Bulls on Parade

Right then. You ever look around at the crap people are spouting and just get so fucking disgusted you could spit? Yeah? Me too, and since misery loves company and shit, my cynical fed up self feels like sharing the love and rolling a highlight reel.

First stop, here. Now, this is entirely too long to dismantle bit by bit, read the whole thing as you choose, but a few specific things particularly raised my notorious ire, so here we go…

One, the author is an academic. Now see, I have no problems with academics, but I sure as fuck am starting to wonder what that word means anymore. Me? When I think of an academic, words like “professor”, “PhD”, “professional researcher”, so on come to mind. Yet, with the constant claiming of academic status, or in some cases, the snot-petty-scab “do any academics ever comment here”? kind of shit I’ve seen, yep, sure enough, I have to wonder…what defines an academic these days? Someone with degrees? Well, that’s a lot of fuckin’ people. Someone with a degree beyond a bachelors? Someone pursuing that degree? What? Frankly, I think a lot of folk claiming the word “academic” are just pulling some ivory tower classist bullshit in attempt to add weight to their words, as if enrollment at University X getting a Masters or PhD in (often fairly useless) subject Y makes them some sort of authority on everything. I mean, I have two pieces of paper in frames on a wall…got accepted to law school and shit, decided, meh, fuck law, I want to study what I enjoy, so I’m eyeing a masters in History…hell as an undergrad I wrote damn highly praised papers on the Roman Emperor Trajan’s economic and military policies, and how European expansionists used the religious concept of White Man’s Burden and the economic and cultural arrogance of Manifest Destiny to justify their aggressions in the “New World”, and how such philosophies paved the way for and continue to influence United States world policy…but am I an academic? No. I get naked and do porn for a living. Do I claim to be an academic? No. Even when I do go back for that masters degree, I won’t claim to be an academic. If maybe, one day, I have the words PhD after my name…then I might, because you see, I think we need to have standards and all…yet that word would make my words no more important, better, or weighty than anyone else’s really…especially on matters not related to my academic field. After all, should I ever have that PhD in history, I can promise I’d still know jack and shit about physics.

Now that we have that out of the way…highlight reel:

“This blog exists as an arena for me to lay out a set of irrefutable arguments that will convince all but the most retarded of readers that my own brand of feminism is not only the most logically sound of feminisms, but also the most logically sound of worldviews.”

Shit, and I thought declairing myself the God-Emperor of Rome was meglomanical! Okay, sure, a little occassional meglomania is good for you, and as G.E.R, I like arenas, but nice ablism with the use of the word “retard” there, back to remdial humanity for you, wise academic! And ah yes, the logic word. Watch this…I can play the logic game. The use of emotionally charged language and insults when claiming logic is in and of itself, illogical, because such things are designed to illict an emotional (not logical) response. Doesn't anyone remember Capt. Kirk telling Spock about colorful metaphors anymore? Sigh. So far, educated one, in logic, you're starting off poorly.

“I’m not a “sex-positive” feminist, inasmuch as that term is used to refer to the kinds of people who believe that women, by adopting the piggish sexual attitudes of men and becoming complicit in their own objectification, can fuck their way to being treated like human beings. In fact, I say piss on that misleading term altogether. It’s just another guise by which men try to trick women into believing that the road to equality is paved with thongs and used jimmy hats. Using your sexuality to manipulate men does not equality make, nor does it even amount to controlling your own sexual destiny, because in order to manipulate men through sex you have to fulfill their pornographic fantasies, very few of which revolve around anything but a one-dimensional and completely fictional conception of female sexuality. The idea that prostitutes (an umbrella term that I will use to refer to people who get paid to have sex or get naked, meaning that it applies to strippers and porn “actors” as well as traditional prostitutes) are controlling their own sexuality would reach the level of comedy of the film American Ninja 2 if it weren’t for the fact that I’d be laughing at women who have been so brainwashed as to believe that getting paid to let some asshole pork them is liberating. I think the new definition of “sex-positive” feminism ought to revolve around women demanding that their sexuality be acknowledged to be independent of male sexuality and that their sexual needs be met. That would truly be revolutionary.”

First, dispensing with the logic meter; the use of scare quotes, judgemental terms such as “piggish”, assuming a universal of sexuality, assuming the dimensional depth of, the use of monolithic terms towards, and implying that strippers get porked for money (strippers dance, professor) dictates that once again, where logic is concerned, you are doing poorly. It is utterly illogical to assume that the use of charged language makes for logical discourse or debate, that there is a universal with regards to women, their sexuality, their fantasies, and what they want out of sex, and your ability to write off every sex positive woman/sex worker who feels in a manner which does not match your flawed theory as a some brainwashed lesser thing is not only illlogical, but patronizing, arrogant, and ill-advised. What would actually be revolutionary would be for people, men, women, feminists, whatever, to stop thinking they have it all figured out and have come to the great and universal truth about something as complex, individualized, and diverse as sexuality.

“I am most definitely not a New Age hippie-type feminist. I’m not going to be mentioning goddesses or transcendent consciousness unless I’m doing it as a joke. Really, who can take that shit seriously? It’s usually just an embarrassing repackaging of useless patriarchal religious ideas. (I suppose I’ve just given away the fact that I’m not too into religion as a whole.)”

Me either, oddly enough, but that sort of thing is very important to some people, and your mocking them for it? Not logical, at all. Come to think of it, disagreements over religious belief and freedom? The excuse countless denziens of the Patriarchy have used for centuries to justify the destruction of countless humans and many civilizations and the oppression of many others, for a very, very long time. (Really, check out the whole White Man's Burden theory...) Yet is killing (or belittling) others in the name of No God any better? Ask the religious folk of the former Soviet Union what they think about that one...

“I’ll write about porn. I’m in just about absolute agreement with Twisty Faster over at I Blame the Patriarchy on the subject of porn: it’s a symptom of the fact that we live in a patriarchy, a system in which women’s bodies are seen as objects for the use of and by men who generally do not credit women with the full measure of humanity that they themselves possess. That may sound kind of extreme (!), but it’s way less extreme diction than Twisty herself might use.”

I can barely contain my glee at that promise. I mean, wrt to objectification, I promise you that I, as a woman, noticed Mr. E in a room full of people because of his deep soul, amazing humor, and brain rather than his nicely toned soccer player legs, broad shoulders and eyes…not to mention his ass. I will also wager now, because I am a gambler, that you will do no more to lend credency to the idea of women in pornography, women who watch pornography, or women who are indifferent to pornography as people with a full measure of humanity that they themselves possess. I hope I’m wrong, but hope is a fleeting thing. It seems to be standard with such things, as well as agency, autonomy, and brains, they do not serve well as the desired data points needed for anti-pornography agendas. Alas porn whores, we shall pity you and objectify you for our own ends! Again.

“I’ll probably write about abortion and birth control. I’ll just say now that I’m pro-abortion. Seriously. I say if there’s any doubt, abort. As for birth control, I think it’s a travesty that we are still living in a situation in which we have few (or no) birth control options that don’t come with serious health risks for women. I know the Pill supposedly opened the path to our sexual liberation (which I think is bullshit), but the fact remains that hormone-based birth control is bad for women’s health, and that the other methods are a pain in the ass, dangerous, and/or gross.”

This statement is not logical in the least. Yes, various forms of birth control are or can be dangerous for women; the pill, IUD’s, and tubal ligations can all be risky. However, condoms are fairly harmless. Finding them, perhaps, gross, is all on you and your own issue, not that of tribe woman. Are they a pain in the ass? Well, seeing as it only takes about three seconds to open one and get it on, I’d say that is a small price to pay…and they are far less risky, time consuming (and possibly gross) than abortions. Condom use is logical, for many reasons.

“I’ll write about the perversion of the Hippocratic Oath that is the plastic surgery industry”

Knock yourself out. Make sure to send all articles on the subject to the people who had hairlip surgery, people who have had their faces and bodies repaired after car accidents, fires, and other injuries, and massive amounts of skin post (natural, often) weight loss removed…and not just to the chicks with nose/boob/tummy jobs.

“I’ll write about thoughtless promiscuity, both male and female. I’m not for it. You’ll note (I hope) throughout this blog that I’m an ethical person who cares about people’s feelings and thinks that sexuality exists as a vehicle for expressing affection. When people act like pigs about it, they ought to be called pigs. Most men are pigs about it, and a lot of women seem to want to join them these days (see the growth of the amateur porn industry and the success of Girls Gone Wild, but do NOT take this as me blaming women the fact that their options have been so limited as to make them think that allowing themselves to be objectified is a good idea). We’re on the wrong trajectory. BUT… I’m NOT a part of the “modesty movement” that places the blame for sexual abuse and men’s piggish behaviors on women. Those sellouts are worse than the “sex-positive” crowd as far as I’m concerned. It IS possible for women to have sexual freedom without emulating men’s gross behavior.”

In short, you’ll go ahead and slut shame because you don’t approve of casual, meaningless sex personally, even though it is entirely probable that your views on sex are far from universal? This passes for logic these days? Everyone else is doing it wrong, and while you can’t make them do anything, you can call them piggish and shame/shun them for it. This is not logical, this is junior high lunchroom slut-baiting and one-upmanship. If you were perhaps coming at it from a clinical point of view, such as the medical risks of promiscuity, logic might be arguable, but as this is seemingly a pure out personally motivated issue of morality and stance of yours as a singular human being-and once again assumes a universal- it does not pass logic muster.

“I’ll write about my disappointment in the tomfoolery of some professed feminists, especially those who call themselves “sex-positive,” which is a serious misnomer. Using your sexuality to try to control people doesn’t make you a feminist, it makes you an asshole who has been brainwashed into believing that by being as gross as most men are you can reach some kind of equality with them. No matter how many times you show them your tits, they’ll still run the government and all the corporations and institutions that make sure your life revolves around obsessing over your appearance and making 75 cents on the dollar for what they make. Frankly, I’m sick of hearing these women reduce feminism to “to strip or not to strip.” It does nothing but add fuel to the general public’s misinformed view that we live in a “post-feminist” world in which there is nothing left to be decided but whether porn watching and pube waxing are feminist acts.”

You make a massive error immediately in assuming that sex positive feminists are attempting to use their sexuality to control people. It’s not sum total expression of dominance. And I will, logically, accept that I am an asshole, yet I see it is not a unique condition. And here we are with the gross and brainwashed assertions again. Impressive. When actual logic fails yet you are trying to pass your own personal beliefs off as such, go with the insults, excellent tactic! The mercenary in me smirks at this…she also makes more than 75 cents on the dollar for what they make, but I’m in a specialty field. I wonder as well if you are so sick of hearing it, why discuss it at all? Indeed there are more important things to discuss- inquality under the law, in the workplace, in academia and athletics, in government…yet a great deal of what you’ve written about here has to do with sex, stripping & porn. If you are sick of such subjects, is it logical to dwell on them?

“I’ll avoid syrupy discussions of my feelings, and I promise that if I do write about having feelings, it will have a purpose.”

I will say there is very little syrup in your writing here, but your feelings are stamped all over it.

“I’m not going to write about how evil men are as a whole. I mean, most of them are assholes”

Correction- Most humans are assholes..


Next, we have the following, from another self-proclaimed lover of logic:


“If somebody wants to prove that porn is healthy and harmless, then they need to prove that porn is healthy and harmless. Amazingly enough, they can’t do it — possibly because the vast amount of popular porn involves the objectification, humilation, and degredation of women.

If somebody wants to prove that transgenderism is a valid medical condition, then they need to prove that it is not a fetish. Amazingly enough, this can’t be done either — not using any form of logic, anyway. If after 20 plus years of asking for proof, and the transfolk still can’t develope a logical argument, then a reasonable person starts to ask why.

Claiming that something is phobic can only be valid after the criticisms are actually addressed, and proven to be wrong. Asking the trans community to prove their assertions instead of just whining about their feelings is not a lot to ask. So prove it!”

There are studies out there that say porn is harmful. For each of those, there is a study that states it is harmless. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle, for some it is harmful, for some it is harmless, and for some it is even enriching. And in the porn anti-porn agendaists like to highlight, the objectification and, yes, dehumanization, goes both ways…it is, above all things, misanthropic…the men are hardly portrayed in a shining light either. To come to this conclusion, one must, I’d agrue, observe a lot of pornography of various types…I’ve done this. I’d wager you cannot say the same. So yes, I conclude, after actual research, there is feminist porn, there is unfeminist porn, and there is misanthropic porn, but it cannot be proven that it is universally harmful or harmless…because universals? Need it be stated again?

I now question your knowledge of fetishes, which is perhaps a strange way to come at this topic, but I am all for thinking about things in a different way. For clarification:

Fetish: (noun) any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.

And yes, of course, the term is clouded by over and misuse often, but that is the definition. People have shoe fetishes, or fetishes for certain body parts, such as feet, breasts, hair, so on. They may have a leather fetish, or a thing for medical-like settings…that is “fetish”.

The feeling that one was born in or with the wrong physical body, in totality, right on down to the genitals, is not, by definition, a fetish. The fact that transgender people feel biologically, mentally, and emotionally that the bodies they are born with do not match who they are is not an erotic response or fixation, it is not a fornication thing, so once again, by default and definition, not a fetish. I, even as a cis-gender person (with fetishes), am logical enough to figure that out.

Now, you prove otherwise.

-We break now for a quick reminder about empowerment, for all the Real Feminists out throwing around the word like they’ve successfully redefined it to suit their terms:

Empowerment: em·pow·er (m-pour) tr.v. em·pow·ered, em·pow·er·ing, em·pow·ers.-
To invest with power, especially legal power or official authority.
-To equip or supply with an ability; enable-to enable or permit.

And there it is, right there, what the word empowerment means. Note, readers, that the words feminist and feminism are not linked, necessary, nor synonymous with the word empowered, nor is empowerment, by definition, predicated on the belief that for something to be empowering, that all must also find it empowering or chose to do it of their own volition, nor must it benefit or empower others. None of these things: feminism, universal belief, or universal benefit are required for an action to be deemed empowering, for either an individual or a group.

That definition above is what empowerment means, people, no matter what you might want it to mean, want to add to it, or what qualifications you, personally, would like to put on it. You may alter it for your personal use, but you, no matter how much you want to, can just flat out, for the good of yourself and others of course, change the very meaning of the word.

And the word itself has does not require feminism, mass benefit, or that choice for all. It simply does not, no matter how much you might want it to, or misinterpret it for your own peace of mind and sense of sisterhood.

And now, to round out today’s session:

“*yawn*

At the thought radfems “trolling” sexpozzie blogs. They wish. The majority of radfems avoid them like The Plague. Methinks a serious amount of projection behind the accusation.
For if the sexpozzies didn’t troll and monitor the radfems blogs, they’d have nothing to write about. The basic blog content of a sexpozzie blog without trashing radfems would be:

I like sex
I am sooooo cool and hip

That about covers it.”

My my my…seeing as the blog this comes from, well, the last several entries speak for themsevles on projection, nothing to write about, monitoring and content. Yet, just to point out the obvious, the content on non-radical blogs extends well beyond your dismissive stereotype; ageism, disability issues, law, language, actual rights and help for sexworkers, everyday sexism, news, politics, even rape, are all big topics. Sorry to crush your cheap pre-fab image…and I also note, there is nothing wrong with liking sex (or not liking it), and I have yet to see any of the dread posse seriously claim to be hip or cool…in fact, quite the opposite…what was that about projecting again?

-In Sisterhood & Logic;

The God Emperor of Rome





For good stuff to read...go here. The Carnival's in Town.