buy it.  Vibrators have been around for quite some time now and the vast majority of women still seem to enjoy having a man around.  Vibrators make for poor companions – they can’t comfort you when you’re feeling down or escort you to the company holiday party or take the other seat on a bicycle built for two. 

Most importantly, vibrators rarely hold down high-paying jobs.  And the real reason women aren’t liberated isn’t that they need something in their coochie; it’s that they need something in their bank account.  It’s not until the wage gap disappears that men really have to start worrying about eradication.      

Actually, I don’t buy that either.  I just wanted to go off on a feminist rant . . . and use the word “coochie.” 

But anyway, the point I wish to make is that objections to the use of vibrators probably aren’t related to fears that vibrators will replace men.  That’s simply not realistic.  What’s more likely is that men are uncomfortable granting women sexual agency.  Men espouse the notion that sex is something they do to women.  They consider themselves proprietors of the magic wand that makes sex possible.  Women are just receptive vessels.

However, if you allow for the possibility that women will go out and attain sex for themselves . . . if you entertain the notion that women have their own sexual agendas . . . then you start getting into trouble.  A vibrator is a reminder that women crave sexual pleasure and will take an active role in attaining it.  And that reminder is scary because it means that women might cheat.

Members of the feminist intelligentsia (such as me, circa 2004) often talk about the two “notions of woman” that exist: the Madonna and the whore.  Women can be pure and good or they can be crazed nymphomaniacs – there’s no middle ground.  For this reason, a woman with a vibrator isn’t simply a woman with a throbbing plastic phallus; she’s a woman with an unquenchable thirst for sex.  And such a woman scares men because she can’t be trusted to remain faithful.  (Which means a man runs the risk of providing resources for offspring that are not his, evolutionary blah blah blah.)   

So men ban the sale of sex toys in an attempt to box women in to a Madonna role?  Uh, sure, that sounds good enough.  It probably would have gotten me an A- in college.  I don't know that it makes any real-life sense, however.  In fact, I had a friend in college who bought his long-distance girlfriend a vibrator in an attempt to keep her faithful.  He knew his gal pal wanted the deep-dickin'.  And he didn't want her getting it from other dudes.  So he provided her with a proxy for his dick.

I guess what it came down to was that my buddy knew his girlfriend was no Madonna.  He saw a sex toy as a means of preventing her from being a super-whore.  For him, the vibrator was the solution.  But for men who want to keep women in a more traditional, demure role, the vibrator is the problem.

Other problem: I have to go.  I know.  I suck.  I am like hair stuck in the drain of the tub.  You should toss me in the trash.  I'll make it up to you.  Someday.  Somehow.

Comments

[F. House]

No pictures this week?

[EmGusk]

i'm glad to be the informant on all things sex toy related to our blog. i'm also glad my mother has started reading everyone's posts as of late. and now i've ruined any chance of mom thinking "oh that must be another emily."

[The Mayor]

I'm happy that someone managed to use the term deep-dickin' during the toy-themed week. Great job! I thought you might just write about the oppressiveness of Barbie or some crap like that, but this was interesting.