cougars and the “one dick rule”

03Jun08

“Cougar” seems to be one of the more popular Buzzwords Of The Now. Its increased prevalence presents an opportunity for the savvy pop culture consumer to engage in feminist critique of gendered language construction.

A “cougar” is an “older” (30+) woman who, well, “preys” on younger males in the sexual sense. (I’ll dispense with the “unnecessary quotation marks” for now.) This vernacular is problematic for several reasons.

Language help to shape the social construction of reality. Sexist language paves the way for sexist thoughts, ideology, and behaviors. Calling a woman a cougar is offensive not only because it carries predatory connontations, but because it slathers another layer of ageism on the top of what older women already have to cope with.

There is no concurrent term for “men” who “prey” on “younger women,” since “sugar daddy” implies that the women are the beneficiaries of the situation.

I’m not implying that it’s wrong for people to date when there is a significant age difference, provided that consent is present, but it is important to acknowledge the staggering power differential that exists between men and women in this culture.

Furthermore, pedophilia and sexual exploitation of minors are a domain in which men are almost exclusively the perpetrators. There is, however, no comparable term comparing perpetrators of sexual offenses toward children to predatory animals. Granted, “pedophile” is not exactly a label that carries positive connotations, but it more or less defines sexual attraction toward children as something men suffer from and have no control over. Psychologists have come to no general conclusion about the validity of “controlling” one’s sexual fetishes or paraphilias. Nevertheless, re-framing the situation so that men are “predators” rather than “victims” of their own sexuality could potentially create less social tolerance toward pedophilic behavior.

Mongeese? Hawks? Hyenas? Sharks? Trolls? Catfish? Earwigs? Who is with me? Any ideas?

The “One Dick” rule

I tried to have a relationship with a boy in the not too distant past. It didn’t last, although he was a nice guy and I can’t say it wasn’t a learning experience.

I was nervous to talk to people about it, since a lesbian that Crosses Over To The Dark Side is such a tired and cliche stereotype. I didn’t want to feel like I was, in some strange Bizarro way, trapped in the metaphorical closet again, so I did. I received some judgemental attitudes from the lesbian community, but overall, people were much more accepting and tolerant than I had anticipated. Whee. Isn’t it grand when low expectations set you up for success?

Unfortunately, now that things didn’t work out, I’m frustrated with peoples’ attempts to pigeonhole me. Turns out that what I thought was “acceptance,” mostly translated into lumping me into the murky middle ground of “bisexuality.”

A man’s penis is not a trump card. If a woman has one non-negative experience with dick (by which I mean the dick of a male-identified person*), this does not automatically render her “bisexual.” Conversely, hetero-identified women cannot automatically be considered “bisexual” just because they have had an encounter with one cunt.

I’m also not trying to imply that bisexuality is inherently negative; merely that it should not be a “default” category and is not theoretically congruent with my own experiences or self-identification. I am supportive of attempts to eradicate bi-phobia within the LGBTQSSalphabetsoup community, and try to routinely check my own assumptions about the behavior and identities of others.

Identities are far more complex than most people care to admit. It is reductive to qualify desires, dreams, and feelings about ourselves based on a behavior-based scale.

Most straight-identified people haven’t spent much time pondering these conundrums. Since they belong to the dominant social group, they have no vested interest in understanding the socially constructed nature of sexuality. Admittedly, it is naive of me to expect White Heterosexual Males to understand something which they have no background in, nor will affect them in any way; nevertheless, the assumption of bisexuality via the One Dick Rule fucken’ pisses. me. off.

Non-heterosexual orientations are largely politicized, even outside of the bedroom. Since I agree with Adrienne Rich that, “my love for women is the soil in which my life is rooted,” my gynocentric lifestyle should trump isolated experiences, even in terms of others’ attempts to categorize me. Fuck that, I shouldn’t have to qualify my desires, behavior, or identity to anyone…but I’ll come down from my Happy Feminist Utopia Cloud to face reality once again now.

*Not that any sort of sexual encounter with a trans- or genderqueer-identified person wouldn’t be enough to automatically qualify someone for “bisexual” status in the eyes of the heteronormative** masses. However, gender binarisms vis-a-vis sexual orientation will be the subject of another day’s feminist tirade.

**And to think, I almost managed to write this entire missive without employing the term “heteronormative.”

Filed under: feminism   |  Leave a Comment
Tags: feminism, queer, sexuality