Girls want sex, boys want love

Allen center’s her article on Foucault’s assertion that whenever there is power, there is the potential for resistance (216). She develops the traditional model of heterosexuality of the New Zealand population, referring to this model as the perceived “’real’ sex” (217) Explaining that sex, like we’ve discussed in the past, is often seen as a power dynamic. Allen stresses how these roles have affected the discourse on sex and relationships among teens, age 17-19. One party, primarily the male, is seen as the active participant where the other party, usually represented by the female partner, represents the passive role. She sees this passive/active model, reflected in the New Zealand understand (partly through literature), as contributing to the perceived differences between men and women’s sexual preferences, saying:

This “construction of women and men’s sexuality is dichotomized, with women lacking erotic desire, voyeuristic tendencies and corporeal pleasure, while men are disconnected from their emotional and mental needs and desires” (218).

Allen’s study is separated into four parts: Young women and the dominant discourse of sexual behavior (passive) and young women resisting dominant discourse, and men’s discourse of dominant sexual behavior (active) and the men resisting dominant discourse.

First, Allen explains the common assertions of female sexuality. This mostly focuses on how women are “positioned as the (reluctant) recipients of male desires rather than initiators of sexual activity” (220). The “recipient” role leads to more talk about desiring love in a relationship rather than sex. A few women, or “minority” (221), resist the prescribed sexuality in favor of something more balanced, though still flawed. Allen mentions how the likelihood of their resistance may be related to exposure to the “alternative pedagogies”(221). Even though they were resisting, the women felt a need to accommodate the dominating practices, as represented by the sexual double standard (slut label). In some cases the resistance reversed the masculine and feminine roles, making the woman the dominant sexual partner. Even so, the result still focused on the active/passive sexual interplay rather than a more equal role. The women also, when describing sex, tried to emphasize the importance of a balance of physical and emotional needs (223), but did not really talk about experiencing a willing sex-only relationship.

Men also tended to identify with the dominant discourse of “male sexuality as perpetually ready for sex, virile and potent” (225). Allen considers this masculine identity as one of social experience and “to achieve full masculine status young men must separate themselves from homosexual and feminine identities” (226). The men that resisted the dominant discourse referred to sex as something that wasn’t the “most” important, but failed to see sex as something unimportant. Interestingly, both sexes appeared to be more open to resisting when in a “safe” environment. The ‘safe’-ness is defined differently for each sex, men in more of a one on one environment and women in a female-dominated environment. Also, both sexes had a tendency to both accommodate and resist the dominant discourse.

Judging by her results during her project, Allen’s conclusion suggests that the dominant view of sexuality is outdated (231). She sees experience as a catalyst for changing mentalities. Often she cites men’s experience in relationships or women’s experience with exposure to alternative forms of sexual discussion as a means of introducing resistant tendencies. I feel that Allen makes a good point here. I think that, without exposure, people are likely to not know what options are available for them to choose from. I’m not sure if I’ll agree entirely, however. Exposure alone may not be enough. In a sex education setting, as she mentions in her opening paragraphs, exposure can be extremely beneficial. Within the private sphere, I feel, exposure is unlikely to have much of an impact—it may even have an adverse effect, closing off potential expressions of sexuality.

I was curious why Allen looked to teens to discover how sex is discussed. Perhaps because she associates the dominant discourse as “outdated” she felt that older individuals would be less likely to reflect contemporary feelings toward sex. Maybe she feels that sex, or at least exploratory discussion about sex is the realm of the young while older people may have already determined where they stand on the issues. Certainly sex is a new and exciting thing in their lives (if it’s even present), but what do teens bring to the discussion?


______________________________________________-
Sorry this is late. I thought I was writing for monday.