"Owning your sexuality"

This is a phrase that I use a lot in mythoughts about sex, sexuality and what underlies attractiveness, and if I haven't already used it here, it's only a matter of time before I do, so I feel like I should explain what I mean by it.

The common meaning of the term "own" these days is associated with possession, or taking control, of something. The first interpretation that follows from this is that one's sexuality is not the possession of someone else, that sex is something that you control, and not someone else taking it from you. Equally, that it is not something that others proscribe or enforce upon you, demanding that it fit their mould and their vision of what sex and sexual expression "should" be.

That much, of course, should be recognised as one of the most basic human rights. Both women and men, in differing degrees and differing ways, are denied this right and have to fight to be allowed it on a daily basis, in some cases and some areas of the world. Progressive gender politics is constantly addressing the issues around this fact.

The second interpretation that follows from the most common meaning of "own" is the "gatekeeper" interpretation. Inasmuch as the first interpretation is about others not controlling, the "gatekeeper" interpretation" is the complementary. This says, "I control my sexuality, I decide for myself whether or not I fuck, and whom I fuck." This is not a simple, "see, want, take" attitude, however, a "What Wanda wants, Wanda must have" approach to sex. The emphasis is on "I decide". Not "I'm a man so I must fuck", not "raging hormones", not "nymphomania". If the sex urge is untempered by some semblance of self-control, it isn't owned: it owns you.

So far, we haven't really stepped outside of the patriarchal social norms, and everything I've said can still be interpreted as consistent with, and even supportive of, the "sex class"/"no-sex class" dichotomy. The man is still a wild beast who wants it all the time, it is just that he has been tamed just enough that (mostly) he is in control of himself when it matters; and the woman, of course, has no trouble keeping her urges under control (in essence, she just advertises the fruit, and then picks and chooses to whom she will sell her wares).

That "sex/no sex" interpretation, though, has to be undermined, because in both cases, the social structure is in control and not the individuals. It is in fact a violation of the first interpretation, because in assigning these class roles to men and women based on their gender, their behaviour and sexuality is defined by outside influence only, and not by the people themselves. the right of men to be "cool" (to use Figleaf's terminology) is essential to this, as is the right of women to be sexually active without being labelled sluts.

Even so, I think the most important part of owning one's sexuality, the part that makes a person attractive, comes from a more archaic usage of "own", which carries connotations of recognising, acknowledging and accepting. I use the phrase "own one's sexuality" not merely to indicate possession and control, as though a person's sexuality is something apart from and other than their true self (a classic example of this is the archetype of the woman who uses her sexiness to control others), but to recognise, acknowledge and accept it as a part of one's intrinsic self. Once that much is done, I think the expression of this ownership is effortless and unconscious, and radiates throughout a person's appearance. Someone who owns his or her sexuality in this deeper sense appears sexy without any effort, without any adornments, because it is not artificially kept separate. For those whose sexuality differs from the social norms (e.g. fetish/BDSM/kink) it is a recognition that it is normal for me to feel in this way. That it is not something strange, weird or dangerous but a natural part of my selfhood.

I recall reading Shulamith Firestone on how in childhood, sexuality becomes divorced from other forms of self and pleasure, as adult values start to be imposed on childhood behaviours. I think her analysis is spot-on, and it is one of the reasons why owning one's sexuality is not as common or natural as we might suppose, given how effortless and joyous I've made it sound. There is a strong indoctrination almost from the moment we acquire the ability to speak, to view sex as something other, that must be given its own distinct categories of dealing with it (or avoiding dealing with it). It starts with subtle changes in the way adults respond, and it continues all the way through childhood to adolescence and then to our full participation in society as adults. The perpetuated notion that "sex sells" is just one aspect of the programming that goes on to make us believe that sex controls men, and that women have to "sell" it, an idea that it is somehow a dangerous substance.

I want to mention here that I believe to identify as asexual, as opposed to (making a vow of) chastity, is also a form of owning one's sexuality. I find asexual women attractive for the same reason as I find other women who own their sexuality, attractive; that they don't do sex is neither here nor there (I believe I own my sexuality, so there's no need for me to do sex to feel sexy about someone). I wouldn't be in a long-term relationship with an asexual woman because I would miss sex; but there is an undeniable attractiveness about a woman who is aware of and open to sexuality, but has determined about herself, "that's not for me, thanks". It's different from "chastity" because that is a deliberate control and limitation of one's sexual nature, whereas to be asexual is an open acknowledgement and expression of a sexual nature (albeit a sexual nature that says "no thanks").

Finally, you'll notice that in the very basis, the "first interpretation", I spoke of others not controlling one's sexuality. As with so many things, BDSM seems to violate this explicitly. In my relationship with Julie, it was explicitly stated that I owned her sex, I controlled her sexual expression and pleasure. However, as so often with these issues for BDSM, it is possible to take a step further back and look at a bigger picture. What actually happens is that Julie gives her sexuality to me, and gives me control over it; for Julie to be able to do that, she must first own it herself, at least in the first and second interpretations. With Julie, I feel that when she and I first met, there was still some work to do on all three levels, but also, she had taken some steps herself in each, which enabled her to choose me as an equal partner in a BDSM relationship in the first place, and I proudly claim that thanks to my involvement, she came to full ownership of her sexuality. And you know that she owned it, because in the end, it was she who was in control of whether or not I owned it! I am fond of quoting Brian Bedford's song, "If you give your love its freedom it may stay a while, if it leaves you it was never yours to own". Even though I had control and owned Julie's sexuality, she always had the freedom and the ability to take it back for herself, and eventually she did so, and is very happy.

As one last note: I don't know if anyone can ever fully own their sexuality in our current world; the guilt complex that is associated with that division between "sex" and "everything else" will never be fully erased. But knowing it and acknowledging it means that we can treat it for what it is, an artefact of a fucked-up system, and not a real indicator of "wrongness".