You Are Not the Tin Man, Or, Disembodiment During Sex
Thanks to the Internet, I now know that I'm a self-obsessed and sex-hating harpie in serious need of therapy, and also that I am a unique little snowflake whose sexual experiences are so far from the norm that I should just shut the hell up already, preferably after checking myself into a mental asylum.
Thanks for the input, Internet, but I think it's time to get back to my column.
I've been thinking a lot recently about my own preconceptions of sex as something mechanical, an act which proceeds along the lines of an Ikea instruction manual.
"Insert Tab A into Slot B. Then remove Tab A, but only halfway. Push it all the way in again. Remove again. Repeat until you reach the state depicted in Figure O."
(The "advanced" version of the manual, available for $9.99, also instructs you to "Push Button C." This is supposed to create "The Double O," but there's no money-back guarantee.)
That's really all I knew when I first started having sex. Sex is a "procedure," it involves two bodies that are essentially "machines", and if you can't reach the desired effect, either you're following the instructions wrong or your machine (which is not you, and I can't stress that enough, the sense we get when we're kids that we can't touch down there does a lot to make us feel like "down there" is not actually part of us, or at least it did for me) is defective.
Well, or you need more lube. "Use more lube" is a piece of advice that I find myself giving a lot, and it's often good advice, but I realized recently that lube, too, plays into the idea of sex as mechanical. I used to think of myself as the Tin Man from the Wizard of Oz when I used lube--creaky and not entirely human--and I bet that would be a good image if you had a tin fetish but I don't.
My point here is, when sex doesn't work immediately a lot of people freak out because they assume it's something wrong with their mechanism, when it’s probably something else. Something like the fact that you’re assuming your body is a mechanism. But mind/body dualism, however tenable a philosophical position you may think, is not a very good strategy for sex. Your body is you. Your feelings are your body. Your thoughts are your body. When you’re having sex, you need to feel like that is YOU, and not Slot B, and not the Tin Man, and not some weird tumor that you want to cut off because it hurts.
And YOU, not your body, are the one having sex.
This is so much easier said than done. Let’s talk about me.
I'm good at thinking about sex. It's harder for me to translate that into feeling sex with my body. I can know that I want to have somebody licking my pussy. Then somebody starts licking my pussy, and for a while it feels good, and I'm connected, but at some point (usually at the point where I feel I "ought" to be having an orgasm right now--we'll get to sexual scripts next week) my anger at my body resurfaces.
I'm angry that sometimes it hurts. I'm angry that it's not responding exactly as I want it to right now. I'm angry that once when I was raped it had an orgasm. I'm angry at it for letting me get raped in the first place. I'm angry at it because it's not the pussy the women in the movies have.
And the angrier I get at my pussy, the more distance I get from it, and the harder it is for the pussy to feel good, and now I'm staring across the expanse of my stomach, staring at a pussy that doesn't belong to me but that hurts anyway. I want to cut it off.
Feeling embodied during sex--and feeling that I love my body during sex--is difficult, and saying "Well, what's so difficult about it?" (and the fact that nobody ever talks about disembodiment in public, ever) ignores just how completely normal these sorts of problems are.
So what do I have for you? Right now, a couple of specific strategies that have worked for me in helping me to become more embodied and more accepting of what it means to own this body. Since I’m continuing to learn, I promise we will add to this list over the semester.
1. Combine a scary activity (for me, pussy-licking) with an activity that makes you feel secure and embodied. For me, this is a head massage. Nothing centers me more than people rubbing my head. (I also tell my partners that if I get triggered, they need to start rubbing my head. We’ll talk more about triggers later, but think about it.) For you maybe it's a back rub or a foot rub or a kiss. Do the two together, either one after the other or the both at the same time. Try to transfer your good-embodiment and I-love-myself feelings from the head massage to the pussy licking.
2. Tickling. I don’t know about you, but I can’t get disembodied when I’m being tickled. This is my body, this is my body, hahahahahah, this is my body, oh my god, this is wonderful! Man. I love being tickled during sex. I guess this is just a specific case of my first idea, but dude. Tickling. Give it a try. But don’t ever walk up to me in McCabe and start tickling me. There will be no hah.
3. Use your words (but not too much). If you’re not comfortable with the words you use to describe the different sexual parts of your body, find some words and get comfortable with them. My vagina? Was not a part of me. My pussy, after I said it about a hundred times and sang songs to it in the shower (Oh fleshy pussy, you’re the one, you make bath time so much fun…)? That’s a lot more like it. That said, trying to describe how I felt during sexual activity with words, any words at all, felt way too clinical and broke up my bodily connection. Your results may vary.
4. If you know you struggle with this sort of stuff, don’t have sex when you’re not already at least sort of in a good mood. I hate the myth that whenever any straight male gets the opportunity to have sex he will forget about everything else and get an erection immediately and go all night. This is not true for anyone. Don’t make your process harder on yourself by having sex when you’re really stressed during midterms or angry at your parents or incredibly depressed. And as obvious as this may sound, it's something people (including myself) forget about with surprising regularity
Emotional health, too, is a part of sexual health. It all ties together.
Keep it safe and consensual until next time, Dr. Strokes
Print
Email
#1: 9/11/2008 at 4:06 a.m.
I was trying to articulate about half these points to someone earlier today and totally failing. "Oh," he said (not in a mean way), "masturbating doesn't get you off? Are you sure you're doing it right? It's not supposed to be boring." Now I will just send him this way and maybe that can kick the conversation off. And #3 is a CONSTANT problem. One day I will just play picture book with some guy I'm seeing: "What's this? What about this? What do we call this bit?" SO GLAD I'm not the only one.
Thank you!
— F | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore
#2: 9/11/2008 at 7:24 a.m.
you are a baaalllllerrrr.
never heard anyone talk about stuff like this, but i needed it
— jean | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore
#3: 9/11/2008 at 2:00 p.m.
"That said, trying to describe how I felt during sexual activity with words, any words at all, felt way too clinical and broke up my bodily connection. Your results may vary."
I feel like you can accurately apply this concept to all arenas of life. Everything is much richer before you try to describe it.
— Gabriel Riccio | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#4: 9/11/2008 at 2:32 p.m.
If someone wants to write a column about sexual disfunction, by a sexually disfunctional person for other sexually disfunctional people, her educational/professional qualifications for giving advice be damned, she should find a forum for sexually disfunctional people that is willing to publish her unqualified writing.
That forum is not the Swarthmore campus newspaper.
I know there was a brief discussion of OMG CENSORSHIP and also YOU FEEL THREATENED last time when someone mentioned something like this in the comments, with about as much legitimate content as some of the election stuff (see: lipstick on a pig). So, to be clear, I am not advocating censorship, nor am I threatened by Dr. Strokes (just a little concerned that she thinks of her body as a machine, hates herself, and dislikes lube). I am merely pointing out that the Swarthmore daily email newspaper may not be the appropriate forum for this.
— really? | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore
#5: 9/11/2008 at 3:59 p.m.
I'm not a sexual abuse survivor, but a lot of the things you said in this article really resonated with me anyway. I have experienced disembodiment during sex so many times and thought that I was alone in this: why couldn't I reach orgasm through oral sex even though mentally and visually I enjoyed it? I'd like to write a more thorough response when I have time, but right now I just want to say thank you for your astute observations, and being bold enough to tackle these issues publicly if pseudonymously.
— female '11 | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#6: 9/11/2008 at 4:00 p.m.
Tickling is kick-ass.
— Dan | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#7: 9/11/2008 at 7:00 p.m.
F-- I'll be writing a column soon about masturbation (I think I'm with you--my mind drifts to discontent too easily while masturbating, but partner sex keeps me focused) but I'm glad, uh, this helped too.
ALSO I WANT TO PLAY PICTUREBOOK.
really?-- if you want to find that forum, I'll check it out. a big part of this column is that I've realized that my issues are not unique to people who have been sexually abused--I think the other comments show that hey! lots of us have a few problems with sex, not just those of us who identify as dysfunctional. also I don't know why people are dwelling on my not being qualified--I have sex, I think about it, I don't think everyone's just like me. that makes me as qualified as anyone else...
Dan-- Yes. *high-five*
— Dr. Strokes | Staff
#8: 9/12/2008 at 10:47 a.m.
There's a good chance that more negativity will follow but before you post, consider this: it's all been said before.
You "really?" person, nothing you said in your comments hasn't already been said by other angry people on the last write up by Dr. Strokes.
Please, please, please, people! It's been made abundantly clear that some of you just don't like it. Well join the club because there's going to be a whole lot more you don't like, sugar.
If you don't want to read what out Dr. Strokes has to say, then take her own useful advice and don't read it. Isn't it great how simple that works out? Besides, it's not like you don't have something else to do -- read a book, write a paper, make some money. Have a care and do something constructive rather than boohooing about "unqualified writing" or "inappropriate forum."
Be humble. I'm sure if The Daily Gazette thought this wasn't worth having, Dr. Strokes' column wouldn't be here. Comfort yourself with that, friend. =)
And to dear Dr. Strokes, you know you're good. I'm not worried that you think of your body as a machine, hate yourself, or dislike lube. It is obvious that you're just offering your practical insights into a culture that has, in my opinion, become entirely fantastical about sex.
Haters want to hate. Haha on them for being so boring.
Do your thing and keep it... real.
— To Be Real | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#9: 9/12/2008 at 10:50 a.m.
To those who say this is not the place for such a column:
There are many people within the Swarthmore community and everywhere else who have many many issues with sex but suffer silently because they feel they are alone/have no one to go to/will be ridiculed/whatever. Publishing this column in a publicly available place means that even those people who dont know how to find a forum for people having difficulty with sex (and isn't that nearly everyone at some point in their lives?) or for whatever reason choose not to go still get the wonderful advice that they need. Columns like this are life changing. Keep up the amazing work, Dr. Strokes!
— S | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#10: 9/12/2008 at 5:12 p.m.
To Be Real:
If the "rah rah rah" folks are allowed to post, so are the "wtf?" folks.
As someone who falls somewhere in between, I just want to point out: The Daily Gazette thinking something is worth posting on its website doesn't make it 1.) good 2.) valuable 3.) interesting. It just makes it something on the website. Don't tell me you haven't seen completely silly postings on here in the past (For example: the answer to the question "Why can't non-athletes practice on the field while the teams are practicing?")
— 09 | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#11: 9/13/2008 at 12:08 p.m.
Hello Dr. Strokes. I really really liked this column. I think you've disproved all of the things people said about your writing last time because I think you're really clear. This column really connected to me, so thanks.
However I'd like to say that as a mostly heterosexual male, a lot of the things you imply are myths pretty accurately describe my sex life. For instance, through thick and thin, good and bad, my libido remains pretty constant. If I'm feeling sad, sex connects me to someone I care about. If I'm stressed, sex makes me feel good and clears my head, and reaffirms my worth, assuming my partner is satisfied. This is something else to return to, that I measure the quality of sex by my partner's satisfaction level because it's generally all fine for me, but not yet. If I'm happy, then it's just awesome no matter what.
Pretty much the only times I'll opt not to is first, if I have so much work that I don't have time to be affectionate afterwards. If I'm really busy and lying in bed talking silly and holding hands, then my anxiety starts to build, conscious of all the things I need to be doing. Second, if I'm feeling emotionally distant to my partner for whatever reason, I need a while sometimes to gather my thoughts, and post-coital, I'm so stupid that I might say/have often said the wrong thing. But in both of these circumstances I'll masturbate instead. It's never been an issue of desire for me, but rather the costs and benefits of all the connotations of sharing something so intimate with a person who knows me so well.
The way you and M write/wrote seems aimed at dispelling the conventional wisdom about sex and revealing the complicated reality beneath the monogamous-missionary-heterosexual-girl wants sex less and brings baggage and guys care only about sex image constantly innundating us from all sources, from TV and books and everywhere. I agree that that image is limited and doesn't even begin to describe the complexities of sex and love and does a serious disservice to people who aren't included in the image. But I would ask you to please be mindful that for some of us, a monogamous, heterosexual relationship eventually leading to a traditional marriage with a wedding ceremony attended by both clans is an accurate description of our real desires. Sometimes when I read Swat's sex columns, and this was so much more true of M than you, I feel that life being not only rejected but insulted, and I would like comparatively straight-forward, media encouraged, vanilla sex straight relationships to be respected as a legitimate alternative lifestyle like any other.
— a junior | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore
#12: 9/13/2008 at 12:42 p.m.
junior-- Fair enough. When I say something is a myth, I don't want to imply it's not true for anyone ever, just that it's definitely not true for everyone all the time. It's awesome that you realize when sex will be helpful for you (aka, most of the time) and when it won't, so high-five.
I definitely agree with you that vanilla straight relationships are a 100% valid life choice--I just want to make sure that we realize that it is a choice, and that people who don't want to choose it don't have to. Also, it's totally possible to want a monogamous heterosexual relationship and have some of the problems I'm talking about (survivor-y issues, pain, which is going to be the topic in two weeks), so I don't want to turn anyone off just because it's not the sort of lifestyle I've chosen. I'll try to be mindful of that now and in the future!
— Dr. Strokes | Staff
#13: 9/13/2008 at 11:11 p.m.
ditto to female '11 (9.11.08 @ 03:09).
As always Dr. Strokes, you rock my socks.
— Elena | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#14: 9/15/2008 at 1:05 p.m.
"Let's talk about me."
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
— Mr. Poe | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore
#15: 9/15/2008 at 1:45 p.m.
Mr. Poe--
Boring enough to have had you come back a second time. There's something to be said for that.
— Dr. Strokes | Staff
#16: 9/15/2008 at 4:09 p.m.
To those who seem to think this column is unfitting with the gazette, we also have a column written by a talking hamster. This is quite refreshing in comparision.
Incidentally, that wasn't meant to be a back-handed complement. Just, if the Bone Doctor can write about his amazement at how large his own penis is, and if the Phoenix can publish...if the Phoenix is allowed to exist, no one can really complain that anything doesn't fit our publications.
Our news-thingies are not news-thingies, but an open forum to discuss whatever the hell people feel like discussing.
Very often the people doing the discussing are a bit thick and pretentious, but this columnist has not displayed either quality.
Halt dein Mund, Poe-boy. You're making a schmuck of yourself.
And being a schmuck is my job.
— Jason's ship with hint of citrus | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#17: 9/24/2008 at 10:04 p.m.
I'm not a survivor. I'm not any more "sexually dysfunctional" than the next guy. And I find that all of Dr. Strokes' columns to date have shed great insight on my own experiences. Thank you, Dr. Strokes.
— a Swattie | Unregistered, Swarthmore