Sunday, October 31, 2010

stfu stephen

(cross-posted from my personal blog)
"If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking: 'God, I've got to get my fucking rocks off', or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush. It doesn't happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it."

Fry, 53, continues: "I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want," he said. "Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, 'Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!' But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?"

so sayeth mr. stephen fry. (and also here) now, i have no personal affection for mr fry, unlike much of britain. nor do i think as a public persona he is required to be infallible.

but i find his continued perpetuation of this stereotype of women as frigid to be insulting (and even potentially dangerous) for a few reasons:

a) it's just flat out archaic - what're we, in the 1950's?

b) he's a gay guy, speaking on something he knows nothing about

c) it insults women everywhere by implying that we only have sex either passively or manipulatively

d) the implicit passive role of women in sex is something we have fought long and hard to overcome - women have a right to their god-given built-in sexuality, including enjoyment, exploration and initiation of sex. reinforcing lazy stereotypes undermines that message, and diminishes the work of sex-positive feminism.

e) viewing women as undesiring, apathetic, or averse to sex *as part of their biological makeup* undermines the power and necessity of women's active, engaged, willing consent as part of sex.

and if society don't take women's "yeses" seriously - how do we expect them to take our "noes" seriously?!

women have enough messages out there about how they can't/shouldn't/mustn't enjoy sex. we don't need another clueless voice added to the chorus.

7 comments:

  1. Wow Jen. Wow. I am appalled and offended and want to have a go at this gay fella. I think the only thing he said that makes any sense at all is that the gay culture does have a different way of going about it, with the park benches and such. Every city has one of those parks.

    A park like that for women might not work because so many are trying to live up to reputations or expectations and would never be so bold as to sit on a park bench and wait to shag behind a bush. The stigmas and stereotypes remain.

    But there are other more private ways in which it can occur; hence the prolific numbers seen on Match.Com. It is the park bench of the heterosexual community. I have seen it. Women are boldly declaring their sexual needs (under an anonymous name, of course).

    Your post is spot on Jen. This man is clueless. My only hope would be that all women who hear him, have the same reaction, and rise up to draw closer to claiming our sexuality as we should. Sometimes, it takes getting pissed off, you know?

    Thanks for sharing, but now I'm all pissed and pissy and stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think Mr. Fry should suck my little dick.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This thought process seems so antiquated to me. How on earth can anyone still buy into this bullshit?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Man, I loved Stephen Fry until about five minutes ago. LAME.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I rather get a sex talk from the pope.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Maybe he's trying to convert some "straight" misogynist dudes, specifically so they'll sleep with him.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Fry obviously has a limited population with whom he consults.

    Which does, for the record, make sense.

    Aren't faery princesses more apt to dig men who burden them with attentions without being propositioned sexually?

    Poor bugger. He doesn't realize he has no idea what he's talking about.

    ReplyDelete