Practice Makes...Pathetic?

"I was shaking my head no when I pulled the vibrator from the envelope...It wasn't just the vibrator and thinking of my mother masturbating that upset me, but also that my mother's boyfriend had stopped sleeping with her and that no amount of love I gave her could equal what was in my hand."  Lisa Glatt, A Girl Becomes a Comma Like That, p. 120.

First of all, I would like to say that I am currently reading A Girl Becomes a Comma Like That and loving it. My post, which you will soon find out if you haven't assumed already is dealing with my problems with the quote above, has nothing to do with my feelings on the book. I think it's great; I just had such a problem with the sentences above that I had to stop and write about it.

When I read the section quoted above, I stopped cold, and I was a little angry. Why does the author (or character, perhaps) assume that a woman ordering a vibrator is lonely and not getting sex? It makes me sad that our culture has painted masturbation as something that only lonely people do.

Masturbation is not a sad, lonely, pathetic substitute; it's not the opposite of a sex life. Masturbation is a healthy part of a sex life. It's a supplement. Your partner is not in the mood but you are? Masturbate. Partner out of town? Masturbate. Partner not in the mood yet but wants to please you? Masturbate and let them watch. And in the same way, owning a vibrator/dildo does not mean that said owner is not getting any sex. Vibrators can be used for solo or partner time.

Now, I understand that the author could be using the vibrator scene to paint a larger picture in her novel. I won't ruin anything (I can't spoil too much, I'm not finished with the book yet) but the woman/mother who ordered the vibrator is dealing with cancer and cancer treatments such as chemo and radiation. So maybe the vibrator is supposed to symbolize her isolation from other (healthy) people, whether self-imposed or not, and her daughter's inability to understand what she's going through. I get it, and I'm not saying the author should have done anything differently. What I am saying is that it's interesting (and sad, and sex-negative, and woman-negative) that we are supposed to see this vibrator, this wonderful tool for a woman's pleasure without needing a partner, and see it as something sad, lonely, something heartbreaking. Are we supposed to feel sorry for her? I think maybe so...

I remember the scene in Parenthood when Steve Martin accidentally finds his sister's vibrator, his divorced, single, lonely sister, and bursts out laughing while she is mortified. No one else in the film mentions sex toys or masturbation aids. Why? Because people (according to our culture) in relationships don't need to masturbate. If you're in a relationship you must be getting ALL the sex you need/want exactly when you need/want it.

This is not reality. And it truly can cause real-life problems. I was amazed the first time my boyfriend turned me down for sex. I couldn't believe that he, a male human, didn't want sex every time it was offered. And I was hurt when he suggested I masturbate (which I had never done) because I thought it meant that I was pathetic and lonely. It's just not true. Most women who masturbate have more orgasms when they do have partner sex. Why?

Practice makes perfect.

I just wish our culture could accept that.