Comments on: Lysistrata

By: vintagefan

vintagefan — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:07:23 +0000

“So I use the same techniques that were pseudo-employed by women in the 17th C play, Lysistrata. ..”
Having/refusing sex should be a choice, that goes without saying. If i interpreted this correctly, denying or using sex can be construed as an act of using one’s powers to one’s own end, taking advantage of the male gaze/male weakness to get ahead, they’re the idtiots etc. In today’s context I don’t particularly admire that because back then, women had little choice. It is better now, and women do have more choices…but—
“And I live in the 21st C. So… is there really any sexual and gender inequality NOW??”
Ofcourse there is. Think of a man denying a woman sex if she’s begging for it or trying to ‘tempt’ him into it—if he refuses he’s being sensible by not giving in to a woman’s wiles/desperation. Think of a woman denying a man sex—she being a woman in itself can qualify her as a tease or she is using her sexual powers by denying sex to make the guy feel bad OR get something from him, or she can be persuaded/forced into it. The inequality lies in how the act of denial is perceived.

By: natalieam

natalieam — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:58:20 +0000

ahem.. not quite the 17th century.. do not, at all, know why I wrote that… I guess it just sort of creates a sense of flow in the sentence.

Anyway, here’s an interesting picture of a 12st C version of Lysistrata: http://www.pbase.com/kayakbiker/image/49853428

By: natalieam

natalieam — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:52:20 +0000

I absolutely agree with you, this notion of men as mindless ravening beasts, as you put it, is exactly what allows them to behave the ways that they do.

Just an insight: Sharon Marcus in “Fighting Bodies, Fighting Words: A Theory and Politics of Rape Prevention” refers to these female and male notions as what determine events in a “script” – the narratives that constitute daily life.
The script defines gender roles in a linguistic form (a narrative) that can be rewritten. Just as you said…

Anyway, what I’m getting to is don’t we do this on a regular basis already? Don’t we constantly redraft this social narrative to suit our needs? So we know that men want/need sex pretty damn often (which is not to say that women don’t, but.. just for arguments sake..) and yet we as women have the power to deny their needs and say ‘no’ (usually or always, hopefully) and perhaps we use this power to our advantage. I like long sentences. I know that I’ll “demand” an essential oil body massage first, using my body language to gain control of the situation in the originally male domain. So I use the same techniques that were pseudo-employed by women in the 17th C play, Lysistrata. And I live in the 21st C. So… is there really any sexual and gender inequality NOW?? I really hope that all made sense.. it makes sense in my mind, just.

Haha, the phalluses were probably a necessity because the potential reality of the unthinkable situation turned the male actors off (and down) completely. Gotta love drama! ;)

By: vintagefan

vintagefan — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:42:18 +0000

Taking it further I’d say that the notionthat men are mindless ravening beasts is precisely what feminism is trying to change because it gives them the excuse to act like beasts, but poking further yet I’d say that an intellectual stand on the woman’s side would likely be ignored taking the sexism of the time (and now), so the cleverer thing to do would be to deny them what they consider a basic need and the duty of the female to comply to.
A brilliant idea for a play for the time, I’d say, and I heard the men wore fake giant phalluses through the show. Can’t imagine anyone keeping a straight face through that ;p

By: natalieam

natalieam — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:49:12 +0000

You have a point… a very good point actually. In all my bra-burning feminism I seem to exhibit intense bias. So really, the play equally mocks both men and women – the unbiased reality. Thanks for that!

By: vintagefan

vintagefan — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:01:20 +0000

Hello, fan of both Beauvoir and Beardsley (guy who illustrated Lysistrata). Also haven’t read the play but read a bit on it. I’d look at the theme of play in a more positive way—and this occured to me at the first go–not women taking advantage of their sexuality, considering the fact that they did so by denying sex to the men and not actually using it, but by taking advantage of men’s stupidity, a simple and affective plan considering how much of their resources men are willing to sacrifice for sex.