Gahhh.
NO! Not This Fucking Bullshit Again. NO to a couple of MEN coming in there and SAYING how women SHOULD look at it.
NO more “anti-slut shaming”, but, have you examined? WHAT is that OTHER than shaming? “If you like this, well, then…(you’re damaged, greedy, you don’t really like it, you don’t know what you really want, you have no esteem, and won’t someone think of the children and wider implications and examine, examine, examine blah blah blah!)
WHAT the fuck is that OTHER than shaming, eh? AS IF women into BDSM and rough sex HAVEN’T heard these things 15,000 times before? And gee, still get off on what they get off on after examining? How do you think it makes some women with various…proclivities…feel when they read “What woman would like (insert act X here)? No woman could enjoy that unless she is being abused/reliving abuse/has deep trauma/ what the fuck else other…”
THAT”S RIGHT! IT MAKES HER FEEL ASHAMED! Flawed, dirty, different, wrong even if she’s already examined her ass off and maybe it’s time some feminists start looking at that for a fuckin’ change! MAYBE for people with kinks or rougher preferences feminist sex includes being aware enough of what they like to ASK for it, do it, enjoy it, explore it WITH other CONSENTING ADULTS! Wow! There’s a fucking thought….
I’ll tell you what, I think the woman who has the spine to tell her partner “I want you to pin me down, choke me, fuck the hell out of me and call me names” is a hell of a lot more empowered sexually than the (vanilla woman*) err...edit... woman who lays there and thinks of England rather than telling her partner amid sex what she really wants…no matter what that is. The woman who says “tonight, you’re going to fuck me like an animal, and tomorrow, I’m gonna fuck you like an animal” is light years ahead of the woman too ashamed or afraid to say that. The woman who tells her partner she wants to tie them up, do them with a strap on, and smack them around is better off that the woman who takes what she is given because she is ashamed to mention she’d like to do that.
And I sure as fuck want everyone to examine why they think they can tell other adult consenting people how to fuck or that they are doing it wrong and why they feel they can shame them for it.
Go on now, fucking examine that! Oh, and yeah, how many of you people who were abused figure that affects how you like your sex not to be rough or kinky or whatever? Would you want to be endlessly shamed and questioned and told to examine for it? No? Then stop doing it to other people. I haven’t been, I dig the rough stuff, but you sure as hell don’t see me making assumptions or telling people they are doing it wrong!
Really, enough already!
OH, and What About The Men? What about how *they* view these things? How *they* might equate dominance and power and what the hell else ever and what messages *they* might get from it???
Who cares? Sexuality isn't All About the Men! What a novel feminist concept! Holy shit, I think I've made a fucking break through here! Me liking rough sex? It's isn't all about the fucking men! WOW! Sex and what we do or don't do? Holy fuck, it doesn't have to be about or regulated by them or what they might think of it! I mean, if I don't have rough sex and get called names because of what men might think of it or how it might make them see things...I'm still regulating and basing my sexuality on them, right? Taking one for team woman because of what the men think? No thanks! I'd rather get off and do what I like than not get off and do what I don't like...because you know, the men are going to have an opinion either way...pfft.
Kudos to Amber for putting down some hardline...I haven't the stomach for that shit these days.
* "Vanilla woman" was a bad choice in wording on my part. There is nothing wrong with vanilla if that is what people enjoy. When it comes to sex, I am all for "Have it your way"; straight, gay, bi, poly, married only, kinky, vanilla, rough, or not at all, so long is that is what you enjoy doing and do it with other consenting adults...I've made that statement a whole lot of times and I believe it. So, I appologize to the Vanilla People for that choice in words.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
you know, I think at this point especially I'd rather deal with men who don't go out of their way to be obsequiously feminist because they still always make it about them.
and you said it, sister.
I threw in a little something over there, but I don't think I'll go back for more, thanks.
I commented too, Ren. Probably won't stick around long, but hey, when all my buds are charging into the fray...
If you like this, well, then…(you’re damaged, greedy, you don’t really like it, you don’t know what you really want, you have no esteem, and won’t someone think of the children and wider implications and examine, examine, examine blah blah blah!)
When the fuck did I say anything like this? You appear to have mistaken me for Dr. Drew. Saying "people should examine their sexual desires" is not the same thing as saying "you're doing it wrong."
(BTW, that's *all* people, which means Ms. "Lie Back and Think of England" and Mr. "Lover May I?" as well. Possibly them most of all, because kink does have a tradition of holding desire up to the light that's not found as often among vanilla. Not that "vanilla" is synonymous with "prude," mind you; thanks for doing your part to perpetuate that meme.)
Looking back over my first post on that thread, I can see how singling out "shame, degradation or disrespect" can come across as singling out kink, because anti-kink folks often claim those acts are inherently shameful, degrading or disrespectful. OTOH, this post did show me that it would be easy for the anti-kink/anti-porn/anti-sex work crowd to co-opt the idea of "feminist-positive sex" by changing "we should examine desire" to "*you* should examine your desires; mine are just fine." And that's being part of the problem.
As for Hugo's take, well, I think he took that further than I'm willing to go - my point in bringing up the difference in construction was just acknowledging where I was coming from; specifically, that for me "feminist-positive sex" involves rejecting forms of sex that I'm told I *should* like, I have problems with, and that's likely to be more common for men (since women tend to be told they shouldn't like *any* form of sex). Not so much "this is my take on it, and you have to have this interpretation too" as "this is my take on it, and if you're coming from a different perspective your take will be different too." Y'know, examining.
"I think at this point especially I'd rather deal with men who don't go out of their way to be obsequiously feminist because they still always make it about them."
Oh gods yes.
"oh I couldn't possibly want any power but some girls told me some other girls should EXAMINE and I want the cool girls to think I'm cool too so you other girls r doin it rong"
BLEAH
JPF:
"When the fuck did I say anything like this? You appear to have mistaken me for Dr. Drew. Saying "people should examine their sexual desires" is not the same thing as saying "you're doing it wrong." "
If you took this entire post as one in which I was speaking solely about you and what you said, you took it not as intended. Yes, I singled you and Hugo out as men commenting on the thread, but my ire is in no way solely directed at you. Sorry for the miscommunication. Yet, with the repeated (and they are) repeated suggestions to examine...Kinky people, women specifically, get asked to do that all the time. There is some great and ever-looming presumption that they have NOT examined, and point of fact is in many cases, they have. And they haven't changed their minds. So, because they haven't changed their minds, they are told they need to examine more/deeper...it's a never-ending infuriating cycle. Surely you can see how it would get real old, real quick?
"(BTW, that's *all* people, which means Ms. "Lie Back and Think of England" and Mr. "Lover May I?" as well. Possibly them most of all, because kink does have a tradition of holding desire up to the light that's not found as often among vanilla. Not that "vanilla" is synonymous with "prude," mind you; thanks for doing your part to perpetuate that meme.)"
Excuse me? I've never perpeuated any such meme. I have repeatedly, times uncounted, said that when it comes to sex, people should do what they enjoy: be it kinky, rough, vanilla, only when married, with the same sex, with the opposite sex, or not at all. I believe when it comes to sex, people should employ the Burger King Method: "Have it YOUR way", whatever way that is, so long as it's done with other consenting adults. Do I think, for lack of a better term, there is "Vanilla Privilege"? Yes, I do. But I've never, EVER called anyone a prude, and unless you can PROVE otherwise, I suggest not saying that I have. I've always stated that when it comes to sex, people should do what makes them happy, no matter what that is. However, it is not the vanilla people who are constantly and repeatedly asked to "examine", as if the thought of doing so had never crossed their minds.
"Looking back over my first post on that thread, I can see how singling out "shame, degradation or disrespect" can come across as singling out kink, because anti-kink folks often claim those acts are inherently shameful, degrading or disrespectful. OTOH, this post did show me that it would be easy for the anti-kink/anti-porn/anti-sex work crowd to co-opt the idea of "feminist-positive sex" by changing "we should examine desire" to "*you* should examine your desires; mine are just fine." "
Correct, and it is done all too often.
"And that's being part of the problem."
Well, you spotted it, and that's step.
"As for Hugo's take, well, I think he took that further than I'm willing to go - my point in bringing up the difference in construction was just acknowledging where I was coming from; specifically, that for me "feminist-positive sex" involves rejecting forms of sex that I'm told I *should* like, I have problems with, and that's likely to be more common for men (since women tend to be told they shouldn't like *any* form of sex). Not so much "this is my take on it, and you have to have this interpretation too" as "this is my take on it, and if you're coming from a different perspective your take will be different too." "
Well, Hugo is a whole different all of wax. At this point, however, for myself and other kinky women...whatever kinks they have, because there are a lot of different ones out there....well, each and every post/thread/conversation like this is yet another raking over the feminist coals because we "haven't seen the light of REAL FEMINIST sex" yet. We get to sit back as some people suggest we have been abused, and if we have, that it's not been dealt with properly, if we haven't been abused, that we're enablers to abuse, that there is something wrong with us, that we can't possibly be choosing to do/ consenting to do/ enjoying it...and well, obviously, not enough examination. I will be doing a follow up actual post to this rant here...but I don't just think...I Know...that this sort of thing is damaging to women.
"Y'know, examining."
I'm not against examining, I'm against the assertion that others who like stuff whomever does not haven't examined.
Ren: Right on, and the thing is, well, like I commented over @ Feministe:
I think the reason this becomes so perennial is there are two basic points of view about whether “examining” is useful in the first place.
One says “Of course it is; we could all benefit from a little more introspection, especially in a world with sexual norms that really do affect us. Maybe we can get free of the norms that are harmful if we look a little more closely at what the norms look like, what our lives look like, and where they intersect.”
The other says “Of course it isn’t; assuming that sexuality is to be ‘examined’ always involves presuming there is some sexuality that comes out positively when subjected to 'examination.' Examination of sexuality didn’t begin with feminism; it began with Freud (or less famous people with similar ideas) and the idea that homosexuality is ’caused’ by particular influences. Of course this does presuppose that heterosexuality is also ’caused’, but that doesn’t need examination, because nothing’s gone wrong. The pattern of ‘examine your sexuality’ also follows this pattern: certain deviant sexualities such as BDSM or ‘overly pornified’ sexuality always come up as in need of more ‘examining’ than egalitarian vanilla. While both can be assumed, on a model like this, to be caused and therefore examinable (gah, is that a word?!?), in practice ‘examining’ becomes about rooting out causes of deviance… and the rooting finds what it wants to find. Just as Freud found distant mothers, feminists find abuse and pornography.”
Someone with the past that Hugo claims for himself: married three times, got in trouble with female students, self-claimed abusive "womanizer", should probably never be making statements on behalf of all men.
He really is a very twisted and screwed up individual. Went from one extreme to another.
I don't like playing epsychiatrist but it's too hard to resist in hugo's case. He used to be a complete jackass. When he found out what a jackass he was, he decided that instead of taking personal responsibility for his behavior, he would just blame all men for it.
jpfbookworm came one day to talking points memo. it was his very first day registered at teh site. Went and "graded" everyone's post with the worst possible rank if they disagreed with his point of view on feminism, but he never had the guts to either explain his point of view, or respond to people asking him to stop his behavior, or to emails sent his way asking him what his major malfunction was.
Again, just a pretentious ass that projects his own issues onto all of humanity (or manity) with little evidence.
Feh
Sex should only be for pro-creation, strictly missionary position while saying the rosary the whole time. :)
I can barely wait until I get off work so I can write about this more... I am itching to write!
Amber- Working out a follow up post now. This kinda thing, makes the blood boil a little...(fine art of understatement).
Ren:
Excuse me? I've never perpeuated any such meme.
When the options are "into BDSM and rough sex" or "lays back and thinks of England," to me that's equating vanilla with prude.
Kinky people, women specifically, get asked to do that all the time.
And that shit? It needs to stop. I'd like to think we can do it by opening the discussion and asking *everyone* to think about these things, but if that's not feasible? There are other (and, on further reflection, probably *better*) ways to get talking about these issues.
jerry: Yeah, I'm occasionally a newb. Got anything better than that to base your psychoanalysis on?
Sexuality isn't All About the Men! What a novel feminist concept! Holy shit, I think I've made a fucking break through here!
HAHAHA! Exactly, Ren. :)
JPF: You see I amended my post, yes, wrt to the vanilla comment? Even if I hadn't you can take that up against all the other posts where I've stated clearly and adamently that I am all for people doing it their way, and it's pretty apparent I am cool with people having whatever kind of sex so long as its consenting.
Diasy: ;)
Okay. I *really* need to get back to work... but this comment has me so angry I'm physically shaking.
What. The. Fuck.
Aren't there more important issues for folks to get excited about ( no pun intended) than how other folks enjoy their bodies?
Ren, thanks for fighting the good fight.
Anyone who presumes to tell another person how they are "allowed" to enjoy their bodies is the damaged one - not the folks who are kinky, or otherwise.
oh come off it, your behavior at tpm wasn't that of a newb, you systematically went around and gave troll ratings to anyone that said anything anti-feminist.
But what marked your behavior as that of a jackass was how you then refused to discuss your behavior in the threads, or in the email I sent you.
That's not newb, that's bullying.
I eshrinked hugo. I didn't eshrink you, much more than call you a "pretentious ass", and that's self evident, "who projects his own issues onto everyone else" and that's just my suspicion as well as that of so many others.
Truly jpfbookworm, the amount of time you dedicate to saving the world from the horrible patriarchy that you and your sisters can detect, and that as you know so many other unsaved women cannot yet see or are somehow deluded into not seeing -- jpfbookworm, even as you strip other men and women from agency and rationality with your claims, well I havta say, you gotta screw loose.
Amber said:
"Okay. I *really* need to get back to work... but this comment has me so angry I'm physically shaking."
No shit – the comments by "Chel" were pretty bad, almost making a point of conflating kink and abuse, and being seemingly dense to the obvious differences. I think, though I think you, Ren, and several other people have pretty effectively countered Margot and Chel, though.
I also noticed a long "virtue of shame" thread in Margot's comment. That sounds almost right out of Robert Jensen, almost, except that Jensen distinguishes between shame and guilt and speaks positively of guilt rather than shame.
This comment by Margot I think is the crux of the difference I have with the "examine your desires" crowd:
"And don’t kid yourself that these acts can take place in a context of ‘mutuality’ or ‘respect’, or that you can leave your submission behind at the bedroom door and then pretend that because you make your boyfriend do the laundry or earn more money than he does that you have an equal ‘relationship’. There’s no ‘leaving behind’ your mind, and that’s the place where the real humiliation, the humiliation of gender we should all regret - and yes, even feel guilt and shame over - has already taken place."
I think there's damn little evidence that what people do in the bedroom serves as some kind of template or indicator for their other social relationships. I think if you took everybody who consensually engaged in kink, power differentials, etc sexually and had them give that up in the name of feminism, I think you'd have zero positive effect on the larger world – I don't think its going to help bring about equal pay, or a more equal division of household labor, or lessen the rate of sexual assault or sexual harassment. (I'm guessing the "examine your desires" folks really do think that the latter would be changed if people could be made to take on more "equal" roles in the bedroom.) OTOH, you'd certainly have a very real negative effect on net human happiness if you made people give up those things.
Doesn't seem like a worthwhile tradeoff to me.
Okay. I *really* need to get back to work... but this comment has me so angry I'm physically shaking.
What. The. Fuck.
Your response was pretty much mine. Honestly, that woman has issues. It's like the Catholic take on feminist sex.
Broken? That woman seriously is, if she actively fosters shame in herself to stay "pure" (in the vanilla sense). That's just sick
I wrote about something along the lines of this on my blog today.
http://www.realprincessdiaries.com/2008/06/12/the-training-of-alexa/>
Post a Comment