This is a special Friday version of the Supervixens. Yesterday I was attending a Solstice celebration.
Today I read the latest Feminisms diary, which had a good premise: "What is Sexy?" But I was disappointed in the diary and most of the comments - the focus (perhaps because of the subject matter of the Ariel Levy book?) was on women's views on feeling/being sexy. That's an OK topic - I like to read Cosmo and talk about clothes and shoes as much as the next Supervixen. But it's only one aspect of female sexuality. And to me, it's not all that interesting or groundbreaking - it's nothing new for women to be viewed as objects of sexual desire. Yes, it's powerful to know, and control, your own allure - to know that you're desirable and desired. But what's empowering is the fact that you're desired by someone else.
I'm far more interested in what we, as feminists, think is sexy - what appeals to us.
"Feminist Supervixens" of every sex and gender are invited to participate in this feminists' circle. Our goal is to build a vibrant community of feminists here on Daily Kos. The emphasis here is on camaraderie and support, not argument and debate.
The idea of a "feminists' circle" was inspired by the work of Jean Shinoda Bolen, whose book The Millionth Circle described her vision of spontaneously forming women's circles that eventually catalyze a transformation in the world:
When a critical number of people change how they think and behave, the culture does also, and a new era begins.
From her web page on circles:
Imagine yourself in a circle of women, meeting together around a fire in the center of a round hearth. The fire in the center of the circle is a symbol of divinity,of spirit or soul, of goddess or god; it is the archetype of the Self in the center of your psyche, as it can be in the center of a circle, and as such, is a source of emotional warmth, spiritual and psychological illumination, wisdom and compassion.
Feminists who are interested in being a guest-host can email hrh at: feministsupervixens (AT) yahoo.com
When we're looking outward, aggressively and appraisingly, for a mate, what are we looking for? Is there something outside of ourselves that we desire, or are we looking for appreciation - for reinforcement of our own sexiness? Is there such a thing as a "female gaze", the equivalent of the aggressive "male gaze", viewing others as objects of desire - and if so, what do we see with it?
Speaking only for myself: my sexuality as a woman involves viewing others as objects of desire. Physical attraction is a must.
I've heard for so many years that women aren't visually stimulated, they're not focused on physical appearance, yada yada, but in my case, that's not true. I have a specific "type": dark-haired and boyishly handsome. Not too perfect - Tom Cruise is boring - there must be a little character in the face. I was never a big Pierce Brosnan fan until he aged and his face took on some lines and got interesting. But definitely, dark. No blonds need apply. Facial hair is generally unexciting to me. Beautiful hands are important (my husband of almost 20 years is a surgeon and pianist). A nice body is good but not if it's a result of narcissism and the guy spending too much time in the gym admiring himself. Narcissism is a HUGE turnoff.
I've also heard that women are attracted by power and money more than physical appearance. As far as I'm concerned, that's bullshit too. It never entered into my viewfinder at all when I was looking for a mate. In college, I watched several classmates go after old professors - they enjoyed the power-differential thing, and being "teacher's pet" was a turn-on for them - but the only non-student I was interested in was one of the maintenance men, who looked like Randy Mantooth. Yum.
I would never consider fucking Donald Trump, Bill Gates, or Henry Kissinger (remember how, in his heyday, everyone talked about how "sexy" he was?). They're simply not physically attractive to me.
Personality traits, being supportive of feminism, being funny and witty, considerate and adaptable, are all essential to an ongoing relationship and help make a man attractive. But unless there's that electric physical attraction that starts the bonding, the relationship will be purely platonic.
Am I really a man in a woman's body? Maybe!
Again, this is only my personal view, and it's from a heterosexual woman's perspective (and one who's been married a looooong time). So all of you Supervixens of other persuasions, please feel free to tell us what it's like from your perspective.