So... I dunno. First of all I should say it was a pretty great event and I am thankful to NOMAS-Boston for putting it on. It was awesome to meet all these cool sex and feminism bloggers in person!
But then we broke into discussion groups, and... my discussion group, at this feminist event, ended up getting hopelessly taken over by a couple of dudes! Very sensitive dudes who flagellated endlessly about how they sinfully sullied women by being attracted to them (and didn't want to hear me explain about how no, we actually like cock sometimes), but complete conversational monopolists. If you didn't want to talk exclusively about how hard it was to be a straight white rich male, well, tough titties, cupcake.
And now I feel bad about not doing more to shut them down, to go "hey, you're navel-gazing out loud for freakin' hours here, let's have a discussion please." And isn't that just the fucking way, that as a woman I feel bad for not stopping men from steamrolling me, because it must have been my fault? LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, FEMINISM!
Also, there were interlopers. Two of my friends showed up and, um, stood out. They were both largish black-clad male dominants and somewhat less... timid than most of the attendees. Definitely not timid people. Also one of them was a tad handsy with me while I was trying to be all feministical. It was one of those situations where I kept thinking, "I should tell him to stop, but wait, I don't want him to stop."
Then afterwards we went out and they scratched highly problematic words into my flesh (and somehow sucked my blood out through my skin, wow I seriously have no idea how that happened) and there may have been furtive alley molestation and general Holly abuse. And I'm still not sure, after all this time in the kinky world, what to think of the fact that this made me feel really really really fucking good. Somewhere between the "are they deliberately trying to undermine the feminist thing by doing this?" and "no, no, feminists are allowed to be perverts god damn it" there was just a huge "AHHH AND I'M HAPPY."
You gotta follow your happy.
I DIDN'T MOLEST NO ALLEYS, AND I AIN'T NO FURTIVE!
ReplyDeleteHey fellow largish black-clad male dominant -- we've been upgraded to interlopers! High five!
It's not the handsys, it's the four-foot arms they're attached to. Those are the troublemakers. Blame them.
Sadly, the highlight of the night: Holly talking about some relationships ending up being a big waste of time, and my boy stepping forward, raising his hand and smiling, and doing a quick star turn on the catwalk, to the dismay of our crawling-up-their-own-asses Conversational Hijackers.
The event would've worked MUCH better, I think, as a panel Q&A (and maybe even gotten into feminist poly and bdsm practices, etc. -- beyond the 101 stuff) for an hour or so, then the group mingle for the rest of the night. Great intent, poor execution.
I tried to be gently touchy -- massaging, light scratching -- and yeah, ten seconds in it was all cookie-cutter shark. It's like in the cartoons when one person on the desert island looks at the other and sees them as a big ham or whatever. Nomnomnom. That said, I should have backed away a bit and let you try to get your views out a bit more (not that it would have saved our group of sad wankers).
The blood thing was ScaryMagicCool.
And no, I'd never try to deliberately undermine the feminist thing, and yes, feminists are allowed to enjoy it. Follow your happy, Madame.
"You gotta follow your happy."
ReplyDeleteWord.
Yeah, I particularly enjoyed raising my hand every time Holly mentioned a relationship that had been a huge waste of time. But god dammit, those weeping pussyboys aggravated me. I kept watching in wonderment as they said incredibly sexist things without even batting an eye.
ReplyDelete-Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden, if you're going to mock weeping pussyboys, you should pick a nickname that's not a guy who was mentally overcome by Ikea. Just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteTyler Durden wasn't a pussyboy. Tyler Durden was everything a pussyboy wished he could be.
ReplyDeleteI'm not even sure if you're talking about the character or me anymore.
ReplyDeleteSo two black-clad dominants showed up and disrupted the important processing of people trying to practice better feminism? How rude and sexist. Shouldn't you as a so-called feminist have intervened to protect the rest of the group from their 'dominant' (read: patriarchal using kink as an excuse) behavior? Especially if these were your 'friends?'
ReplyDeleteVanguard Feminist
PS: I would never date a man who referred to himself as Tyler Durden. It indicates a fundamental disrespect.
Well, I'd never date a woman who referred to herself as a "Vanguard Feminist", so that works. And my girlfriend seems perfectly happy dating a guy who'll jokingly refer to himself as Tyler Durden(there are three people on here who'll get the joke), so I'm happy with that.
ReplyDeleteVanguard Feminist - They weren't really that disruptive--sure they had rather different opinions, but they also understood Indoor Voices and Taking Your Turn on a basic kindergarten level. (Which is more than I could say for some of the "normal" feminists.)
ReplyDeleteAnd Fight Club isn't just an awesomely well-made movie, it's also one that presents a fairly nuanced view of masculinity if you don't take everything the characters say at face value. Tyler Durden's rants are not an author screed, they're the rants of a crazy and unreliable yet charismatic character.
I still remember the one WISB(WIcked Sensitive Boy) in our group trying to shush Jack & I because he wanted to hear the women talk. Y'know, one of the few times he shut the fuck up so women could actually talk.
ReplyDeleteUm. I realize there's a ton of social context here invisible to the non-kinky, not part of this circle Viewer At Home, but you don't really have to be a Vanguard Feminist to look at "sorry I undermined you in public, but I can't really control myself around the sexy, tee hee" and see something slightly fucked up, as much fun as it apparently was.
ReplyDeleteSo two black-clad dominants showed up and disrupted the important processing of people trying to practice better feminism? How rude and sexist. Shouldn't you as a so-called feminist have intervened to protect the rest of the group from their 'dominant' (read: patriarchal using kink as an excuse) behavior? Especially if these were your 'friends?'
ReplyDeleteAh, the internet, where it can be impossible to tell seriousness about a position from perfectly crafted mockery of that same position.
Sadly, I think this really is intended seriously by the author. :(
LabRat - Eh. I think the main context is that they weren't dragging me away yelling "I WILL GROPE THE FEMINIST OUT OF YOU;" they were just poking me and joking around a little bit after the discussion group had already gotten kinda boring and frustrating. It was a lot more "the bad kids in the back of the class" than "hostile takeover."
ReplyDeletePerlhaqr - I also love how Vanguard Feminist decides that it was my responsibility to control my friends (which as a submissive woman and also, you know, separate person, I am totally able to do). The theme of "women are responsible for keeping men in check" does not strike me as all that feministy.
ReplyDeleteLabRat, I was thinking that too.
ReplyDeleteIf Holly were me, I'd suspect the submissive attitude goes way further than sex, and feminism is in part a conscious response to a subconscious submissive attitude that's inappropriate in the real world (as well as being a reasoned response to real inequities.) For my part, I'm certain the fact I consciously look out for social and cultural offenses against men is partly a response to the subconscious attitude that makes be get off on begging for footjobs from women after cunnilingus. Knowing it will hopefully help me to transcend attitude with reason.
So from my viewpoint, this really reads to me like getting off on dominance/submission, in both the dom and sub cases, was allowed to undermine the presentation. C.S. Lewis said once "I can say a prayer while washing my teeth, but it doesn't mean I should wash my teeth in church." [Britishism for brushing teeth.]
Submissive sex while being feminist: good. Submissive sex play while at a public discussion on dating while feminist: problematic.
Okay, now I'm frustrated that this blog is tele-recontextualizing all my own experiences. In one week I've gone from a party that I didn't know was a gang rape to some mildly inappropriate goofing around that I didn't know was patriarchal sex play.
ReplyDeleteHolly said, ...Fight Club isn't just an awesomely well-made movie, it's also one that presents a fairly nuanced view of masculinity...
ReplyDeleteNow that's an insult. If I thought Fight Club represented a nuanced view of masculinity, I'd become a Valerie Solanas fan. Pathetic permanently adolescent whiners who lash out at superficially identified "enemies" based on an inability to deal with the world. I can't remember a really masculine character in it. The masculinity in Gran Torino was not nuanced but was at least masculinity.
Mousie00 - That's the point, though. The men in Fight Club weren't supposed to be Manly Man Heroes--they were supposed to be men dealing with their perceived loss of manhood in ways they perceived to be manly but were actually just absurd and destructive. Tyler Durden isn't meant to be a role model.
ReplyDeleteOops, sorry my Fight Club rant came right after your "frustrated" comment, I'm a slow poster. Bad timing.
ReplyDeleteHolly: like I said, I don't know the context; I was going by the first comment. I associate cookie cutter sharks and eating hams with a hell of a lot more than poking.
ReplyDeleteI didn't so much think you allowed unwanted and blatant sex play so much as I was pointing out how it looks from a totally clueless perspective that isn't in on the group joke and has no idea which bits ARE jokes.
The "cookie cutter shark" is a reference to later in the evening when he was biting small circular chunks of my flesh, but this was after the feminist event was over.
ReplyDeleteI'll try to be more clear about that in the future. I know I have a bad tendency to make things sound as wild and goofy as possible, then only backpedal back to reality when someone points out that "wild" would actually be kinda fucked up.
Crossed with my oops post, I have to start refreshing more often.
ReplyDeleteThe men in Fight Club weren't supposed to be Manly Man Heroes--they were supposed to be men dealing with their perceived loss of manhood in ways they perceived to be manly but were actually just absurd and destructive. Tyler Durden isn't meant to be a role model.
And when you call that a nuanced view of masculinity, it's an insult. Those are the standard ugly stereotypes of man as overgrown boy. If you look at it as a vicious satire on modern urban men's attitude, it's well done and effective, but it is to real masculinity what a PUA description of femininity is to real femininity.
Holly - you, not them, you, brought friends or dominants or whatever to this feminist event and allowed sating your pretty nonfeminist sexual desires to trump raising consciousnesses. You profaned the sacred by allowing them into the room, and now you want to make excuses like it wasn't that bad. Weren't you supposed to provide enlightenment?
ReplyDeleteVanguard Feminist
Yeah, I think the problem in both threads is there's just a ton of a combination of "had to be there" and social in-group context that just doesn't come over in text, especially to people who have NOTHING like this kind of a social life, at all.
ReplyDeleteWow. I nuzzled her neck quite a bit -- but rarely while she was speaking -- and scratched her back and rubbed her shoulders, and hugged her. I dunno that it was that different from what a boyfriend/physically friendly partner might have done (I can't speak as to whether it would qualify as the actions of an enlightened, non-patriarchal person, because, uh, all these multi-syllabic feministy words are too complicated for me).
ReplyDeleteTough crowd, and just a TAD overly orthodox, perhaps? Wow.
Jack
I think Vanguard Feminist just doesn't quite understand the concept of treating males as though they were human beings, rather than faceless servants of some supposed patriarchy.
ReplyDeleteThat's okay, though; I hear sexism is a positive thing when women do it, as is stereotyping. At least, I hear that from feminists quite a bit. Then I make fun of them.
~Aaron
Vanguard Feminist is somebody's facetious sock puppet. I mean, "profaned the sacred by allowing them into the room"? Surely a joke.
ReplyDeleteI dunno, Mousie. Most sock puppeteers should have better grammar than that... on this blog, at least.
ReplyDelete~Aaron
"Tough crowd, and just a TAD overly orthodox, perhaps?"
ReplyDeleteAlso one of them was a tad handsy with me while I was trying to be all feministical. It was one of those situations where I kept thinking, "I should tell him to stop, but wait, I don't want him to stop."
It's not the handsys, it's the four-foot arms they're attached to. Those are the troublemakers. Blame them.
I tried to be gently touchy -- massaging, light scratching -- and yeah, ten seconds in it was all cookie-cutter shark. It's like in the cartoons when one person on the desert island looks at the other and sees them as a big ham or whatever. Nomnomnom. That said, I should have backed away a bit and let you try to get your views out a bit more (not that it would have saved our group of sad wankers).
No reasonable person could *possibly* have gotten the wrong impression.
@ Labrat:
ReplyDeleteHmmm. If I tell you that I didn't REALLY see a cartoon ham when I looked at Holly, and that I didn't ACTUALLY make the 'nomnomnom' noise out loud when nuzzling her, would that help in the forming of an accurate image of the scene in your head?
Somewhere there's a line here between the postmodernism and reader response schools, but I'll be damned if I can say where it is...
I'm curious -- are you one of those people who has 'NOTHING like this kind of a social life, at all'? Or are you pretty up-to-speed on Holly's lifestyle and you were more commenting on behalf of other Pervocracy readers who might not get it?
Jack
My point was that nowhere in there was there any indication of when and where things went from "handsy" to more, and that language that edible/suggesting of lack of control usually suggests "more".
ReplyDeleteI've been reading this blog since Holly started it, so I was pretty sure things were actually much more innocent just because I know she's not an exhibitionist outside that kind of space, but reading both I went "...Uh?!" before thinking again and I see exactly where such an impression could come from. If only because, when in public with my partner, casual we-are-on-very-good-terms touching doesn't even rate comment for me in later description, let alone sucker shark and food comparisions. And yes, my lifestyle is vanilla by comparison to yours- I have my things, but sex is a very private and confined-to-one-person subject for me so I might as well be totally vanilla for public purposes and that's the social sphere I'm used to.
Yeah, that's me and not Holly or you, I'm just saying I can easily see why there's confusion in both threads because that was my first impression too before mentally readjusting for likely context.
Aww, I'm sorry you didn't have a great time! My small group breakaway section was pretty rad. I was definitely the most outspoken there, and I think I offended a few people with my general aggression, but for the most part, we had a good conversation. But then I had to leave early, just as the large group was regrouping, so I don't know what went down from there.
ReplyDeleteThe Whiny Boy issue is one I deal with often--like, dude, I get it, you're a feminist and it is SO TOUGH having all that privilege (shit man, as a white educated lady, I have some too!) but I get horribly irritated by how much wank can show up in trying to be SO PRO-FEMINIST. Dude, chill.
Anyways, I'm sorry I didn't get to talk to you more (I blanked for a moment of "oh god, what do I say that isn't fangirly ILOVEYRBLOGYOUARESOGREATWEEEEEEE?!" and then there were more people making introductions and then I was stuck listening to a Libertarian telling me how evil public schools are and OH GOD), but I'm glad to have a face to a name now.
Also, I share your view of Fight Club. ;) It's really not the devil. Though I suppose I should read the book at some point.
I thought Fight Club had a pretty blatant subtext of gender issues in traditional masculinity and the cautionary tale of how it becomes a form of mental illness when taken to an extreme, and I'm surprised by how many people thought it was a kickass "dudez rule!" movie.
ReplyDeleteI mean, the Tyler Durden character is an imaginary strawman made up of all the toxic over-the-top masculine stereotypes that the narrator creates in his head because he thinks that is what he *should* be instead of a flawed man dealing with life (and the capitalist/consumerist system that says you are what you buy/wear/show/fuck/display and it's never enough). All the guys are trying to figure out how to be modern men in a fucked up world, and Meatloaf's character is the polar opposite of Tyler Durden...a composite of the other end of the masculinity spectrum: he's literally "lost his balls", has huge tits, and cries at therapy. The narrator (Ed Norton's character) meets Marla, a kindred spirit and a flawed character also trying to figure out her life, and he starts to fall for her despite the "voice in his head/Tyler" that tells him to "fuck 'em and forget 'em/don't fall for 'em/is another woman what we really need?".
In the end, the narrator literally has to kill off Tyler in order to fully accept himself and to allow himself to love Marla. If you re-watch the movie and look for the gender role conflict and the reveal of the real affection that has developed between the narrator and Marla that pushes him to reject the Tyler alterego, it's all right there. And all that half-naked sweaty bloody fighting with other guys? Part masochistic/part homoerotic/part desperately trying to "prove yourself" (to the other guys/part self-destruction. The violence isn't glorified, it's a instinctive revolt against self-hatred.
I think the discussion of Tyler Durden (character, not poster) is missing his, I believe, queer character element. The character Tyler wouldn't really be interested in Holly--this is not a slam against Holly, really! He'd be much more interested, both as masculine figures and, I do believe, sexual objects, the interlopers Holly mentioned. This might be beyond what palahniuk had in mind, but I think Tyler would be MUCH more fascinated in carving problematic names in the friends who joined Holly at the conference. So, be prepared for some real Tyler stuff boyos!
ReplyDelete@ LabRat
ReplyDelete"My point was that nowhere in there was there any indication of when and where things went from "handsy" to more, and that language that edible/suggesting of lack of control usually suggests "more"."
Okay. But even if we agree that MY post was vague, as opposed to not simply using metaphor/simile (and I'll agree with you, at least to the extent that it was a gray area), didn't Holly's original post with "then afterward we went out and..." provide a reasonably firm delineation?
"...Yeah, that's me and not Holly or you, I'm just saying I can easily see why there's confusion in both threads because that was my first impression too before mentally readjusting for likely context."
One thing I'd suggest is trying not to let the two posts -- about radically different events/places/times/participants (other than Holly, Drew & I)/plans/outcomes and so on -- be viewed as one. They weren't, and that bleeding together (yes, no pun intended) makes it harder to assign either one an accurate image, value, or whatnot.
Jack
I don't think anyone here is out to ruin your fun, but the last few posts have been kind of creepy and disturbing. Which isn't to suggest that your experiences *were*, but the context that defined the situation is important and helpful. I like this blog, and it's entertaining to see your IRL friends commenting here, but many of the readers don't actually know you or them personally, so in-jokes can be pretty easily misinterpreted.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'd sort of assumed that Vanguard Feminist was Jack, it's his kind of over-the-top humorous sock puppet (maybe not though?). And Fight Club is awesome, though I'd agree it's a depiction of masculinity the way Wuthering Heights is a love story.
@ Ann
ReplyDeleteI don't use sock puppets. I'll make the occasional absurdist statement -- "POLY IS EVIL," etc. -- but I'm not a sock puppetry kinda guy, for the most part.
Jack
Ann said, And Fight Club is awesome, though I'd agree it's a depiction of masculinity the way Wuthering Heights is a love story.
ReplyDeleteBeautifully put. Fight Club was very well done, but it was not about admirable characters, and where it had an interesting exploration of defective males apeing some superficial features of masculinity, it did not present a nuanced perspective on masculinity. Also, I get creeped out by how many fans miss the point completely and seem to think Tyler Durden was teh AWESOME.
Jack, you *weren't* the butt slut guy? haha, sorry, my mistake
ReplyDelete^uh, that came across sarcastic. It wasn't supposed to be. The internet needs more emoticons...
ReplyDeleteI certainly do try to read for the "benefit of the doubt", but I'd put forth that if multiple long-term readers are frequently getting confused and/or disturbed, maybe there IS a bit of a problem lately with stuff just not translating with context intact.
ReplyDelete@ Anon of 9:31p & 9:33p --
ReplyDeleteNo, as I've posted before, I am most definitely NOT Hole-y is a Butt Slut. Although I fully intend to carve a huge 'BUTT SLUT' logo on Holly the next time she wanders within arm's reach in a private venue, Hole-y might actually attract an adherent somewhere, and I wouldn't risk even one more humna following that path of stupidity even for some serious shits and giggles. The closest to sock puppetry I've come is when I forgot to sign my name to a post the other night and then mentioned so a short time later.
@ LabRat: I'm not speaking about you (I don't know your feelings enough on this), but some folks seem upset that Holly's moved beyond S&M (Stand & Model) and into actual hard play (Holly, I know you've played hard all along since long before you knew me, I'm exagerrating for effect). Or at least, that she's done so and OHMYGAWD BLOGGED about it.
Jack
Vanguard Feminist: o.O Are you for serious?
ReplyDeleteHolly: Was great to meet you. :)
No, Jack. People were upset about marginal consent issues, and play undermining feminism. You don't get to recast the concerns as "OMG they're so vanilla they're scared of hard play!" It would be easy to dismiss that way, but that's just not it.
ReplyDelete@Mousieoo -- I'm not trying to 'recast the concerns', I'm speculating as to their motivations (as Holly has). If someone has some evidence of consent (either explicit or implied) that was inadequate and violated Holly's boundaries/desires, by all means let's discuss that.
ReplyDeleteAs far as 'play undermining feminism' -- I'm a bit confused; last I checked, play (Holly and I's play, and also the play Holly was involved in in my home that I wasn't involved in) WAS feminist, at least as far as I define play and I define feminism. If there's an assumption by anyone that ALL play automatically undermines feminism -- well, hell, we're going to have trouble communicating in the same language, then.
Jack
Jack, we already discussed why given the limited information available on the blog, reasonable people could be concerned about consent and feminism issues. Since then, the facts have been clarified so people mostly aren't worried anymore. Given Holly's endorsement, I'm sure if you had as little information as we did, you would have been just as concerned. It's not that we fear kink, it's that we were missing crucial facts.
ReplyDeleteSpeculating about people's motives is very often wrong, almost always useless, and almost always annoying, vis: Jack treasures his feeling of begin a rebel against convention, and is secretly disappointed when people take his behavior in stride. He likes to think vanilla people's heads would explode if they heard about his practices. So when issues come up where the BDSM aspects are only a side note, he wants to make it all about people being freaked out by BDSM.
Isn't that annoying? And even if it were true, it contributes nothing to the conversation. Now, I've speculated that Holly might have some of the same motivations for being aware of feminist issues as I have for being aware of MRA issues, but I certainly am not intending to impugn her motivations by comparing them to mine. That's a very different kettle of fish from saying that one who says "drunk and not sure who's touching you" could imply a consent problem is motivated by heebie-jeebies about kink.
What Mousie said. When we say "we're concerned because of x y and z and we weren't there and aren't psychic, but we're fine now", and you say "I'm just wondering about your REAL motivations", that's incredibly offputting.
ReplyDelete