Friday, July 30, 2010

Jack asked me to post this.

Okay, quick question: why does everyone here seem to hate Jack? (Quick orientation: Jack = Lord Snuffulupagus = the guy who hosted that party = one of the guys who accompanied me to the feminist thing = the guy who took the hatchet photo.)

It seems like the blog commenters, even people who are usually cool with the crazy shit I do, seem to regard Jack as the corrupter of my innocence, the patriarch of patriarchs, and You're Not My Real Dad. I don't understand this. He's a pretty nice guy. Like, one of the nicest guys I know, in being kinky but also tremendously concerned not just about consent and enjoyment but also about the emotional health and social discord issues that can arise from BDSM. Maybe he's nicer in person or in private communication, but he hasn't really been that much of an asshole on the blog. And yet he seems to have gotten dogpiled like hell this last week. Which makes me sad because Jack's made it an awesome week for me.

There's a weird part of me that thinks 20 Internet commenters can't be wrong, and maybe people with an outside perspective see something I don't. I keep reexamining shit. I don't really see it though. Sure I've done stuff I wouldn't write to Gramma about, but I haven't done anything I didn't consent to and enjoy.

So my theories are down to:
A) Jack is an evil corrupter and I just can't tell because I'm distracted by all the orgasms.
B) People expect me to be only theoretically kinky and are disturbed by hearing that I actually do shit beyond black corsets and sensual flogging.
C) People see me as an innocent little girl whom Jack is getting in over her head.
D) I've been bad at communicating some of the things I've done this last week, and in trying to make them sound exciting and outrageous, inadvertently made them sound disturbing.

I think, or at least I'm hoping, that the answer is D. And I'll try to work on that. It's always awkward for me to put little safety catches in my writing, to remember to write "he [put on a condom and] rammed me deep" or "[after negotiation and consent] two guys [whom I knew and trusted] held me down and fucked me," but I'll try to do so. I do have to remember that the people reading here don't have anything to go off but what you read, and I'll try to respect you by giving you the whole story on things that could sound bad.



(That title is just there to mess with you. Although it's also true! OH GOD THE CONTRADICTIONS THEY SWIRL IN MY HEAD.

In the interest of context and reader respect I'll say the truth, which is that Jack suggested it in a semi-joking manner but I wrote it on my own and was already considering doing so.)

53 comments:

  1. Holly -- Kerry just suggested that you blog a goodbye post, as you were moving into my basement to be chained in the corner for eternal torture and fuckplay (yeah, you're so sad about it) and never being allowed access to the internet again.

    Shit, my approval ratings might even go up. . :)

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  2. And on a rare totally serious note, I'm touched by your kind words. It's gonna be like a 15-minute hard hug the next time I see you.

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think you've done a great job showing multiple sides of your personality on this blog. You've put a lot of emphasis on your CHOICE to play kinky and rough. A choice many don't understand which is probably why commentators are hassling you about Jack (Does he go by Lord Snuffulupagus when playing? cause that is kinda cute/funny/endearing for a dom).

    Have you given much thought about what draws you to the kinky? I know that personally- I've always been drawn to BDSM (as a bottom/sub). But any one who knows me IRL would be hard pressed to think of me that way- I am a strong and occasionally domineering woman. That's one of the things I enjoy most about that kinda sex- I get to turn off that part of me for a time and just feel good.

    Anyway-not to highjack your post or anything.

    IMO, fuck 'em. You're a composed and coherent writer and it's YOUR blog after all. Say what ya want, how ya want.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @ BatGirl: 99% of the time I just go by Jack (I suspect a sizable chunk of the New England fetish community knows me by sight and that name, so why not). On the exceedingly rare occasions I use a scene name (almost never, any more -- my wife and I are on the board of directors of the largish local bdsm 501c3, so being anonymous isn't much of an option any more), I use (or used to use) Master Aardvark (because it's slightly absurd, and also because I get off on aardvarks).

    Lord Snuffleupagus was actually an endearing pet name my girlfriend/sub uses for me in email and texting (and that I reply to her with); I previously only used it for that, but I've signed it here several times in recent weeks because it's even more amusing than Master Aardvark. However, I've stopped using it in public, because my girlfriend/sub is emotionally very attached to it, and would like to keep it in our private domain, so to speak, and she's been good so I'm granting that to her. So it's just Jack, now. Although I will answer to The Wookie, or Gigantor, too.

    @ Holly: of your choices, I was kinda partial to A, myself. And in the interests of context, I didn't put on a condom, but then, I never rammed you deep, either. :)

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  5. I *don't* hate Jack, he's pretty funny. It isn't obvious he was involved with either situation unless you read the comments, anyway. I'd say it's definitely option D. The hatchet was cool, but the paragraph about "then before I knew it, everyone was holding me down and putting things inside of me!" makes the situation look seriously creepy. Later in the post it came out that it was actually a very sexual party and everyone was doing it, but that first paragraph made it sound like you were being assualted (for real, not for play). It was sort of the same for the feminist event. It sounded like 'I was at the feminist event, then my friends came and made fun of the participants and the event itself, but it was cool because those other guys were lame'. By the end of the post it was obvious it wasn't what you meant, it's just kind of weird because you are a really excellent writer, and you have blogged about hard play in the past without it coming across wrong. I don't think it's a OMGBDSM thing, or a Jack thing, just a context issue. I'm not complaining, or even suggesting you change-- as someone else pointed out, it is your blog, and you're a funny and excellent writer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm getting Tshirts made up --

    "It's a Jack thing, you wouldn't understand."

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  7. D, though I think it's more than that.

    Up front: I am trying damn hard not to come across as a jerk, because I DON'T actually hate Jack or even dislike him. But when I keep talking about context and how it's translating badly, I'm not just talking about what you write- there was no issue when you were talking about wanting to or doing varyingly hardcore shit before. Honestly, that's not it.

    This is a sex blog, which makes social rules kind of weird to begin with: in ordinary life people are not NEARLY so frank, but before anyone you were actually playing with started commenting it was one-way glass; you'd tell us about it, and we'd have varyingly thoughtful and "god, that's hot" conversations in the comments.

    The main way we got to know Jack was as the guy you played with who, when coming in here, made 90% of his comments in reference to that play in the same warm and joking manner it presumably is at play events and parties.

    But see, the thing is, in almost all normal social contexts, the perception of the guy who comes in talking mostly about how many times he's slept with the friend you know them through and how he made her do dirty things and get called a whore and like it and (insert whatever, usually what was inserted). And intellectually, we know that's play, and that's the point, but in most social cases when someone came in acting like that we'd see him as a jerk. The rules are different here: we know. You love it and it's all really pretend: in theory we know that too.

    The real problem is that SINCE we don't really know him, the other thing that's purely intellectual is that you and he telling us this is all funny and ironic because it jars so much with his respectful, totally into equality self. We've barely met that guy. We've met the guy who mostly talks about making you bleed and come and in a few threads back about how it's irrational for women to be fearful about showing their tits to strange men on request because it's unfair and we might miss out on decent guys.

    He's NOT an asshole, but in terms of getting to know someone it messes with every social rule and context we have without the benefit of nonsexual friendly interaction and body language that says "I am totally joking and exaggerating to someone I really like and respect right now". And being told that it's maybe because we are just secretly prudes about REAL TRUE BDSM, and having that come from the guy who's (accidentally!) screwing with all those mental compasses, kinda raises hackles too.

    Does that make sense?

    ReplyDelete
  8. @ LabRat:

    It makes sense to me. An excellent post.

    Having someone who was involved real-world does somewhat break down that one-way glass narrative Holly's had going (although I recall Tommy making some significant appearances before, and maybe there's others I don't know). And the dichotomy of knowing me (real-world) vs. knowing just the commenting side of me may be more jarring than Holly or myself (both of whom, of course, know me) realize, BECAUSE we both know me.

    Regarding the secretly prudes part -- like I said, I don't/didn't know your feelings on the matter. But I'm still not 100% sure about other folks (your post offers an explanation that may account for a lot of the dissonance, but my suspicion is that it doesn't explain all of it; I could be wrong). I doubt we'll ever know, unless somebody were to chime in in the affirmative, etc.

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jack's quite awesome and though this may seem out of place - respectful. I was introduced to the scene about 7 months ago and he was one of the first kinky people I met. He's never made me feel uncomfortable and if you met him - you'd realize how nice and fun loving kind of guy he is.

    And now I'm done with the mushiness.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This post should really have been titled "I am Jack's sense of annoyed persecution". You know, since we were (not) talking about Fight Club...;-)

    ReplyDelete
  11. People decide they hate him because he makes silly, trollish comments and in-jokes they don't have context for. When he pretends to be an awful antifeminist type, people don't realize he's joking around, because you know what he's actually like but they don't.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Once it was established that Jack was, in fact, joking about polyamory, I was totally cool with him. Ah, internet communications. :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think it's mostly what anon@12:50 said. I know there's been a couple times I've had to scroll to check whether the anon was Jack or Holey the Butt-Slut.

    ReplyDelete
  14. LabRat put it really well. As I just commented in the other thread, when the limited and exaggerated-for-drama information we have out here indicates real problems with consent or undermining feminism, it raises serious alarms to be told that we're just scared of hard play.

    Although really, I hate him because he doesn't use the Name/URL option to put his name at the top, and I have to scroll to the bottom to see who it is then scroll back up. You know you don't need to put a URL in there, right, Jack? :)

    Seriously, Jack, I'm sorry you were made to look bad by the limited nature of internet communications; it's happened to me lots of times. I'm glad Holly cleared it up.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jack actually is one of my least favorite commenters on your site, but only because he repeatedly makes giant comments that take too long to get to the point and that are mainly concerned with showing off his "cleverness".

    Also, in that discussion about how you're cautious around guys who start talking to you out of nowhere, he seemed to be focusing on the exact words of your earlier posts and not on how you clarified them later. He was protesting, "But you said that the guy who asked to see your tits did so innocently!" (not in those exact words) long after you made clear that "innocent" might not have been the best word to have used.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I don't like Jack because he clearly undermines feminism with his outright male-dominated Patriarchal views on fucking, which he's using to dominate and orient Holly towards that same male-dominated worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @ Amanda: And now folks will assume that you're a sock puppet of mine. :)

    @ 12:50am anon -- please note that I pretty quickly explain those 'silly, trollish comments'. As far as the in-jokes, I can understand people not getting those jokes, but there seems to be some resentment that I make them at all. Which strikes me as odd, as I figured that in addition to her one-way-glass, 'lecture' format communication, and also her discussions-with-folks-only-knowing-her-through-her-posts communication, that discussions to and from people who have a real-world contect would be okay, as well.

    @ perhaqr -- that line can be a bitch at times, huh? :) Although poly people -- look, they just need to find a safer and more respectful lifestyle, that's all I'm saying...

    @ Mousieoo -- I've TRIED the URL option! Really! I used to use it quite a bit, and then got tired of coming up with different URLSs, and when I try it without it, it doesn't work. I don't get it.

    Besides, is it so hard to look for a name at the bottom of the post? I mean, it is the traditional method of signing a note and such, after all.

    @ Bill -- guilty as charged on the giant comments part. Not so sure about "mainly concerned with showing off his "cleverness"." part. Regarding my focus on what she said, specific words do matter; it might have been a matter of semantics, or a matter of actual really different beliefs (and for any feeling that 'show me your tits' is a bad thing to say, please do recall that the post started with her stating her 'can I see your cock' pick-up line).

    @ anon 11:14 am -- my ex-girlfriends aren't allowed to comment on this blog.

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  18. I dislike Jack because I wanted Holly to be my internetz girlfriend and now I have to read about Jack. All the time :P

    I'm a jealous sod.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Probably some jealousy mixed with the fact that all joking about vanilla and kinky aside, some of the people who read your blog are really not all that kinky and don't completely "get" the whole BDSM thing. There's some inside baseball talk here that I know goes over my head.

    I don't have a problem with Jack, but I'm maybe not as involved here as some . . . I also didn't realize people were upset at "Lord Snufflupagus," which I'm sure I've misspelled. Possibly I'm just not paying enough attention to have much of an opinion. I just like to read about your escapades.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hershele OstropolerJuly 31, 2010 at 2:34 PM

    I take your word for it that you're having fun simply because I believe you know the contents of your own head better than I do.

    Then again, I have no feelings one way or the other on Jack, except that he makes you happy and and gives you orgasms I'm generally in favor of people being happy and having orgasms (I have a short list of specific exceptions, but you're not on it).

    ReplyDelete
  21. A few posts ago, Holly, you made the perfectly reasonable comment that you need to talk to a guy for an hour or two before showing him your tits. Jack seemed to be offended that anyone should need time to acclimate to someone before becoming intimate.

    When a guy starts whining (or seems to be whining) that he's being judged just for being a guy and women are being so mean for not bending over and spreading their pussies for every goddamn stranger on the street, it makes me hate them.

    You didn't say that all men are rapists. You didn't say that you carry mace around and scream at anyone who says hello. You just said that you want to be a tiny bit cautious and check out someone's vibe before getting naked for him. And Jack seemed to find that irrational and unfair, and brought out all the old saws about "but guys don't act like that with women even though women could attack and rape them!" and "but I'm not a rapist and every woman should magically know that and be super-friendly to me from the very first second we meet!"

    I guess it's kind of a trigger for me.

    I don't care that he's kinky or poly or beats you or whatever. I just go batshit when someone tries to tell women to be smiley and friendly to guys they don't know. And actually I haven't been back to that thread in ages and for all I know I'd overreacted and/or Jack came around to understanding my point of view.

    -perversecowgirl

    ReplyDelete
  22. Just FYI, I wasn't confused by those posts about the orgy party/hatchet penetration, & didn't find them "creepy" or whatever it is people are calling them. They way you chose to write about them was the way way I'd write about my own Wild Nights of Debauchery (which I don't have that often anymore, but still) -- i.e., describe the funniest, most outrageous things that happened, and leave out some of the context because it's funnier a little decontextualized. I've been reading this blog for a while and to me, it was clear (though unstated) that the people involved all knew/trusted each other, and would have ceased their activity of someone had withdrawn consent. I definitely *wouldn't* want you to start adding the kind of bracketed disclaimers you provide above; narrating things in that way is neither hot nor amusing. This blog as a whole makes clear what your position is on things like safe BDSM play.

    I posted an argue-y comment with Jack in that earlier thread because I didn't like (what I perceived to be) his idea that it's awful for men to have to face any consequences for pervasive sexism in society. He posted a thoughtful reply, & now I think we're both in overall agreeance that women should exercise reasonable caution about men they don't know. I don't think everyone hates Jack, nor should they. It can be hard to read the tone/intent of comments by people who know you IRL, since they have more license to make inside jokes & leave more things unstated. But I think those problems will resolve themselves in time. Perversecowgirl, you might want to re-visit that thread, it's pretty worthwhile.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "if" someone had withdrawn consent, not "of." There's always a damn typo somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @ perverse cowgirl

    "A few posts ago, Holly, you made the perfectly reasonable comment that you need to talk to a guy for an hour or two before showing him your tits. Jack seemed to be offended that anyone should need time to acclimate to someone before becoming intimate."

    Actually, I was disturbed more that it's somehow okay and non-threatening for Holly to say 'show me your cock and that's okay,' but a guy who says it is trying to imply a threat, automatically. But if you like your summary better, who am I to stop you from using it?

    "When a guy starts whining (or seems to be whining) that he's being judged just for being a guy and women are being so mean for not bending over and spreading their pussies for every goddamn stranger on the street, it makes me hate them."

    Geez, I wish I had read that blog comment. especially since if I'm reading you correctly, you're saying I wrote it. Can you point me back at it? I would take it as a kindness.

    "...I just go batshit when someone tries to tell women to be smiley and friendly to guys they don't know."

    Or my actual stated value/preference for everyone to be smiley and friendly towards anyone they meet, and judge them as a person, rather than as part of a class, with pre-determined values and danger factors, etc.

    But you seem intent on reading that as me having written 'women are being so mean for not bending over and spreading their pussies for every goddamn stranger on the street' so I won't try to persuade you otherwise.

    "And actually I haven't been back to that thread in ages and for all I know I'd overreacted and/or Jack came around to understanding my point of view."

    Let me save you some time -- I didn't come around to your point of view, and my guess (based on reading your comments for several months now, as opposed to, say, pre-assigning you characteristics as a woman, blog commenter, or other class member) is that you wouldn't consider yourself to have overreacted, so there's no need for you to go there; I remain, alas, unreformed.

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  25. @ Emily: you didn't find the hatchet play stuff kinda creepy? I did. That girl does some weird shit. I think Holly's a just, well... you know...

    (4'11" of hot, sick fun)


    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  26. Or my actual stated value/preference for everyone to be smiley and friendly towards anyone they meet, and judge them as a person, rather than as part of a class, with pre-determined values and danger factors, etc.
    I actually do disagree with this, though, Jack. The problem--which you may have been somewhat sheltered from as a man and a rather physically imposing one at that--is that just smiling and being friendly is enough to flip certain psychos into Hunter/Killer mode. There are a lot of psychos out there who will take a smile as enough of an opener to be at a minimum creepy and at worst seriously aggressive. When 99 strangers I smile at smile back, and 1 of them follows me down the block telling me I'm a bitch if I don't at least talk with him now... I remember the 1.

    Plus, there's a certain "not my job" resentment when women are told to smile. Creeps (mostly creeps of a certain age, but I think some young guys do it too) use "gimme a smile baby" as a stock phrase. They use it as a way of giving orders to a complete stranger and of making women more decorative for their pleasure, and women seriously hate this. I'll smile if I feel like it, dammit, and no one else gets to make any rules about how I ought to be an Equal Opportunity Smiler. At work my services are Equal Opportunity; on my own time I'm Management May Refuse Service.

    You know me, and you know I don't hide in my room or go around scowling at the world. But I actually open up surprisingly little of myself to true strangers. It's not safe and it's not my obligation.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Fair enough. How about just the "judge them as a person, rather than as part of a class, with pre-determined values and danger factors, etc." part, then?

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  28. Once I have enough information to do so, sure.

    ReplyDelete
  29. There's a saying that shows up regularly in military circles, especially USMC: "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

    Many people do not want to think this way, but I believe that having a mental plan for how you will be the one to survive if an encounter goes as far wrong as possible changes the vibe you give off (including your smile). Obviously I've never tried it as a woman on a creepy guy, but I have used it as a man on aggressive guys and it seems to work nicely there, and I have not found it to make normal people uncomfortable.

    Of course it seems paranoid, but we're already at the point of refusing to smile at people because they might be dangerous. Having a plan for what to do if they turn out to be dangerous is just prudent, given the already granted premise that they might be.

    To use Jeff Cooper's color codes, be in Condition Yellow, and if someone says "Give me a smile baby" shift to Condition Orange.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'd like to add that I've met the "polite but ready and able to kill you if necessary" vibe from the outside in the person of various combat instructors, and it is both much more pleasant to be around and much more suppressive of bad behavior than the "scowly and inclined to curse at you loudly" vibe. The "I am a sweet doormat" vibe does not really make for much better company, at least if you're a well-intentioned man.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "A few posts ago, Holly, you made the perfectly reasonable comment that you need to talk to a guy for an hour or two before showing him your tits. Jack seemed to be offended that anyone should need time to acclimate to someone before becoming intimate."

    That's absolutely perfectly reasonable. I wouldn't expect any woman (save for a few specific examples, under specific conditions) to show her tits to any man who asked and I'd expect most reasonable women would need some time to get to know a man before honoring such a request. However, when that comment is made by a woman who just stated that she approached a man by saying "Show me your cock" well, then you sort of lose some creditability as far as appropriate comments upon meeting someone.

    Holly has been posting a lot recently about equality and not assigning gender roles and then, IMO, did the exact thing she is saying she's so against. She approached a man with an outrageously inappropriately comment and then went on to say how offended she'd be if somsone made the same comment (well, similar comment) to her. WTF?

    And, I'm sorry, I don't buy the "Well, men are potential rapists/stalkers/whack-jobs". Yeah, they are. So are women. Women stalk men every day. Women attack and hurt and kill men every day. Maybe not as often, but it happens. Any man, meeting any women, doesn't know that she's not bat-shit crazy and won't stalk him and break into his house and hide in his closet and attack him with a large net and a sock full of Chloroform. Women may not attack/hurt/kill men with the same frequency, but they still do it and men still have to be aware of that fact when meeting someone. Encountering a crazy stalker type isn't a woman problem. It's a problem for anyone out in the world meeting people.

    "The problem--which you may have been somewhat sheltered from as a man and a rather physically imposing one at that--is that just smiling and being friendly is enough to flip certain psychos into Hunter/Killer mode. There are a lot of psychos out there who will take a smile as enough of an opener to be at a minimum creepy and at worst seriously aggressive. "

    How do you not smile and be friendly, even toward strangers? I work in a field where I deal with a lot of people (as I know you do, too) and I tend to smile, and be friendly, to all of them (unless they set off my douche-bag alarm). I guess I'm just surprised, as I mentioned earlier, that someone (along with some of the commenters) would be so quick to make assumptions about a person based on gender when so many posts lately have been specifically dealing with not assuming things about a person because of gender. Or, is it only ok to label and pigeon-hole and make assumptions about one gender?

    "Creeps (mostly creeps of a certain age, but I think some young guys do it too) use "gimme a smile baby" as a stock phrase. They use it as a way of giving orders to a complete stranger and of making women more decorative for their pleasure, and women seriously hate this."

    I'll admit I smile easily and I'm an incurable flirt. However, saying "gimme a smile, Baby" is about the quickest way to quarantee you will never see me smile. You will see me scowl, and grimace, and roll my eyes. You will likely get to hear a selections of names I like to call people who are complete ass-hats. There's a good chance you'll get a good view of the back of my head (and not in the good way). The only thing that line is not likely to get you is a smile.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I guess my whole issue is that while this is someone who clearly you know/knows you well enough to make jokes about certain things--because you know he's joking, or know that he's a decent guy who respects you, et cetera--I (and most of the other commenters) don't know him from Adam. This means that joking comments come across as being deeply skeevy and misogynistic, simply because I have no idea where the guy's views actually lie.

    Jack (9:24)- I don't judge men I don't know in the sense that I sit around thinking up bad things about them. But I sure as fuck don't trust them on sight or assume that they won't hurt me just because they have a nice smile and hold the door. I've been fucked over by that kind of assumption enough times that I'd rather have random guys think I'm a bitch than risk getting fucked over again.

    ReplyDelete
  33. My take on the "We hate Jack" thing is that it seems you have a few readers who are of the mind that women need to be respected as equals and people shouldn't be treated any different because of their gender...except for men who are all big scary potential rapists. And, if they aren't rapists, then one of their friend's is and they cheer on that friend and support his behavior. Anyone who speaks out and says that that line of thinking is fucked up is immediately looked at as a chauvinist who thinks women are only put on Earth to serve men and suck cock. I've noticed, in some of your feminism posts, that some women are very quick to speak out against stereotyping women and then, in the next sentence, will do the same thing to men. Either way, it's still sexism and, IMO, still wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Jack (9:24)- I don't judge men I don't know in the sense that I sit around thinking up bad things about them. But I sure as fuck don't trust them on sight or assume that they won't hurt me just because they have a nice smile and hold the door. I've been fucked over by that kind of assumption enough times that I'd rather have random guys think I'm a bitch than risk getting fucked over again. "

    Do you distrust men you don't know more than you distrust women you don't know? Or, as a reasonable human being, do you think "Hmm...there's a person I don't know. Best not give them my address and social security number"? Do you distrust strangers equally or are men, for some reason, worthy of even less "trust" than a female stranger?

    ReplyDelete
  35. I don't hate Jack, I do, ENVY THE FUCK OUTA HIM!

    glad we could clear that up!

    The other Jack!

    ReplyDelete
  36. I think June Clever is making an important point here, and it's one that I don't know the answer to. Because I think it would be great if the genders were treated equally. But I also think it's ridiculous to say Holly's "I heard you have a huge cock. Can I see?" line can be regarded equally if gender-reversed. On the other side, I treat women who trigger an alarm flag differently; because I'm in for a much uglier legal experience if I have to defend myself against a woman, which isn't so rare as all that, a hinky woman gets much more avoidance and much less in the way of second chances to appear normal than a hinky man. Attackers tell the police you attacked them as a matter of course.

    ReplyDelete
  37. June Clever 3:31 am, and John B 5:54 am -- both have posted on this blog before, possibly both before I even started reading it, and yet I have a sneaking suspicion that someone will accuse them both of being sock puppets of mine. :)

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  38. I think the issue with the "show me your cock/tits" scenario is that it changes a ton depending on how you're imagining it.

    The way I was was in contrasting whether it would be possible for a strange woman to walk up to a strange man at a party and say "I heard you have a huge cock, can I see it?" and for the man to be flattered or at worst case kinda weirded out and turned off (and yes, maybe putting her in in his "psycho, avoid" column), whereas if you reverse the genders in the exact same situation as just that- NOT right after the strange woman has just requested to see your cock- almost all women would have their internal alarms sounding and perceive some degree of threat. Not "oh my god he's a rapist, mace him", but "this guy has no sense of boundaries, let's go have a drink on the other side of the room not alone". And yeah, while it would be fucking awesome if the world were such that it would be completely sensible for the woman to treat man-with-no-boundaries like a man would treat woman-with-no-boundaries, the world ain't and it isn't.

    "Should women be as willing as (a generalization of men) to interact with a stranger in a degree that involves some sexualization just because they asked and they're probably a nice guy" is a totally different discussion than "should women be polite and friendly in the same default nonsexual way they would be with strange women until given a reason not to", and I don't think all of us are having the same one.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Jack is probably a nice guy, but you enjoy your sex mean, and degrading, so that colors the character a little. You also described 1-2 situations that probably should have either been left at fantasy, or should have been well coordinated experiences, rather than "it just broke out at a party, I was incoherent drunk, and getting passed around".

    The fact that you made it sound like you didn't know who you did or didn't engage in sexual acts with raises consent issues. If you want to fuck an entire party, again, that shouldn't be a spontaneous thing.

    The fact that the guy who is supposed to be looking out for you in those scenarios, who is encouraging this activity rather than pulling you out of the room, also has a fundamental misunderstanding of how feminism works, or a woman's right to pick and choose who they show their tits too, suggests he's not the best person to play that role for you.

    Aside from that - It's not about Jack really. People are giving you strong reactions to your personal choices, and when the conversations start to involve a peanut gallery who happens to be the guy you're experimenting with well..... sometimes it seems like it's really you who needs to gain perspective...to your approach, limits, etc.

    I don't think you're really ready to think about that though. You'll just write it off as people shaming/judging you. Take the degradation play...there's a difference from someone who likes abuse, and someone who feels as if they deserve abuse, because they're dirt ,and not worthy of respect. That's why the typical dynamic cliche is the powerful CEO who likes to be beat...and not the young girl, dealing with body issues, and other personal things, finding her way in life. Not to say you're powerless, but it really hints more towards a cycle of learned abuse scenario that doesn't jive with some of the ideals you have express in this blog.

    Ultimately, what readers think is meaningless though. Stay safe, do things that make you happy, and consider how you'll look back on them in 10 years.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "June Clever 3:31 am, and John B 5:54 am -- both have posted on this blog before, possibly both before I even started reading it, and yet I have a sneaking suspicion that someone will accuse them both of being sock puppets of mine. :)"

    Jack, if Holly met you since she moved then yes, I was reading/commenting quite a while before you started reading here.

    As for that sock puppet comment, from what Holly has said about you, I don't think I'd mind that too much ;)

    ReplyDelete
  41. "If you want to fuck an entire party, again, that shouldn't be a spontaneous thing."

    Yeah, sometimes it should be a spontaneous thing because, sometimes, the not knowing, and the spontanaity, is the fantasy.

    "The fact that the guy who is supposed to be looking out for you in those scenarios, who is encouraging this activity rather than pulling you out of the room, also has a fundamental misunderstanding of how feminism works, or a woman's right to pick and choose who they show their tits too, suggests he's not the best person to play that role for you."

    Was Jack supposed to be looking our for her at the party? I got the impression that they happened to be at the same party and ended up playing together but I certainly didn't see it mention anywhere that Jack was there in any sort of supervisory role. And besides, how do we know he wasn't. Jack's (untold) version of the party is likely a very different story than Holly's. He can probably tell her exactly who she fucked, and was fucked by. It's very possible that Jack was watching out for Holly's well being and didn't see any reason to stop the "scene". I'm sure they have a safeword worked out (I think Holly posted about it recently) and would have stopped everything if it was used. But, being as this wasn't a formerly agreed upon scenario, it's likely that he was watching out for her, safeword usage or not. The fact is, we don't know because Jack hasn't (as far as I know) added any of his own details about the party. You assume that he wasn't looking out for her but I don't see any reason to come to that conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "The fact that the guy who is supposed to be looking out for you in those scenarios, who is encouraging this activity rather than pulling you out of the room, also has a fundamental misunderstanding of how feminism works, or a woman's right to pick and choose who they show their tits too, suggests he's not the best person to play that role for you."


    I've re-read this about 10 times and it just doesn't sit right with me. Imma have to break 'em down 1 by 1...

    1) Jack wasn't specifically "looking out for her" although Im sure he was in a "friend looking out for another friend" sort of way. And, maybe he was watching more closely than we know.

    2) He's "encouraging her behavior"? Right, because Holly wasn't having rough, kinky sex before moving and meeting Jack. She met Jack and he thrust his hand up her white eyelet-trimmed skirt and stole her virginity and made a whore out of her. It's not at all possible that Holly and Jack are equals in thier little adventure. The big dominant man is obviously coercing the fragile little girl into situations she wouldn't normally put herself in.

    3) He is supposed to be more conscience of "How feminism works" yet he's supposed to step in the middle of a scene and scoop Holly up in his arms and whisk her away from the mean and scary fetish people? So in this case feminism is supposed to be Jack knowing what's best for Holly when she's clearly made her choice and he's supposed to step in and "pull her out of the room"? Explain to me again how that's "feminism"?

    Honestly, I think willingly involving yourself in this type of scene is something people aren't going to totally "get" unless they have the same "kink". It may seem, to some women, that this is the farthest thing from being a feminist as one can get but, in reality, it's not. Holly had more power, in that situation, than most people would think. Given that it was a party of obviously kinky people who evidently knew each other, had Holly really wanted things to stop and "safeworded" (used the most commonly used word, anyway) 9 of the 10 guys involved (or however many were there) would have been familiar enough with that word to stop and they'd have stopped the one guy who didn't get it. One thing I've found with "Kinky friends" is that boundries tend to be respected way more between kinky people than between "vanilla" people. Limits are set and while those limits may be slightly pushed, they are very rarely crossed. Holly has the right to choose to do whatever it is she wants to do with her body and I respect her choice to occasionally get fucked by a party full of friends (and, did I mention, envy?). It's her body. It's her life. It's her choice. Who are we to judge what she does?

    ReplyDelete
  43. I failed to get some in-jokes but it didn't make me hate the commenters; hey, it's not my blog.

    I do love the format whereby earlier comments get referenced like "Jack (9:24)" -- it makes everything look like a crazy smutty Bible verse.

    flightless

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anon 2:05 - You also described 1-2 situations that probably should have either been left at fantasy, or should have been well coordinated experiences, rather than "it just broke out at a party, I was incoherent drunk, and getting passed around".
    What part needs to be left as fantasy? Having sex with more than one guy in a night? Playing around with submission and degradation? Oh horrors. I was slightly tipsy, not blackout drunk, and I was passing myself around.

    The fact that you made it sound like you didn't know who you did or didn't engage in sexual acts with raises consent issues.
    I know who! I'm sorry if it sounded like I didn't, but yes, I know exactly who I fucked, thankyouverymuch.

    The fact that the guy who is supposed to be looking out for you in those scenarios, who is encouraging this activity rather than pulling you out of the room,
    I would have been pissed as hell if he'd pulled me out of the room. To the extent he was "looking out for me," it was in making sure my wishes were respected, not telling me which wishes to have.

    sometimes it seems like it's really you who needs to gain perspective...to your approach, limits, etc.
    Oh, I'm sorry Boss, what approach and limits should I have? Which ones would be most appropriate for a delicate little doll like me?

    I don't think you're really ready to think about that though. You'll just write it off as people shaming/judging you.
    Yes, yes, I'll understand when I'm older. You do get that I'm an adult and that I've been doing kinky shit for my entire postpubescent life?

    That's why the typical dynamic cliche is the powerful CEO who likes to be beat...and not the young girl, dealing with body issues, and other personal things, finding her way in life.
    I can't get my life perfect before being kinky. That's okay. If I were much crazier than I was--say, if I were actually very young and consumed with body issues, rather than just mid-twenties and "bleh, I'm not Barbie"--I'd still be a pervert! It's not something you have to qualify for, and otherwise you're only allowed to be vanilla.

    Not to say you're powerless, but it really hints more towards a cycle of learned abuse scenario that doesn't jive with some of the ideals you have express in this blog.
    This stuff feels good to me. Not like "I deserve this" good, like orgasms good. That's not abuse, learned or otherwise. It's just sexy.

    But yeah, yeah, I'll understand when I'm older, there there little girl. Thanks buddy.

    ReplyDelete
  45. One of the comment threads on Slacktivist is talking about requests that women smile, too, and it's made me realize what a hot button that is for me and how offended I am when asked to smile, either individually or as part of "women should...."

    I have a martial arts instructor who periodically interrupts my solo waza to criticize my lack of smile, and I HATE THIS. He's been doing it for years, and it's pretty obvious that it's about him getting warm fuzzies from a class of smiling students. But it distracts me horribly. I don't naturally smile in any but a social context, and solo waza are not social! And I really resent being torn away from thinking hard about what I'm doing, and being asked to falsify my expression in order to bolster his insecurities.

    His grown daughter finally told him to stop, and at least he's toned it down a bit now.

    I feel it's an ethical requirement to be polite and civil to strangers. I don't feel it's an ethical requirement, for either gender, to be friendly with strangers all the time. It's fine to do so, but it's also fine NOT to do so when you don't want to. Extroverts find it easier, but it's very unfair to introverts to treat extroverts as the norm. And I bet even extroverts have moments when they are doing something internal and do not want to be friendly.

    ReplyDelete
  46. June Cleaver:

    Do you distrust men you don't know more than you distrust women you don't know? Or, as a reasonable human being, do you think "Hmm...there's a person I don't know. Best not give them my address and social security number"? Do you distrust strangers equally or are men, for some reason, worthy of even less "trust" than a female stranger?

    Short answer: yes.

    Long answer: No woman has ever fucked me while I was passed out drunk, punched me in the face, attempted to throw me out of a second story window, cornered me at party (and by this I mean literally backed me into a corner) and refused to let me leave until I kissed them, pounded on my door at 2AM screaming that I was a fucking cunt and they were going to kill themselves if I didn't let them in, or followed me around campus for three nights until I confronted them and threatened to call the cops. Various men have done all of the above. So, yeah, it's been my experience that men are a lot more dangerous and therefore I'm a lot more cautious around them. I'm sorry if that hurts the feelings of the guys who aren't like that, but it's really not my fucking problem.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I have no idea how to quote from a reply so it shows who the reply was from so I'm stuck doing it this...

    "Long answer: No woman has ever fucked me while I was passed out drunk, punched me in the face, attempted to throw me out of a second story window, cornered me at party (and by this I mean literally backed me into a corner) and refused to let me leave until I kissed them, pounded on my door at 2AM screaming that I was a fucking cunt and they were going to kill themselves if I didn't let them in, or followed me around campus for three nights until I confronted them and threatened to call the cops. Various men have done all of the above."

    I understand where you're coming from and I find it interesting considering my personal experience. I've never had a man do anything that was even remotely as creepy/threating/stalkerish as treatment I've gotten from certain women. I've never been unwillingly hit by a man but have been punched by a woman. I've been threatened and stalked and harassed by women. Men have, occasionally, taken my friendliness to mean I was interested in "more" but never to the point where I've had to threaten them with a restraining order, like Iv'e had to do with 2 women.

    "So, yeah, it's been my experience that men are a lot more dangerous and therefore I'm a lot more cautious around them. I'm sorry if that hurts the feelings of the guys who aren't like that, but it's really not my fucking problem."

    So, yeah, it's been my experience that women are a lot more psycho and therfore I'm a lot more cautious around them. I'm sorry if that hurts the feelings of the women who aren't like that, ut it's not my fucking problem....

    Substitute "Psycho" for "cunt" or "whore" or "gold-digger". All the things women wish men wouldn't generalize, and that we complain when they do. I can understand the caution with anyone you (or anyone in general) doesn't know. What I don't get is how the double-standard is acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  48. June Cleaver said: "So in this case feminism is supposed to be Jack knowing what's best for Holly when she's clearly made her choice and he's supposed to step in and "pull her out of the room"? Explain to me again how that's "feminism"? "

    What the fuck? How that is feminism?

    It's not Feminism. None of this. Get a grip. It's Kink, it's perhaps power play, probably BDSM. Feminism doesn't really enter into the equation unless you need to pretend it does.

    The fact that she submits to someone who happens to be male is her choice doesn't change the responsibility issues which anyone dabbling in these type of kink situations should grasp. That you can't, and that you framed it as a damsel in distress anti-feminist situation for someone prone to playing the dom role in her life to monitor her well being while getting passed around....suggests this is all more than your maturity level can handle.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Holly: "But yeah, yeah, I'll understand when I'm older, there there little girl. Thanks buddy."

    No. I don't imagine you will ever understand.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anon - Well you're the most immaturist at all to the power of infinity double Thundercats no takebacks. Since that seems to be the level we're playing at here.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Holly --

    You're showing how immature you are by referring to the Thundercats. An old person like me would refer to the Thunderbirds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbirds_machines) :)

    ReplyDelete
  52. Hm. I tend to be more wary of women in groups, men alone, and default to assuming anyone who makes a pass at me is too terrifying to deal with.

    ReplyDelete