Sexuality for Real People:
Woman in a Box (Labelled)

What would I suggest as a solution? Certainly not any formula, but as in every lesson that must be taught during the growing-up years, parents MUST be more involved than current trends would have them. I think anyone can see how damaging such a sensitive topic is when the only time it’s discussed is with or by peers and strangers and people they will likely never see again (teachers)! It’s all well and good to be discreet about sex when children are young, but I say we need to recall that children do grow up, and parents can’t let things like this slide. Discussions on sex must be adapted to be appropriate as time goes by.

Romance has given itself a bad name. I often find myself with the desire to gun it down. Mercilessly. My mother blames it all on the age where romance novels bloomed. Or maybe it all goes back to Shakespeare. Personally, I think he was making fun of love a whole lot more than he was glorifying it. Romeo & Juliet was about their folly, wasn't it really?

The "woman doing a man's thing" applies here, which goes back to the battle of the sexes. Note I am *not* a feminist by any stretch. Most women, if they're like me, like being women, but want to know what the big fuss is about being a man. Not only doing another girl but also/or simply lusting after another girl is probably the closest we get to being our own men. It's the thrill of a girl who loves football and beer and guns, only different. And by feeling like a men, I'm talking the power dynamic more than anything. In any m/f relationship, the man's on top -whether in reality, perception (by you or other people, whether those other people are strangers or not), or just because of the heavy mantle of the traditional POV. Any other way looks or feels forced, right? For an independant woman (mark a stark difference between that and a rebellious woman, please) it's a constant battle to remain so (not so much physically but mentally) after she's married. Sure, you're thinking for 2 (or more) -that *is* a difference. But a man tends to absorb the woman more than the other way around, which is just another example of the man-on-top age-old power. Forgive me, I don't mean to sound like a feminist here. Really, really don't. Just stating the way things usually go or how they are usually *seen*. Not so with a same-sex relationship; it's more (well, this is obvious:) ambiguous. Ignoring, that is, the modern need to label a dom/sub (I don't know if that's average behavior for homosexual couples but I would *think* -and perhaps this is only an amature, idealized POV- that that would negate the entire point). I'd be the first to admit that's the element I crave -simply because I don't like to be comforted or coddled or indulged, and I dislike the insinuation of it even more (in fact I might the specific acts themselves more if they weren't insinuated by the relationship or dynamic itself). And why can't the woman hold the man? Because the man's physically bigger than the woman. (Okay, some men aren't, but that's just weird. An emasculated man, I have to say, does not a replacement for a woman make.) Boy, I really do sound like a feminist here. Maybe all the trouble can be summed up in the question- why aren't men allowed to cry? But I think not, because I've known men personally who *aren't* afraid to cry. And they cry more than I do. (Possibly I'm just a butch girl. Kidding, kidding.)

Yeah, I am tired of seeing strong female characters whose only weakness is their founder over love, their decisions about love, or their longing for love. And as someone who uses herself as a guinea pig -as the only person I can count on to be the exception or prove a stereotype honestly wrong- most of the time I think I see the idea of "falling in love" as a defeat. A defeat of me and my clarity of sight. Every time I see a girl -fictional or nonfictional- make an obvious crap decision about love and/or romance, I become more cynical. And while you can put me down as saying I'm open to a gradual shift in planning sometime later in life, one thing I know for certain is I won't ever regret being here at this time in my life when I'm *not interested* in romance, *not looking forward to* love and dating and life-changing decisions that involve a man or ever having a husband.

I have to look at this from my own sex's perspective. Pop culture is an important influence on environment in general. Just as I've often lamented the overdramatization of romance on television, I also often ask *why* are there no respectable (in the respect-worthy way) girls on television? Granted, I'm more critical of the female characters' behavior, because I *am* a girl, and I resent feeling I'm supposed to relate to the silly actions & reactions of my sex's portrayal. Defense mechanisms -used so often- and denial is perpetrated so well on TV. Maybe it's an American thing, but... I'm inclined to think it's more of a worldwide epidemic. In fact, it's pretty much achieved the role of common courtesy: the offer of ignorance when something has obviously taken place in plain sight. It's a regular plot device -so regular no one notices anymore that it's corny- in love stories, whether entertainment or real life (so I've been told, that is, repeatedly and at great length). You all know it- the thing where a "moment" happens, and said moment can even include something undeniably physical like a *kiss*, but the people or a person involved think twice about it a second too late and, whoops, "no that never happened, or let's pretend it didn't for now". Enter: sex, the one thing that most people can't sweep under the deniable carpet. This would be why people still see sex as an indefinable "something", that thing that might be casual, but still means... again, "something". Anyhow, it's remarkable how these things work: despite all evidence that loudly states Person A wants Person B, Person B is afraid he/she might have misunderstood, thus they deny facts -whether they want them to be true or not- in order to prolong the angst. 'Cause, after all, the angst is the fun part. Where do we go once we get what we want? Elizabeth Smart comes to mind, actually- "To deny love, and deceive it meanly by pretending that what is unconsummated remains eternal, or that love sublimated reaches highest to heavenly love, is repulsive, as the hypocrite's face is repulsive when placed too near the truth." (Smart woman, that.) And she expands on a thought I mentioned a few days ago- If we can love without having, how do we then love something we have? It's the denying the true state of affairs, the denying of changes in the relationship -these are the things that get us into trouble, and these are the things that we want to avoid, finding it easier to do so by denying the reality of the relationship itself. It takes a strong person to reconcile both sides of the problem- it's one version of the details vs. big picture question.

But as far as I'm concerned, the most vivid and chilling example of denial in recent years is political. Can't we learn from past mistakes? Apparently not if mistakes are not acknowledged. I'm talking about the parallels of WW2 and our current predicament, but I won't get into it too much.

In both cases, the lure of denial is understandable. First as a defensive measure, as caution or fear, and eventually as overthinking and a chosen preference for the status quo. A reconciliation with keeping things how they are. And we wait for change to take place -sweep in like fate, a sign to guide us even- without our interference.

My mom thinks it's all a result of compartmentalized thinking. When she mentioned that, in fact, she suggested that was how people got into things like adultery, as well. I have to agree, which is how this turns away from an analysis of denial and into a contemplation of the good and evils of compartmentalizing, or whatever it is we call that. Conveniantly, this brings to mind a recent point on the TV show Alias -perhaps not the best place to draw examples from, but as a source of pop culture, it'll do. Backstory: Sydney's a top-secret double-agent with traitorous parents and few people she can trust. The way she deals with all this, in order to function, she says, is to compartmentalize. Typical, understandable, even perhaps commendable, but only if the person is in control of their compartments, so to speak. The thing is, compartments are to deal with other people; with yourself, it's plain denial and it's obviously unhealthy. And it'll catch up to you. Unfortunately, 'compartments' are coming more and more into vogue. Politically, again, we can look at Bill Clinton and many a senator's example. A great many people would have us believe that their "personal lives" don't affect their ability to serve as leaders, representatives, and/or even to be decent people. Bizarre, and the excuse of a blackened conscience. It doesn't work that way, and the same rule applies to what any person reads, watches, thinks on, and on a more physical level: eats, drinks, or shoots into their blood. It affects us. And that's just the way it should be. Cause and effect is a scientific law, and you can think of it in terms of machines if you like. What goes in must come out, and "what a man thinketh in his heart..." (I'll look up the reference later.)

One of the first examples that comes to my mind, and one of the most typical, is about sex. Here's my own little thing. One of the more subtle aspects of compartmentalizing, but one that we've come by in a kind of mob-rule agreement. There's a lot of stuff that applies to or stems from sex that has been "removed from" what is generally considered the arena of the topic. If you follow a lot of these things to their conclusion, however, they *will* take you back to their source. In the meantime, you've opened yourself up to dangerous territory. Actually we're getting into my big all-encompassing sexual overtones theory now. As an example, I've ranted about complimenting butts and questioned why that's appropriate, not just as a body part but because of the intent behind the notice in the first place, and it doesn't bother me as much as it sounds like -I'm not trying to shout "danger, danger, Will Robinson!" here, but if everything is a series of choices, I think people should be aware of the facts before they make a choice, and that takes *acknowledging* the facts themselves.

Maybe we just want to have it all, and that's what compartmentalizing is *really* about. Or maybe that's what that can make compartmentalizing go wrong. Most things are about motives. It's the motives behind the ostensibly-removed-from-sex stuff above that means they're still imbued with meaning. And by motives, I really mean "heart motives", possibly another term for "soul motives": what's guiding you there? Something might be alright on the surface, but what the surface doesn't show is that it only takes a small shift in motive to change everything. That's why the Bible makes such a big deal out of saying God looks at the heart. I guess maybe people need to be reminded of that. In general nowadays, people are all about denying that there's *more* to things than the surface aspect. Sure, in some circles, it's all about the emotions -but what makes emotion so empty is when no one understands what motivates the feelings. When you compartmentalize, you cut off your ability to read your *own* motivations. That's a pretty terrible thing. It's also why we have so many people these days running around with their emotions in an uproar and, with no other recourse, letting these things take them for a ride. "Maybe this thing will make this aspect of me feel better; maybe that will make this other part happy. If they don't work together, they'll just have to stay out of each other's way." It'd be a lot simpler if we'd just let everything work together the way it's supposed to. Or rather- we *can't* just 'do' that, in the natural; I'm looking at this in a spriritual way again because that's the only way it works. God planned everything, and we keep trying to delegate His work without listening to His schematics first.

Well, that's tidy. As usual, the practical application is up to you. Or at least the choice of it; you've got built in help waiting to happen.