The controversy over breastfeeding in public weirds me out a little. Of course I'm for it--do we really want to make women feed their babies in gross bathrooms, or impede women with babies from leaving the house?--but I'm also bothered by the idea that exposing breasts is only okay if they're doing something "useful." Why does my body require an excuse? Why can't "it's nice out and it's my day off" be just as much of a reason?
In fact, how about "I don't have to give you a reason, it's my body"?
To be honest I'm not entirely sure about public genital exposure, I'm for it in the long run but I don't think society's quite ready to be mature about issues like boners and bus-seat hygiene, but I am 100% for the decriminalization and destigmatization of the female chest. If you want to mark out one little patch of my body and say "this bit is naughty, it's only for sex and the rest of the time you have to act like it doesn't exist," that's a little annoying, but extending that rule to a large nongenital area that men don't have to hide is sexist and stupid.
Men get turned on by tits? Yeah, and I get turned on by pecs. I've learned not to make my arousal someone else's problem, and I think most men can do the same--the ones who can't are already harassing women anyway. More importantly, I should have the right to take my chances. If your concern is safety, I think we should make it illegal to assault a topless woman.
Women will be pressured to go topless? Women who walk around in long skirts or headscarves really don't get that much guff about how they could be in tank tops, and on European beaches plenty of women still wear swimsuit tops.
Breasts are offensive to some people? That's their problem. There's no right not to be offended--if Nazi t-shirts are legal (and I agree they should be, even though I'm infuriated by the sight), so should be titties.
What about the children? They don't have to deal with arousal or cultural baggage, they'll get used to it faster than anyone. And if you want to keep kids from getting weird ideas from porn, demystifying the female body--yeah, sometimes people are shaped like this, no big deal--goes a long way toward that goal. It'd probably do adults some good on that front too.
I suppose a bandeau,or electrical tape if I'm really playing letter-of-the-law, isn't too much hardship, but it really draws attention to the Forbidden Zones in a way that simple toplessness doesn't. It signifies my agreement with the idea that I have a nice upper half--except for the two Horrible Deformities of Horror, of course.
This isn't about public sex or exhibitionism. I don't want to flaunt my breasts or offer them up. What I want is just for my body to be free. When summer comes again, I want to go down to the beach park, lay out a towel by the lakeshore, lie down with a good book, and feel the sun on my skin.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Straight Pride.
I saw a little girl today wearing a "Straight Pride" sweatshirt. She was maybe 10 or 11. Shit, you don't even know if you're straight at that age. I hate to think of how Mom and Dad explained it to her and convinced her to wear it in public. I kind of wanted to confront the family, but shit, what do you say? They'd write me off as a crazy dyke and consider their worldview confirmed. Sigh.
(I support straight pride in the strictly literal sense that I think you should take pride in whoever you are. But I don't think it was intended as a statement of joy and inclusivity.)
EDIT: Rrrgh. The more I think about it, the angrier I get. Not just at the whole homophobia thing, but the superiority thing, and the impossibility of talking to someone with an "us vs. the world" mindset, knowing that there's literally nothing you can say--they'll only class you as part of the debauched world that they're better than.
(I support straight pride in the strictly literal sense that I think you should take pride in whoever you are. But I don't think it was intended as a statement of joy and inclusivity.)
EDIT: Rrrgh. The more I think about it, the angrier I get. Not just at the whole homophobia thing, but the superiority thing, and the impossibility of talking to someone with an "us vs. the world" mindset, knowing that there's literally nothing you can say--they'll only class you as part of the debauched world that they're better than.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
R-71.
There's a referendum in Washington State right now about whether to extend "everything but marriage" rights to same-sex partners; they'd get all the benefits, but it wouldn't be called marriage, because we as a culture are six years old. I'm mature enough not to get all worked up about magic words, though, so I'm still in favor of it.
And in a way, I'm sort of gobsmacked that anybody is against it. This seems like one of those things we should've gone through in the 80s maybe--it seems a rather obvious extension of human rights to gay humans. Yeah, yeah, of course they can marry, weird that it has to be a whole separate law from the one for straight people, let's pass this thing and move on.
But no, there are serious-acting grown-ups spending actual money to oppose this. Their talking points are... weird.
Senate Bill 5688 will redefine terms such as "husband" and "wife" to be interpreted as gender neutral.
And if husbands and wives were treated differently under the law, that would mean something! (Something bad. We would have to fix it.)
Marriage is between husbands and wives so children can have fathers and mothers. Thousands of studies show that children raised in a family with both a mother and a father are healthier emotionally and physically than those raised in a non-traditional family.
This one upsets me because it's a deliberate lie. The "non-traditional family" here contrasted is a single-parent family! Children raised with two parents of any gender do quite comparably.
And on another level, who gives a shit about the statistics? What if kids raised by gay parents did do worse on average? It still wouldn't affect the human rights of the parents. Children of poor parents definitely do worse--let's ban poor marriage!
Criminalization of free speech and "anti-bullying" laws follow the legalization of same-sex "marriage". In a few short months after legalizing same-sex "marriage" in Canada, activists there successfully passed C-250, a bill criminalizing public statements against homosexuality, punishable by up to two years in prison!
Yeah, we should vote against that law if it comes up. But let's vote on the issue that's actually on the ballot right now, kay?
If same-sex marriage becomes the law in Washington, public schools K-12 will likely be forced to teach that same-sex "marriage" and homosexuality are perfectly normal.
Oh noes. We can't have that! This is one of those statements I just want to unpack on so many levels. Legalizing marriage doesn't mean schools will teach it; but even if schools taught it it wouldn't make kids gay; but if it did make kids gay then mazel tov for them.
It always weirds me out when people talk as if gayness ("homosexual" seems like almost a hate word at this point) were not just a decision, but a really tempting decision. Like they can see the appeal of the carefree and pleasurable gay lifestyle, but they chose to shoulder the responsibilities of heterosexuality. Like being gay was a mistake anyone could make.
And it further weirds me out that the same people could have stereotypes of gay people. How can you associate gayness with being lisping, limp-wristed, faaaabulous, etc, if you think a gay man is nothing but a straight man taking the easy way out?
Homosexuals have the right to live as they choose. They do not have a right to redefine marriage for all of us. Marriage is not a special interest!
Damn skippy it's not. And this bill doesn't change straight marriage one iota.
Hey, I can understand why bigots are against gay marriage--they're idiots, they hate everything that's not them, they're not thinking through the logic anyway, some people are just subclinical sociopaths and that's that. But it's hard for me to understand why a statistically significant number of seemingly reasonable adults would agree.
I suspect it's got a lot to do with buttsex being icky.
And in a way, I'm sort of gobsmacked that anybody is against it. This seems like one of those things we should've gone through in the 80s maybe--it seems a rather obvious extension of human rights to gay humans. Yeah, yeah, of course they can marry, weird that it has to be a whole separate law from the one for straight people, let's pass this thing and move on.
But no, there are serious-acting grown-ups spending actual money to oppose this. Their talking points are... weird.
Senate Bill 5688 will redefine terms such as "husband" and "wife" to be interpreted as gender neutral.
And if husbands and wives were treated differently under the law, that would mean something! (Something bad. We would have to fix it.)
Marriage is between husbands and wives so children can have fathers and mothers. Thousands of studies show that children raised in a family with both a mother and a father are healthier emotionally and physically than those raised in a non-traditional family.
This one upsets me because it's a deliberate lie. The "non-traditional family" here contrasted is a single-parent family! Children raised with two parents of any gender do quite comparably.
And on another level, who gives a shit about the statistics? What if kids raised by gay parents did do worse on average? It still wouldn't affect the human rights of the parents. Children of poor parents definitely do worse--let's ban poor marriage!
Criminalization of free speech and "anti-bullying" laws follow the legalization of same-sex "marriage". In a few short months after legalizing same-sex "marriage" in Canada, activists there successfully passed C-250, a bill criminalizing public statements against homosexuality, punishable by up to two years in prison!
Yeah, we should vote against that law if it comes up. But let's vote on the issue that's actually on the ballot right now, kay?
If same-sex marriage becomes the law in Washington, public schools K-12 will likely be forced to teach that same-sex "marriage" and homosexuality are perfectly normal.
Oh noes. We can't have that! This is one of those statements I just want to unpack on so many levels. Legalizing marriage doesn't mean schools will teach it; but even if schools taught it it wouldn't make kids gay; but if it did make kids gay then mazel tov for them.
It always weirds me out when people talk as if gayness ("homosexual" seems like almost a hate word at this point) were not just a decision, but a really tempting decision. Like they can see the appeal of the carefree and pleasurable gay lifestyle, but they chose to shoulder the responsibilities of heterosexuality. Like being gay was a mistake anyone could make.
And it further weirds me out that the same people could have stereotypes of gay people. How can you associate gayness with being lisping, limp-wristed, faaaabulous, etc, if you think a gay man is nothing but a straight man taking the easy way out?
Homosexuals have the right to live as they choose. They do not have a right to redefine marriage for all of us. Marriage is not a special interest!
Damn skippy it's not. And this bill doesn't change straight marriage one iota.
Hey, I can understand why bigots are against gay marriage--they're idiots, they hate everything that's not them, they're not thinking through the logic anyway, some people are just subclinical sociopaths and that's that. But it's hard for me to understand why a statistically significant number of seemingly reasonable adults would agree.
I suspect it's got a lot to do with buttsex being icky.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Spot the Cosmo: Answers!
BAAC. Braaaiiiins scared me by getting it on very first comment, but no one else had a perfect score.
Lessons learned:
-It was far more difficult to imitate the Cosmo house style than to come up with ridiculous unresearched "facts" that could pass as Cosmo's ridiculous unresearched "facts." I kept forgetting to write in cliches and girlyisms.
-I also didn't want to write anything that was true or even plausible, because that would just prove I could match Cosmo's style--I wanted to prove that I could match Cosmo's style with complete bullshit and still be indistinguishable.
-I was pretty much busted on question 2. I guess an imaginary dog is going a little too far, and reading a book--any book--is not nearly far enough. (Also, I forgot that Cosmo readers can't be expected to know the term "YA." Shoulda said "books on the Young Adult shelf" or better yet scrapped the concept entirely and recommended brushing your teeth with your feet or something.)
-The sack-squeeze, on the other hand, fooled a lot of people. Does that actually do something? In true Cosmo tradition, I don't know that it doesn't, I just didn't test it or even ask any men. (Also, does Cosmo say "sack"? It seems undainty, but I couldn't think of another way to indicate "scrotum" in girlyese. His "pleasure purse"? Ew. Dunno.)
-I wish I'd been more sexist and unethical. The fact that some people thought 4B was plausible tells me that I could've gone farther with the sexism, and I should've slipped in at least one "how to defraud and/or abuse customer service personnel, tee hee" item.
Ultimately, this was a success: I tried to be even stupider than Cosmo, and I could not.
Lessons learned:
-It was far more difficult to imitate the Cosmo house style than to come up with ridiculous unresearched "facts" that could pass as Cosmo's ridiculous unresearched "facts." I kept forgetting to write in cliches and girlyisms.
-I also didn't want to write anything that was true or even plausible, because that would just prove I could match Cosmo's style--I wanted to prove that I could match Cosmo's style with complete bullshit and still be indistinguishable.
-I was pretty much busted on question 2. I guess an imaginary dog is going a little too far, and reading a book--any book--is not nearly far enough. (Also, I forgot that Cosmo readers can't be expected to know the term "YA." Shoulda said "books on the Young Adult shelf" or better yet scrapped the concept entirely and recommended brushing your teeth with your feet or something.)
-The sack-squeeze, on the other hand, fooled a lot of people. Does that actually do something? In true Cosmo tradition, I don't know that it doesn't, I just didn't test it or even ask any men. (Also, does Cosmo say "sack"? It seems undainty, but I couldn't think of another way to indicate "scrotum" in girlyese. His "pleasure purse"? Ew. Dunno.)
-I wish I'd been more sexist and unethical. The fact that some people thought 4B was plausible tells me that I could've gone farther with the sexism, and I should've slipped in at least one "how to defraud and/or abuse customer service personnel, tee hee" item.
Ultimately, this was a success: I tried to be even stupider than Cosmo, and I could not.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Spot the Cosmo!
November Cosmo is out, and this month I'm Cosmocking a little differently. Each of the following segments will have two fake quotes that I wrote to be deliberately ridiculous, and one quote from the real Cosmo. Your challenge: spot the real one!
On Body Language
A. Watch your guy's lips when he's sleeping. Even dudes who don't talk in their sleep may mouthe words that give you a hint about his true feelings.
B. Even if your guy hasn't dropped those three little words yet, his fingers might have. When a man feels a strong connection, he'll subconsciously create the "love" sign-language gesture while doing random things.
C. The way to your guy's heart is through his... feet? Believe it or not, watching the way his feet point during romantic moments can tell you whether he's being honest with you. A liar reflexively turns his feet inward; a man who's confident and relaxed turns them outward.
On Self-Improvement
A. Sleep on the opposite side of the bed than you're used to. You'll have a fresh perspective as soon as you wake up.
B. If you can't commit to a pet, get yourself the props. Just having a dog dish and collar around the house can provide a powerful pick-me-up.
C. If you've never been much of a reader, try the YA section of the bookstore. The books there are easy-to-read and have gripping stories--if you get busted, just say it's for your niece.
On Anatomy
A. Okay, so you know how to kiss. But what you probably don't know is that there's an undercover pleasure transmitter, the buccal nerve, surrounding the edges of the mouth.
B. Move aside G-spot; the newest hot zone is the L-spot! To find your L-spots, stroke the little creases between your outer and inner labia; there's a little strip on each side that's packed with supercharged nerve endings.
C. Another superhot place to touch your guy: right at the spot where his boys join his body. Form a ring with your thumb and forefinger around the top of his sack and squeeze gently. He'll think he's died and gone to heaven.
On Relationships
A. Research shows that men who take charge in the real world are most likely to give it up in bed. So if your guy's been complaining about stress at work lately, he's most likely to enjoy it if you tell him to call you "Ma'am" and break out the fuzzy handcuffs.
B. Presenting your man with a long list of honey-dos will only remind him of his mom. Go down your list and for each chore, ask yourself if you could do it instead. Then only pass along the ones that he absolutely has to take care of.
C. Listening to your guy go on about how hot starlets like Jessica Biel are is beyond annoying. Resist the urge to poke out his eyes with your stiletto, and say "I don't want to hear how sexy you think other women are--unless you want my analysis of which male celebs have the best abs."
Wow, that was a ridiculous amount of work. I have a newfound respect for Cosmo editors--making up bullshit out of thin air isn't easy!
On Body Language
A. Watch your guy's lips when he's sleeping. Even dudes who don't talk in their sleep may mouthe words that give you a hint about his true feelings.
B. Even if your guy hasn't dropped those three little words yet, his fingers might have. When a man feels a strong connection, he'll subconsciously create the "love" sign-language gesture while doing random things.
C. The way to your guy's heart is through his... feet? Believe it or not, watching the way his feet point during romantic moments can tell you whether he's being honest with you. A liar reflexively turns his feet inward; a man who's confident and relaxed turns them outward.
On Self-Improvement
A. Sleep on the opposite side of the bed than you're used to. You'll have a fresh perspective as soon as you wake up.
B. If you can't commit to a pet, get yourself the props. Just having a dog dish and collar around the house can provide a powerful pick-me-up.
C. If you've never been much of a reader, try the YA section of the bookstore. The books there are easy-to-read and have gripping stories--if you get busted, just say it's for your niece.
On Anatomy
A. Okay, so you know how to kiss. But what you probably don't know is that there's an undercover pleasure transmitter, the buccal nerve, surrounding the edges of the mouth.
B. Move aside G-spot; the newest hot zone is the L-spot! To find your L-spots, stroke the little creases between your outer and inner labia; there's a little strip on each side that's packed with supercharged nerve endings.
C. Another superhot place to touch your guy: right at the spot where his boys join his body. Form a ring with your thumb and forefinger around the top of his sack and squeeze gently. He'll think he's died and gone to heaven.
On Relationships
A. Research shows that men who take charge in the real world are most likely to give it up in bed. So if your guy's been complaining about stress at work lately, he's most likely to enjoy it if you tell him to call you "Ma'am" and break out the fuzzy handcuffs.
B. Presenting your man with a long list of honey-dos will only remind him of his mom. Go down your list and for each chore, ask yourself if you could do it instead. Then only pass along the ones that he absolutely has to take care of.
C. Listening to your guy go on about how hot starlets like Jessica Biel are is beyond annoying. Resist the urge to poke out his eyes with your stiletto, and say "I don't want to hear how sexy you think other women are--unless you want my analysis of which male celebs have the best abs."
Wow, that was a ridiculous amount of work. I have a newfound respect for Cosmo editors--making up bullshit out of thin air isn't easy!
Monday, October 12, 2009
Nappy headed ho.
You may have noticed from my photos that I have lovely thick, wavy red hair.
Yeah, that's basically horseshit. What I have--really--is an Afro. I have ultra-curly, tightly kinked dark brown hair. It grows out rather than down in nearly a perfect sphere. It's highly unprofessional and wacky-looking and there's no way I could work in my current job with the kind of crazy rebel hairdo that my scalp naturally grows. It's also been a source of considerable social distress; when I was in school I was bullied mercilessly for my weird hair, and even as an adult I've been embarrassed on morning-afters when my sleep-messed hair partly reverts to craziness.
When I wasn't working such a "conventional" job, when I was in college or working on indie films, I shaved my hair or cut it very short. It was so comfy! But that made me look like a lesbian, which had nearly as many social drawbacks as looking like a genetic freak. (It's amazing how many people will ask "are you a guy or a girl?" to a five-foot person with B-cup breasts and curved hips and a girlish face, if she has short hair. It's amazing how many people would ask that to anyone, but really now.)
So now I do stuff to my hair. I perma-straighten it with lye, dye it a sexier color with ammonia, flat-iron it every morning, tie it up, pin it down, and pour in a metric buttload of sticky junk to make it stay that way. I'd whine about having to have whitey's hair--but I am white! Blue eyes, freckly sunburny skin, Afro. Genetics just isn't a package deal.
I don't mind having the option to change my hair so drastically (and the red really is more vanity than oppression), but it bothers me that I have to do all this just to look "normal." That I would be perceived as deliberately rebellious if I didn't process my hair ten ways from Sunday.
I don't know if my hair wants to be free--it really was pretty tough to manage--but I wish I could at least try it out without being treated like I had a giant "I AM WACKY AND IRRESPONSIBLE" sign on my head.
Yeah, that's basically horseshit. What I have--really--is an Afro. I have ultra-curly, tightly kinked dark brown hair. It grows out rather than down in nearly a perfect sphere. It's highly unprofessional and wacky-looking and there's no way I could work in my current job with the kind of crazy rebel hairdo that my scalp naturally grows. It's also been a source of considerable social distress; when I was in school I was bullied mercilessly for my weird hair, and even as an adult I've been embarrassed on morning-afters when my sleep-messed hair partly reverts to craziness.
When I wasn't working such a "conventional" job, when I was in college or working on indie films, I shaved my hair or cut it very short. It was so comfy! But that made me look like a lesbian, which had nearly as many social drawbacks as looking like a genetic freak. (It's amazing how many people will ask "are you a guy or a girl?" to a five-foot person with B-cup breasts and curved hips and a girlish face, if she has short hair. It's amazing how many people would ask that to anyone, but really now.)
So now I do stuff to my hair. I perma-straighten it with lye, dye it a sexier color with ammonia, flat-iron it every morning, tie it up, pin it down, and pour in a metric buttload of sticky junk to make it stay that way. I'd whine about having to have whitey's hair--but I am white! Blue eyes, freckly sunburny skin, Afro. Genetics just isn't a package deal.
I don't mind having the option to change my hair so drastically (and the red really is more vanity than oppression), but it bothers me that I have to do all this just to look "normal." That I would be perceived as deliberately rebellious if I didn't process my hair ten ways from Sunday.
I don't know if my hair wants to be free--it really was pretty tough to manage--but I wish I could at least try it out without being treated like I had a giant "I AM WACKY AND IRRESPONSIBLE" sign on my head.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
A quiet Sunday afternoon on craigslist.
Looking for crazy on craigslist is like looking for D&D players at a fetish convention. Of all the easy targets, this is the easiest, and I know it. But it's still amusing. (Shout-out to the You Suck at Craigslist person, who does this every day.)
i want a baby - w4m
lookin for a black man only please that want to have a baby right now
I wonder if there's a document you can sign that's the equivalent of a pre-nup but for child support.
And hepatitis treatment.
And the baby's hepatitis treatment.
I want you to frisk me and make it hot.
I don't know if it's an unusual euphemism or if she got really turned on at a traffic stop once and wants to recapture the magic.
Hello,
We're the slut trainers, for lack of a better name.
We consist of five Black men, all well-endowed, all drug and disease-free, and all easy-going, well-mannered people.
Put simply, we're looking for willing women who want to explore themselves and let out their inner freak/slut/whore, or whatever you want to call it.
Basically, we're providing a service, for free. We provide you with a clean, safe environment and the space with which to enjoy and explore yourself, us and the deepest recesses of your sexuality and some perversions you probably wouldn't admit to your closest friends.
This ad went on for about four pages detailing their "service" (they will have sex with you) in great and unsettlingly professional detail. This isn't a bunch of horny guys, this is a serious organization dedicated to bettering humanity. I don't know if I want to fuck them, but I feel like I should at least send a donation.
I'm looking for a woman who loves showing it off in her tight and shiny spandex. Do you have a great ass that deserves to be noticed. Big tits that stretch your Lycra top. Do you love the feel of wearing painted on leggings with cute little hiking boots and a short jacket. The perfect look on a cool fall day. Want to walk around Green lake holding the arm of a tall handsome Daddy.
Please fulfill my fetish for free. My extremely specific fetish. In public, in one of the most heavily foot-trafficked areas of the city.
you--- still got your looks..in need of NSA relations...not in a trailer park or nursing home....
It's good to have standards.
36 year Italian seeks Asian or Younger
Asian, or younger. The logic here is blowing my mind.
'm looking for a BBW who feels like talking dirty and cumming nice and hard over the PHONE with a strange guy ASAP.
If it's on the phone, why do you need a BBW? Can't get enough of that thick curvy, um, voice?
I NEED HEA?????? - m4m
You need what?
I am 22 years old and with very much sexiness all around my sexy figure I want a man who can be my soul mate!
There's very much realness all around this real woman, I can tell.
hey i want to have a baby no strings attached at all if you want to help out email me i am a bbw
This is a different person from the first posting. Well, sperm banks are pretty expensive.
(I wonder if these people realize you don't generally get pregnant from having sex once? Even if you're timing it carefully--and I bet you anything they're not--a one-shot encounter really isn't that likely to produce a baby.)
I can trade or barter for house cleaning, repairs, cleaning, cooking, I am a jack of many trades. Contact me with what you are looking for and like to find like minded woman or CPLs.
So it's like prostitution, except instead of money, I get this guy sweeping my porch? What a... great deal.
There are always a few people on "casual encounters" who didn't get the subtext and post painfully earnest personal ads about how they like dogs and long walks and want to take it slow with someone who has a spiritual side and values family. I always feel bad for those people.
i want a baby - w4m
lookin for a black man only please that want to have a baby right now
I wonder if there's a document you can sign that's the equivalent of a pre-nup but for child support.
And hepatitis treatment.
And the baby's hepatitis treatment.
I want you to frisk me and make it hot.
I don't know if it's an unusual euphemism or if she got really turned on at a traffic stop once and wants to recapture the magic.
Hello,
We're the slut trainers, for lack of a better name.
We consist of five Black men, all well-endowed, all drug and disease-free, and all easy-going, well-mannered people.
Put simply, we're looking for willing women who want to explore themselves and let out their inner freak/slut/whore, or whatever you want to call it.
Basically, we're providing a service, for free. We provide you with a clean, safe environment and the space with which to enjoy and explore yourself, us and the deepest recesses of your sexuality and some perversions you probably wouldn't admit to your closest friends.
This ad went on for about four pages detailing their "service" (they will have sex with you) in great and unsettlingly professional detail. This isn't a bunch of horny guys, this is a serious organization dedicated to bettering humanity. I don't know if I want to fuck them, but I feel like I should at least send a donation.
I'm looking for a woman who loves showing it off in her tight and shiny spandex. Do you have a great ass that deserves to be noticed. Big tits that stretch your Lycra top. Do you love the feel of wearing painted on leggings with cute little hiking boots and a short jacket. The perfect look on a cool fall day. Want to walk around Green lake holding the arm of a tall handsome Daddy.
Please fulfill my fetish for free. My extremely specific fetish. In public, in one of the most heavily foot-trafficked areas of the city.
you--- still got your looks..in need of NSA relations...not in a trailer park or nursing home....
It's good to have standards.
36 year Italian seeks Asian or Younger
Asian, or younger. The logic here is blowing my mind.
'm looking for a BBW who feels like talking dirty and cumming nice and hard over the PHONE with a strange guy ASAP.
If it's on the phone, why do you need a BBW? Can't get enough of that thick curvy, um, voice?
I NEED HEA?????? - m4m
You need what?
I am 22 years old and with very much sexiness all around my sexy figure I want a man who can be my soul mate!
There's very much realness all around this real woman, I can tell.
hey i want to have a baby no strings attached at all if you want to help out email me i am a bbw
This is a different person from the first posting. Well, sperm banks are pretty expensive.
(I wonder if these people realize you don't generally get pregnant from having sex once? Even if you're timing it carefully--and I bet you anything they're not--a one-shot encounter really isn't that likely to produce a baby.)
I can trade or barter for house cleaning, repairs, cleaning, cooking, I am a jack of many trades. Contact me with what you are looking for and like to find like minded woman or CPLs.
So it's like prostitution, except instead of money, I get this guy sweeping my porch? What a... great deal.
There are always a few people on "casual encounters" who didn't get the subtext and post painfully earnest personal ads about how they like dogs and long walks and want to take it slow with someone who has a spiritual side and values family. I always feel bad for those people.
Piercing Bleg Followup.
Salt water helped dramatically. Thanks to everyone who suggested it! Check out my ear being not-gross!
(The tacky mystery-metal Piercing Pagoda earring is in an old piercing; the one that was giving me trouble is the one with the stud. So don't go "there's your problem.")
(The tacky mystery-metal Piercing Pagoda earring is in an old piercing; the one that was giving me trouble is the one with the stud. So don't go "there's your problem.")
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Why women have sex.
Because, dude, have you ever tried it? It's, like, amazing.
It's difficult to expand that to book-length, though, so instead we get this kind of bloviation.
"We do bring in men occasionally by way of contrast, but we wanted to focus exclusively on women so that the complexity of women's sexual psychology was not given the short shrift, so to speak," said Buss, a leading evolutionary psychologist.
No, I think you wanted to focus on women because:
A) The reader is assumed to be either a heterosexual man interested in unlocking the secrets to those mysterious creatures, or a functionally asexual woman interested in navel-gazing pop-psych
and
B) It goes without saying that all men need is a warm hole and thirty seconds, right? There's no need to do any research to confirm something that's obvious, duhh.
(I'm fascinated by how many men I know who've told me this, then gone into months-long girlfriend dramas where they expressed very subtle gradations of "I'm still attracted to her, right, but it's a different kind of attracted and there's someone new in my life now and I don't know if I would just hurt her at this point..." So much for warm holes.)
It turns out that women's reasons for having sex range from love to pure pleasure to a sense of duty to curiosity to curing a headache. Some women just want to please their partners, and others want an ego boost.
Humans engage in an incredibly common but societally meaningful activity for multiple reasons, stop the presses.
I'm going to write a book, "Why Women Have Lunch." Hunger is the obvious reason, but as my highly scientific survey reveals, women may also have lunch to socialize, to take a break from work, or even simply out of habit. Some women want the opportunity to try a new food, and others may want warm food on a cold day. Wow, women sure are complicated!
There is also evidence that sexual arousal is more complicated for women than for men, the authors report.
A study from Meston's lab showed a strong correlation between how erect a man's penis is and how aroused he says he is. By contrast, the link is much weaker between a woman's physical arousal (as measured inside her vagina) and the arousal she says she feels, the researchers found. This is why drugs to treat erectile dysfunction such as Viagra don't work as well in women, the authors said.
It's a two-way street, though; the man can see his wiener and go "oh, I guess I'm turned on now," whereas it's harder for a woman to know exactly how her vagina's reading to a photoplesmograph or however they're measuring it.
And Viagra doesn't work in women not because they're nebulously "complicated," but because they don't have wieners. I'm pretty sure you can have a raging little clitoral erection and still not be ready for sex if the rest of your system isn't up for it. It's analogous to saying "application of lubricant to the penis failed to ready the man for sex--men sure are complicated!"
That makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, even though men and women may not consciously think about their choices that way, the authors said. If the goal of a man is to spread his genes, he would need to look for signs of fertility in a woman, which are historically associated with physical cues, Buss said.
"The adaptive problem that women have had to solve is not simply picking a man who is fertile but a man who perhaps will invest in her, a man who won't inflict costs on her, a man who might have good genes that could be conveyed to her children," he said.
Oh God, "evolutionary psychology," my favorite fucking thing ever. My question this time around is, why is it subtle? Why would something so key to our fitness be subconscious? When I have a basic survival need--when I'm thirsty or cold or have an injury--I know it. The evolved desires for things like shelter and companionship are anything but subtle. Why would mate selection be the only one that's a wacky subliminal drive hidden even from ourselves?
And it's not like I select mates at seeming random and don't know why I felt that way until some smarty-pants psychologist comes and tells me. I like men who are intelligent, respectful, physically strong, have high sex drives, and share my geeky/kinky subculture--is there any mystery there? These are attributes that make them a better partner, not necessarily a better sperm-donor/investor, and I'm quite consciously aware of that.
(There are also some arbitrary ones, like my tendency to fall for blond guys or for Native American guys, but I don't see what these have to do with fertility or fatherhood either. More likely they're based on past experiences with men who were intelligent/etc. and also happened to look like that.)
A study from Rutgers University found that, during orgasm, women were able to tolerate 75 percent more pain.
I would've loved to be a participant in that study. (Which makes me wonder about self-selection of subjects, actually.)
A 26-year-old heterosexual woman wrote, "When I was single, I had sex for my own personal pleasure. Now that I am married, I have sex to please my husband. My own pleasure doesn't seem as important as his. I believe he feels the same way."
By "the same way," does she mean "the corresponding way," that he in turn values her pleasure more, or literally the same way, that they're both just doing it to get him off? Because the one doesn't fit the "women are so cooooomplicated" paradigm, and the other is a serious problem and shouldn't be looked at as the normal way of the world.
I'm sort of interested in buying this book, but I think it lacks context without a matched set, so I'll wait until "Why Men Have Sex" comes out. Should be soon, right?
It's difficult to expand that to book-length, though, so instead we get this kind of bloviation.
"We do bring in men occasionally by way of contrast, but we wanted to focus exclusively on women so that the complexity of women's sexual psychology was not given the short shrift, so to speak," said Buss, a leading evolutionary psychologist.
No, I think you wanted to focus on women because:
A) The reader is assumed to be either a heterosexual man interested in unlocking the secrets to those mysterious creatures, or a functionally asexual woman interested in navel-gazing pop-psych
and
B) It goes without saying that all men need is a warm hole and thirty seconds, right? There's no need to do any research to confirm something that's obvious, duhh.
(I'm fascinated by how many men I know who've told me this, then gone into months-long girlfriend dramas where they expressed very subtle gradations of "I'm still attracted to her, right, but it's a different kind of attracted and there's someone new in my life now and I don't know if I would just hurt her at this point..." So much for warm holes.)
It turns out that women's reasons for having sex range from love to pure pleasure to a sense of duty to curiosity to curing a headache. Some women just want to please their partners, and others want an ego boost.
Humans engage in an incredibly common but societally meaningful activity for multiple reasons, stop the presses.
I'm going to write a book, "Why Women Have Lunch." Hunger is the obvious reason, but as my highly scientific survey reveals, women may also have lunch to socialize, to take a break from work, or even simply out of habit. Some women want the opportunity to try a new food, and others may want warm food on a cold day. Wow, women sure are complicated!
There is also evidence that sexual arousal is more complicated for women than for men, the authors report.
A study from Meston's lab showed a strong correlation between how erect a man's penis is and how aroused he says he is. By contrast, the link is much weaker between a woman's physical arousal (as measured inside her vagina) and the arousal she says she feels, the researchers found. This is why drugs to treat erectile dysfunction such as Viagra don't work as well in women, the authors said.
It's a two-way street, though; the man can see his wiener and go "oh, I guess I'm turned on now," whereas it's harder for a woman to know exactly how her vagina's reading to a photoplesmograph or however they're measuring it.
And Viagra doesn't work in women not because they're nebulously "complicated," but because they don't have wieners. I'm pretty sure you can have a raging little clitoral erection and still not be ready for sex if the rest of your system isn't up for it. It's analogous to saying "application of lubricant to the penis failed to ready the man for sex--men sure are complicated!"
That makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, even though men and women may not consciously think about their choices that way, the authors said. If the goal of a man is to spread his genes, he would need to look for signs of fertility in a woman, which are historically associated with physical cues, Buss said.
"The adaptive problem that women have had to solve is not simply picking a man who is fertile but a man who perhaps will invest in her, a man who won't inflict costs on her, a man who might have good genes that could be conveyed to her children," he said.
Oh God, "evolutionary psychology," my favorite fucking thing ever. My question this time around is, why is it subtle? Why would something so key to our fitness be subconscious? When I have a basic survival need--when I'm thirsty or cold or have an injury--I know it. The evolved desires for things like shelter and companionship are anything but subtle. Why would mate selection be the only one that's a wacky subliminal drive hidden even from ourselves?
And it's not like I select mates at seeming random and don't know why I felt that way until some smarty-pants psychologist comes and tells me. I like men who are intelligent, respectful, physically strong, have high sex drives, and share my geeky/kinky subculture--is there any mystery there? These are attributes that make them a better partner, not necessarily a better sperm-donor/investor, and I'm quite consciously aware of that.
(There are also some arbitrary ones, like my tendency to fall for blond guys or for Native American guys, but I don't see what these have to do with fertility or fatherhood either. More likely they're based on past experiences with men who were intelligent/etc. and also happened to look like that.)
A study from Rutgers University found that, during orgasm, women were able to tolerate 75 percent more pain.
I would've loved to be a participant in that study. (Which makes me wonder about self-selection of subjects, actually.)
A 26-year-old heterosexual woman wrote, "When I was single, I had sex for my own personal pleasure. Now that I am married, I have sex to please my husband. My own pleasure doesn't seem as important as his. I believe he feels the same way."
By "the same way," does she mean "the corresponding way," that he in turn values her pleasure more, or literally the same way, that they're both just doing it to get him off? Because the one doesn't fit the "women are so cooooomplicated" paradigm, and the other is a serious problem and shouldn't be looked at as the normal way of the world.
I'm sort of interested in buying this book, but I think it lacks context without a matched set, so I'll wait until "Why Men Have Sex" comes out. Should be soon, right?
Friday, October 9, 2009
Descriptive and prescriptive feminism.
We're lucky we're not anglerfish. (For those not biology geeks: the male anglerfish is a fraction the size of the female, and early in life he attaches to her skin and all his organs except the gonads atrophy. He becomes part of her body, his only function to emit sperm when she lays eggs.) It would be hard for a feminist anglerfish to argue for equal roles in society. Males can't even eat on their own.
Human males and females can both eat, are roughly the same size, and even come in the same range of colors. We got off pretty easy on the dimorphism front.
But not completely. For all we've got in common, there are some differences that can't be denied. Like, the babies only come out of one sex. And there may be strong women and weak men but for practical purposes men get a lot more muscle a lot easier. As for intellectual differences--there's no reason one sex couldn't be on average smarter. I'm not saying it's so, it's definitely not pronounced, but it's possible there's a statistically significant gap. The ideological repugnance of the idea that men are naturally better at abstract reasoning doesn't translate to physical impossibility.
(Yeah, says a lady.)
What I'm getting at is that it's useless for feminism to be strictly descriptive--to say that men and women are the same may not be true. It's useful to point out when gender dichotomies are false or exaggerated, but flatly stating that there can be no intellectual differences (or that all differences must be culturally conditioned) is dishonest. And it's a vulnerable viewpoint; if a true gap between the sexes is proven, does that mean we should go back in the kitchen after all?
It's a different matter entirely to ask whether men and women should be the same. Feminism can be prescriptive--instead of claiming to return to the natural order, we can fucking improve it! We've got technology now! And feminism is part of the technology that raises us above animals. Just as medicine frees us from our animal bodies' vulnerability to disease, feminism frees us from the biological destines of our animal bodies. The builds and "purposes" of male and female bodies may be hopelessly unequal, but as thinking humans we can repurpose those bodies to our own damn ends. A species that brought forth cities from the mud and fields from the desert would be pretty pitiful if it wasted the potential of half its population just because they're not built the same.
This silicon was meant to be sand but I'm using it to communicate with the world--my body was meant to be a baby factory but I'm using it to think and travel and save lives and rant on the Internet. It doesn't matter what I am; it matters what I can be.
Human males and females can both eat, are roughly the same size, and even come in the same range of colors. We got off pretty easy on the dimorphism front.
But not completely. For all we've got in common, there are some differences that can't be denied. Like, the babies only come out of one sex. And there may be strong women and weak men but for practical purposes men get a lot more muscle a lot easier. As for intellectual differences--there's no reason one sex couldn't be on average smarter. I'm not saying it's so, it's definitely not pronounced, but it's possible there's a statistically significant gap. The ideological repugnance of the idea that men are naturally better at abstract reasoning doesn't translate to physical impossibility.
(Yeah, says a lady.)
What I'm getting at is that it's useless for feminism to be strictly descriptive--to say that men and women are the same may not be true. It's useful to point out when gender dichotomies are false or exaggerated, but flatly stating that there can be no intellectual differences (or that all differences must be culturally conditioned) is dishonest. And it's a vulnerable viewpoint; if a true gap between the sexes is proven, does that mean we should go back in the kitchen after all?
It's a different matter entirely to ask whether men and women should be the same. Feminism can be prescriptive--instead of claiming to return to the natural order, we can fucking improve it! We've got technology now! And feminism is part of the technology that raises us above animals. Just as medicine frees us from our animal bodies' vulnerability to disease, feminism frees us from the biological destines of our animal bodies. The builds and "purposes" of male and female bodies may be hopelessly unequal, but as thinking humans we can repurpose those bodies to our own damn ends. A species that brought forth cities from the mud and fields from the desert would be pretty pitiful if it wasted the potential of half its population just because they're not built the same.
This silicon was meant to be sand but I'm using it to communicate with the world--my body was meant to be a baby factory but I'm using it to think and travel and save lives and rant on the Internet. It doesn't matter what I am; it matters what I can be.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Underutilization.
I should really stop buying solo sex toys and porn. I always disappoint myself. I get all excited about the new Triple Whirring Butthole Stimulator With Real Grinding Action, and then I come in ten seconds. If I want to actually experience anything besides orgasm, I really have to stick to my hands and imagination.
Woe is me, huh?
(I've posted on this before, but: my sexual response cycle is completely different with a partner. I'm like another person. Still a rather responsive person, but with utterly different patterns of arousal and orgasm. I don't even want to be touched in the same places that I touch myself. The really interesting part is that if a partner is there psychologically but not physically--if he's ordering me over the phone or Internet what to do, or he's watching but not touching--my body goes into partner mode.)
Woe is me, huh?
(I've posted on this before, but: my sexual response cycle is completely different with a partner. I'm like another person. Still a rather responsive person, but with utterly different patterns of arousal and orgasm. I don't even want to be touched in the same places that I touch myself. The really interesting part is that if a partner is there psychologically but not physically--if he's ordering me over the phone or Internet what to do, or he's watching but not touching--my body goes into partner mode.)
Monday, October 5, 2009
A Strange Kinship.
The Kinky Crafters' Munch was, by far, the most enjoyable munch I've ever been to.
I think it's because it wasn't about sex. Everyone brought their knitting project or their sketchpad or their jewelry kit and had that as a point of grounding--at first you could work quietly rather than sit awkwardly, and the work became a neutral, natural place to start conversations that was a lot less painful then "hi, I just met you, let's trade details about our sex lives." I'm not a shy person, but munches that jump right into the "DEFINE YOURSELF, FRESHMEAT!" intimidate me--a setting where you can start out with "ooh, is that Byzantine chain?" is a whole lot more comfortable.
And comfortable really is the word, because Internet drama and play-party pressure can make me forget how much I actually like kinky people. Just to hang out with. They're geeks! I'm a geek! I can dig it! And when sex and relationships come up in conversation I don't have to self-censor, and nobody makes the assumption that everyone is straight/cis/monogamous/vanilla unless otherwise specified. The only thing that does go for granted is that everyone has the right to self-define--something that may annoy me when some dork decides to self-define as Master Darkblood Dragonrage, but that's a fair trade for the right to be taken seriously when I say who I am.
There was just a little bit of a sense of a weight off my shoulders, even when we were talking about yarn or radio stations, of being among people who wouldn't be shocked by anything about me. These were people who talked comfortably and openly about having a Daddy, about having a husband and a boyfriend, about being happy their girlfriend found someone hot to fuck--in short, about fucking and loving and living in ways not represented on network television.
Of course it's not my first experience with a kinky community but it was one of my most positive ones. I didn't get turned on, but I got a serious case of the warm fuzzies.
(Also, oh my God do I feel better about my body now. At a BDSM meeting I'm practically a little slip of a thing just by being under 200 pounds. I don't mean that as schadenfreude--I mean that if a 350-pound woman can talk about her body and show it off and have men admire it like it ain't no thing, what business do I have wallowing in "oh no, I'm not pretty like the ladies on the teevee" self-pity?)
I think it's because it wasn't about sex. Everyone brought their knitting project or their sketchpad or their jewelry kit and had that as a point of grounding--at first you could work quietly rather than sit awkwardly, and the work became a neutral, natural place to start conversations that was a lot less painful then "hi, I just met you, let's trade details about our sex lives." I'm not a shy person, but munches that jump right into the "DEFINE YOURSELF, FRESHMEAT!" intimidate me--a setting where you can start out with "ooh, is that Byzantine chain?" is a whole lot more comfortable.
And comfortable really is the word, because Internet drama and play-party pressure can make me forget how much I actually like kinky people. Just to hang out with. They're geeks! I'm a geek! I can dig it! And when sex and relationships come up in conversation I don't have to self-censor, and nobody makes the assumption that everyone is straight/cis/monogamous/vanilla unless otherwise specified. The only thing that does go for granted is that everyone has the right to self-define--something that may annoy me when some dork decides to self-define as Master Darkblood Dragonrage, but that's a fair trade for the right to be taken seriously when I say who I am.
There was just a little bit of a sense of a weight off my shoulders, even when we were talking about yarn or radio stations, of being among people who wouldn't be shocked by anything about me. These were people who talked comfortably and openly about having a Daddy, about having a husband and a boyfriend, about being happy their girlfriend found someone hot to fuck--in short, about fucking and loving and living in ways not represented on network television.
Of course it's not my first experience with a kinky community but it was one of my most positive ones. I didn't get turned on, but I got a serious case of the warm fuzzies.
(Also, oh my God do I feel better about my body now. At a BDSM meeting I'm practically a little slip of a thing just by being under 200 pounds. I don't mean that as schadenfreude--I mean that if a 350-pound woman can talk about her body and show it off and have men admire it like it ain't no thing, what business do I have wallowing in "oh no, I'm not pretty like the ladies on the teevee" self-pity?)
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Pervocracy Stew.
How long has it been since I last posted fun pictures? Too long!
So for your brief amusement, my butt, my boobs and pinchy things and hooray for nakey!
And a brief link, which I won't try your patience by fully eviscerating: Twisty Faster on what the "revolution" actually entails. Basically that we'd stop having families and being feminine (because only men want that, we all really want to be hairy and alone) and therefore all of civilization would restructure itself and religion and economy and government would crumble. (We want that too.)
And a weirder link, to something that's probably a great idea but you'd look so painfully ridiculous: Fleshlight cushions! Just plug it in and go to town like you were really having sex with a small square mattress-person! I think it's brilliant.
And a programming note: I'll be at the Kinky Crafters' Munch from 3-6 PM at the CSPC today, so if you're in Seattle and want to meet a real-life Holly Pervocracy, come say hi. (There's a $5 suggested donation for the event, membership not required, 18+ obviously.)
EDIT: Durrr. Fixed Twisty link.
So for your brief amusement, my butt, my boobs and pinchy things and hooray for nakey!
And a brief link, which I won't try your patience by fully eviscerating: Twisty Faster on what the "revolution" actually entails. Basically that we'd stop having families and being feminine (because only men want that, we all really want to be hairy and alone) and therefore all of civilization would restructure itself and religion and economy and government would crumble. (We want that too.)
And a weirder link, to something that's probably a great idea but you'd look so painfully ridiculous: Fleshlight cushions! Just plug it in and go to town like you were really having sex with a small square mattress-person! I think it's brilliant.
And a programming note: I'll be at the Kinky Crafters' Munch from 3-6 PM at the CSPC today, so if you're in Seattle and want to meet a real-life Holly Pervocracy, come say hi. (There's a $5 suggested donation for the event, membership not required, 18+ obviously.)
EDIT: Durrr. Fixed Twisty link.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Piercing Bleg.
I'm asking here because I--being some sort of stereotyping jerk--figure maybe perverts would know about piercings.
I got my earlobes pierced about six weeks ago. The left one has healed nicely and is now all clean with a tidy, well-defined hole. The right one got gross. It's reddened, swollen, achy, bleeds if I touch the earring, and is making no progress toward healing. (There's no pus and it's not SUPER swollen so I don't think it's badly infected, but it's not right either.)
Does anyone have any brilliant suggestions? I've been washing it with 0.12% benzalkonium chloride twice a day and otherwise trying to leave it alone. I welcome any advice on how to turn this from ear soup into a nice pretty piercing.
I got my earlobes pierced about six weeks ago. The left one has healed nicely and is now all clean with a tidy, well-defined hole. The right one got gross. It's reddened, swollen, achy, bleeds if I touch the earring, and is making no progress toward healing. (There's no pus and it's not SUPER swollen so I don't think it's badly infected, but it's not right either.)
Does anyone have any brilliant suggestions? I've been washing it with 0.12% benzalkonium chloride twice a day and otherwise trying to leave it alone. I welcome any advice on how to turn this from ear soup into a nice pretty piercing.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Why female dominants are really submissive: the doublethink that will not die!
I said I'd get back to Twisty (I know she's Jill now, but it's so much catchier!) and I am. Her next post addresses female dominance, and why it's exactly the same as female submission. Somehow.
What maidden refers to as “the opposite situation” isn’t opposite at all. Any practice that furthers the interests of patriarchal oppression, regardless of the sex, gender, race, diet, type of refrigerator, underwear, or political affiliation of the practitioner, is crappy and antifeminist. This includes sexay domination practiced by women; these behaviors are dictated by male fetish. As are all feminine behaviors.
These are, I'm guessing, the words of someone who doesn't know any female dominants. Read any couple posts in Bitchy Jones' blog; does she come off as a woman who only dominates on a "honey, could you please put on the leather corset tonight?" The woman's not just a dominant but a sadist, in that sorta scary oh-jeez-she's-not kidding way that not all dominants are, and although she certainly satisfies certain male fetishes, I can guarantee you she wasn't created by them.
I wonder, why doesn't this reverse? Why is the situation where a man is pressured into BDSM (in either role) by a woman not considered? If a man's behavior is being dictated by female fetish, is he still somehow secretly in charge?
And that last sentence. I realize she said "feminine" behaviors and not "female," but still, Jesus. Apparently all of women's culture, everything passed down from mother to daughter, from family traditions to fashion secrets, is really men's culture. And since men's culture is obviously men's culture, and shared culture is unthinkable of course, we've got nothing. Women have been part of civilization umpty-thousand years and created no legacy whatsoever. Maybe we are dull and weak-willed after all.
"Is it down to a choice between lesbianism and asexuality?"
Not even lesbians and asexuals are 100% patriarchy-free. Its ubiquity, see, is what makes patriarchy the dominant paradigm.
Okay, so my question is, if everyone is all patriarched up, why pick on heterosexuals/kinksters/homemakers/etc in particular? If patriarchy is the Original Sin in every human soul, why come down on sexuality and femininity like they were the enemies?
Sadly, I fear that many readers are reluctant to fully embrace the horrific truth that patriarchy isn’t just some abstract academic conceit. The don’t wanna face that they themselves, as members of an honest-to-fuck sex class, are well and truly screwed.
Screwed. What does that mean? I'm gonna die? I'm gonna be beat up? I'm gonna lose my job? When I say I'm "screwed" it means a bad thing will happen to me soon. The condition of "this entirely theoretical label which is applied to you by definition, will continue to apply to you" is hardly "screwed."
Anyway, if I'm screwed either way I might as well have awesome sex while I'm at it.
That was a short post, covered no new ground ("people don't really want what they say they want," yawwwwn--still shockingly psychopathic, but you know, same old psychopathy) and I still have ire to burn, so let's do the comments!
Realizing that patriarchy is real, and is the “matrix” in which every single action of every group and individual takes place–in the bedroom or out, is sickening, but also can be freeing.
Not freeing from responsibility to try to make change and to live a life according to one’s moral code, but freeing from that sense of “I’m doing everything “right”, why 1. can’t I reach my goals, 2. do I feel so awful all the time, 3. don’t people’s actions correspond to what they’re saying, 4. etc.”
Actually, you might just be a loser. I have it on excellent authority that there are happy women on Earth, at least inasmuch as there are happy people. I'm twenty-three and I've already lived some goals I thought I'd never reach, and on the balance I don't feel awful most days. Sure, I got harassed at the ambulance company--but I also get to drive an ambulance every day, and whine as I may, I love that. And the patriarchy didn't keep me from it.
maidden, it’s okay if you “prefer” to go blissfully back into the Matrix and “enjoy” your artificial steak. The P tells you that it’s juicy and delicious. Eat up. But please don’t pretend that’s truly “living”.
I always thought Cypher had a point, actually. When you get released from the Matrix you pretty much eat bacteria mush and live in a crappy little cave. Your experiences in the Matrix may not be "authentic" in the sense of physical reality, but they are authentically experiences and your enjoyment of that steak is just as enjoy-y.
I don't know what any of this has to do with having a morally correct sex life. If male-dominant sex isn't "really" sex... I think maybe I wouldn't like real sex.
Count me in for the Feminist Revolt! Maybe the BDSMers can bring weapons.
We can. A lot of them. We know how to use them. Which side do you want us on? Think carefully.
Start where you can: don’t stand in the middle of the grocery store saying “What kind of cheese does he like?” (if you have a Nigel). Get what you like. If other people don’t like your choices they can do the work and make *their* choices.
But the situation would be exactly the same if you were shopping for a woman! That's not feminist, that's self-centered. And it misses the point of what a "Nigel" is supposed to be. A partner, ideally, should be someone you want to make happy, not because they're male but because they're part of your life and you value them. I don't buy him cheese because I'm cowed; I buy it because his cheese-joy is my cheese-joy, and his cheese-sorrow my cheese-sorrow.
Won’t we continue to be “women” even if we remove “men” from the equation? Because no matter how much I am able to intellectually recognize the moral depravity, dangers, and illusion of the gender binary, I still call myself a woman and still self-define as woman, and am a woman. Even if I can imagine myself existing in a world in which “woman” isn’t even a word, because the concept of dividing humans into categories based on silly, not-even-universal traits is incomprehensible (because in this imaginary world, gender does not exist)? Gender, for me, will always exist. So I can never live in a post-patriarchal world.
That's true. But maybe someday you can live in a world of physical safety, of material abundance, of spiritual awareness and intellectual freedom. And even if that world still has dudes and ladies I still think it would be pretty nice.
I was out on my motorbike a while back, and was having trouble getting it started after I stopped for gas. A no-doubt well-meaning man came over and ‘helped’ by which I meant got in the way and offered unsolicited advice. And do you know what I did? I said ‘oh thank you’ and smiled at him gratefully as he ineffectively futzed with the bike, and listened to him pontificate, and talked to him in a nice voice, and reassured him that I’d be fine, etc. Do you know what I wish I’d done? I wish I’d said in a firm curt voice, thank you for offering to help but I understand this bike and you don’t, and I’d like you to go away please. Because I’ve been trained to respond to men in the former way rather than in the latter way, and in the back of my mind I was thinking ‘what if my response to him makes him angry?’ and that made me afraid. [...] If something like that happens again, I may, despite wishing I wouldn’t, respond in exactly the same way, because the penalty for not responding gender-correctly is ‘bitch’ or worse, and I’m very vulnerable on a bike.
No. You, individually, were a weenie, and you need to own up to it, because right now you're still being a weenie by blaming the world. Plenty of women have turned down unwanted help from plenty of men. You can become stronger if you try, and looking down at your vagina and going "no, I can't possibly, everyone's against me" is the action of a coward, not a woman.
But the joke is on the superstrong submissives, because now, whenever you experience sexual pleasure, you get to experience fear and pain. Your body will bypass your conscious mind and someday you’ll jerk away from a soft touch as from a hot stove.
Huh??? This does not actually happen to humans.
The best solution is to keep all fetuses female and then let children choose their own puberties depending on what physical traits they want to develop and when. Then if they want they can get a stem-cell penis attached when they turn 18 and pass a test to get their dicker’s license, subject to revocation by the state if convicted of misuse.
Fascinating. And making maleness an earned privilege, with femaleness as a punishment, would definitely solve all our problems.
I’ve been told I’m sexist, a whinger, bitter, a fruit and nut job – you’ve heard them all before. You can see people’s eyes glaze over as soon as I open my mouth.
Yeah, that's probably because you're such a beautiful rebel hero, the world just isn't ready for you.
Plus, If you participate in submission to patriarchal standards to keep sane and deal with it, then good. better to not burn out before the revolution.
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS "REVOLUTION" SERIOUSLY. Some of the commenters seem to use it as a shorthand for a gradual turnaround in the culture, and some of them seem to see it as a single catastrophic event. The first group probably aren't so different from me even if they use more dramatic terms; the second group are cuckoo crazypants. And the weirdest part about the crazypants faction is that they seem so uninterested in the pre-revolutionary world. All this noise about hating the patriarchy and this person comes out and says she's going to go along with it for her own convenience, never mind beliefs or progress. It's almost like the worst interpretations of dispensationalist Christianity--nothing before the Rapture matters, and everything afterwards will be perfect, so why bother to put your house in order?
Dang it all! I said “If it’s patriarchy…” I meant “When it’s patriarchy…”
figleaf
I'm only quoting this comment because figleaf (who I've met, and he's a smart, insightful guy and as feminist as they come) is here correcting a previous comment... which is nowhere to be found. I guess he just wasn't feminist enough.
It's one thing to delete abuse and trolling, but Twisty prunes and cultivates her comment section like a carefully trimmed (not to mention deliberately stunted) bonsai of crazy. The outcome is to create the illusion of a very different discussion than the one her readers would like to actually have. What a safe space.
What maidden refers to as “the opposite situation” isn’t opposite at all. Any practice that furthers the interests of patriarchal oppression, regardless of the sex, gender, race, diet, type of refrigerator, underwear, or political affiliation of the practitioner, is crappy and antifeminist. This includes sexay domination practiced by women; these behaviors are dictated by male fetish. As are all feminine behaviors.
These are, I'm guessing, the words of someone who doesn't know any female dominants. Read any couple posts in Bitchy Jones' blog; does she come off as a woman who only dominates on a "honey, could you please put on the leather corset tonight?" The woman's not just a dominant but a sadist, in that sorta scary oh-jeez-she's-not kidding way that not all dominants are, and although she certainly satisfies certain male fetishes, I can guarantee you she wasn't created by them.
I wonder, why doesn't this reverse? Why is the situation where a man is pressured into BDSM (in either role) by a woman not considered? If a man's behavior is being dictated by female fetish, is he still somehow secretly in charge?
And that last sentence. I realize she said "feminine" behaviors and not "female," but still, Jesus. Apparently all of women's culture, everything passed down from mother to daughter, from family traditions to fashion secrets, is really men's culture. And since men's culture is obviously men's culture, and shared culture is unthinkable of course, we've got nothing. Women have been part of civilization umpty-thousand years and created no legacy whatsoever. Maybe we are dull and weak-willed after all.
"Is it down to a choice between lesbianism and asexuality?"
Not even lesbians and asexuals are 100% patriarchy-free. Its ubiquity, see, is what makes patriarchy the dominant paradigm.
Okay, so my question is, if everyone is all patriarched up, why pick on heterosexuals/kinksters/homemakers/etc in particular? If patriarchy is the Original Sin in every human soul, why come down on sexuality and femininity like they were the enemies?
Sadly, I fear that many readers are reluctant to fully embrace the horrific truth that patriarchy isn’t just some abstract academic conceit. The don’t wanna face that they themselves, as members of an honest-to-fuck sex class, are well and truly screwed.
Screwed. What does that mean? I'm gonna die? I'm gonna be beat up? I'm gonna lose my job? When I say I'm "screwed" it means a bad thing will happen to me soon. The condition of "this entirely theoretical label which is applied to you by definition, will continue to apply to you" is hardly "screwed."
Anyway, if I'm screwed either way I might as well have awesome sex while I'm at it.
That was a short post, covered no new ground ("people don't really want what they say they want," yawwwwn--still shockingly psychopathic, but you know, same old psychopathy) and I still have ire to burn, so let's do the comments!
Realizing that patriarchy is real, and is the “matrix” in which every single action of every group and individual takes place–in the bedroom or out, is sickening, but also can be freeing.
Not freeing from responsibility to try to make change and to live a life according to one’s moral code, but freeing from that sense of “I’m doing everything “right”, why 1. can’t I reach my goals, 2. do I feel so awful all the time, 3. don’t people’s actions correspond to what they’re saying, 4. etc.”
Actually, you might just be a loser. I have it on excellent authority that there are happy women on Earth, at least inasmuch as there are happy people. I'm twenty-three and I've already lived some goals I thought I'd never reach, and on the balance I don't feel awful most days. Sure, I got harassed at the ambulance company--but I also get to drive an ambulance every day, and whine as I may, I love that. And the patriarchy didn't keep me from it.
maidden, it’s okay if you “prefer” to go blissfully back into the Matrix and “enjoy” your artificial steak. The P tells you that it’s juicy and delicious. Eat up. But please don’t pretend that’s truly “living”.
I always thought Cypher had a point, actually. When you get released from the Matrix you pretty much eat bacteria mush and live in a crappy little cave. Your experiences in the Matrix may not be "authentic" in the sense of physical reality, but they are authentically experiences and your enjoyment of that steak is just as enjoy-y.
I don't know what any of this has to do with having a morally correct sex life. If male-dominant sex isn't "really" sex... I think maybe I wouldn't like real sex.
Count me in for the Feminist Revolt! Maybe the BDSMers can bring weapons.
We can. A lot of them. We know how to use them. Which side do you want us on? Think carefully.
Start where you can: don’t stand in the middle of the grocery store saying “What kind of cheese does he like?” (if you have a Nigel). Get what you like. If other people don’t like your choices they can do the work and make *their* choices.
But the situation would be exactly the same if you were shopping for a woman! That's not feminist, that's self-centered. And it misses the point of what a "Nigel" is supposed to be. A partner, ideally, should be someone you want to make happy, not because they're male but because they're part of your life and you value them. I don't buy him cheese because I'm cowed; I buy it because his cheese-joy is my cheese-joy, and his cheese-sorrow my cheese-sorrow.
Won’t we continue to be “women” even if we remove “men” from the equation? Because no matter how much I am able to intellectually recognize the moral depravity, dangers, and illusion of the gender binary, I still call myself a woman and still self-define as woman, and am a woman. Even if I can imagine myself existing in a world in which “woman” isn’t even a word, because the concept of dividing humans into categories based on silly, not-even-universal traits is incomprehensible (because in this imaginary world, gender does not exist)? Gender, for me, will always exist. So I can never live in a post-patriarchal world.
That's true. But maybe someday you can live in a world of physical safety, of material abundance, of spiritual awareness and intellectual freedom. And even if that world still has dudes and ladies I still think it would be pretty nice.
I was out on my motorbike a while back, and was having trouble getting it started after I stopped for gas. A no-doubt well-meaning man came over and ‘helped’ by which I meant got in the way and offered unsolicited advice. And do you know what I did? I said ‘oh thank you’ and smiled at him gratefully as he ineffectively futzed with the bike, and listened to him pontificate, and talked to him in a nice voice, and reassured him that I’d be fine, etc. Do you know what I wish I’d done? I wish I’d said in a firm curt voice, thank you for offering to help but I understand this bike and you don’t, and I’d like you to go away please. Because I’ve been trained to respond to men in the former way rather than in the latter way, and in the back of my mind I was thinking ‘what if my response to him makes him angry?’ and that made me afraid. [...] If something like that happens again, I may, despite wishing I wouldn’t, respond in exactly the same way, because the penalty for not responding gender-correctly is ‘bitch’ or worse, and I’m very vulnerable on a bike.
No. You, individually, were a weenie, and you need to own up to it, because right now you're still being a weenie by blaming the world. Plenty of women have turned down unwanted help from plenty of men. You can become stronger if you try, and looking down at your vagina and going "no, I can't possibly, everyone's against me" is the action of a coward, not a woman.
But the joke is on the superstrong submissives, because now, whenever you experience sexual pleasure, you get to experience fear and pain. Your body will bypass your conscious mind and someday you’ll jerk away from a soft touch as from a hot stove.
Huh??? This does not actually happen to humans.
The best solution is to keep all fetuses female and then let children choose their own puberties depending on what physical traits they want to develop and when. Then if they want they can get a stem-cell penis attached when they turn 18 and pass a test to get their dicker’s license, subject to revocation by the state if convicted of misuse.
Fascinating. And making maleness an earned privilege, with femaleness as a punishment, would definitely solve all our problems.
I’ve been told I’m sexist, a whinger, bitter, a fruit and nut job – you’ve heard them all before. You can see people’s eyes glaze over as soon as I open my mouth.
Yeah, that's probably because you're such a beautiful rebel hero, the world just isn't ready for you.
Plus, If you participate in submission to patriarchal standards to keep sane and deal with it, then good. better to not burn out before the revolution.
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS "REVOLUTION" SERIOUSLY. Some of the commenters seem to use it as a shorthand for a gradual turnaround in the culture, and some of them seem to see it as a single catastrophic event. The first group probably aren't so different from me even if they use more dramatic terms; the second group are cuckoo crazypants. And the weirdest part about the crazypants faction is that they seem so uninterested in the pre-revolutionary world. All this noise about hating the patriarchy and this person comes out and says she's going to go along with it for her own convenience, never mind beliefs or progress. It's almost like the worst interpretations of dispensationalist Christianity--nothing before the Rapture matters, and everything afterwards will be perfect, so why bother to put your house in order?
Dang it all! I said “If it’s patriarchy…” I meant “When it’s patriarchy…”
figleaf
I'm only quoting this comment because figleaf (who I've met, and he's a smart, insightful guy and as feminist as they come) is here correcting a previous comment... which is nowhere to be found. I guess he just wasn't feminist enough.
It's one thing to delete abuse and trolling, but Twisty prunes and cultivates her comment section like a carefully trimmed (not to mention deliberately stunted) bonsai of crazy. The outcome is to create the illusion of a very different discussion than the one her readers would like to actually have. What a safe space.
Another type of woman Twisty Faster hates!
Before I even begin, I want to mention something: when I first became interested in BDSM, my boyfriend at the time was very vanilla and barely knew such things existed. He was game enough to slap me around a little on request, but it was definitely not his idea.
Anyway, Twisty Faster says entirely predictable things about BDSM.
It is a myth that self-expression (on radical feminist blogs or elsewhere) is a health-giving antidote to mental and physical diseases precipitated by dangerous levels of pent-up creativity or opinions. Self-expression is merely a pop-psychology franchise that grants captive audiences to the self-absorbed.
Boy don't it take one to know one.
[Also, I have no idea what this has to do with anything but she goes on for four paragraphs about it.]
When stating an opinion in the comments section of a radical feminist blog, it’s stupid to begin with the personal pronoun I. ... The truth is, you are boring. You exude ennui from every pore. Any sane reader would rather have root canal than subject herself to your moldy old first-person secretions. But, by expunging boring old you from the subject of your statement, you might stand half a chance of actually engaging in discourse that people give half a crap about.
I don't see why this is the case. As a child of pop-psych, I was taught to speak in "I" statements, especially when I'm arguing. I believe it doesn't mean that I'm only talking about myself, but that I'm acknowledging my limitations--I only know what I know, so saying "this is my belief" is less hubristic than trying to say "this is the way it is." When I say "I don't see why," I admit that a statement could make sense (on Mars or something), but this reader sure can't make head nor tail.
Only through obedience can you know the freedom that is slavery! Only through discipline can you revel in the love that is hate! Only through appeasement of the oppressor can you experience the unfathomable mysteries of the great submissive gift of unconditional masochism!
Well... yeah.
Also, I don't see how this is worse than conventional heterosexual sex. That also "appeases" the "oppressor," (while appeasing the shit out of me, if anyone cares) it's just more popular. If the goal is to deny men pleasure, you've got a lot more work to do.
For it takes great strength, Grasshopper, to order patent leather spandex French maid outfits off the internet so you can get off sucking up to some asshole who gets off on rape fantasies.
Wait... I'm that asshole! They are my fantasies! MINE! I want these things to bring me joy! I don't know about great strength (although taking a beating takes quite a bit, don't knock it), but I know what I want, and I wanted these things before any man wanted them from me.
That was barely about BDSM. She only touched on it in two sentences. It was much more about "this may look like a blog with a comment section, but it's actually my personal fiefdom in which I decree the form and content of all opinions." Which, hey, it's technically feasible and not illegal, so I guess if she wants to delete everything that isn't virulently antisocial and composed in iambic pentameter, she can go have fun with that.
Oh, but that comment section. That's always the entertaining part. Let's get to that.
I think that when some people are writing blogs they should try to be a little less judgemental about how some people choose to write their personal opinions because certain people ought to know that a lot of people don’t have fancy spell checking computers because they might have spent all their fucking money on super CUTE!!! leather thingies and just because I have black bangs and look a little like Bettie Page doesn’t mean that others really ought to judge me just because I’m into the life style because I am imprinted that way OK?
My spellchecker doesn't stop me from using the word "I," it must be a bug. My spellchecker also doesn't remind me to discount the opinions (and finances???) of people based on their hallucinated fashion choices. What a cheapass spellchecker.
...women like this exist to shit on things. ‘I actively try to be everything you hate!’ A nasty brand of narcissist – they get off on it. People like her are best ignored and were probably an only- child. They’re no different to anyone else and yet think they’re Gods.
Boy don't it take one to know one. Anyway, when you hate so many things, it's hard for me not to be a few of them. And anyway when you go to your average BDSM gathering there isn't anyone present who doesn't approve, but I promise you we don't just play Heads-Up-Seven-Up and say "let's tell the radfems we were beating each other in here, they'll go nuts."
“My kinky former partner was my equal in every way”
Equal in every way except, I am obliged to suggest, insofar as you were a member of the sex class and he wasn’t, the only way that really matters.
This is Twisty herself talking, and getting quite efficiently to the differences between her breed of feminism and mine. I'd rather have the best life I can have here and now, and be equal to my partner even if I can't be equal to all men. She doesn't seem to find anything worthy of hope in the current world order. And in doing so, she always manages to sound a bit sexist herself--saying that women are "sex class" even when no specific man is oppressing them makes it sound like the problem is with women themselves.
I always thought the problem was "a lot of men treat you like you're the sex class," but it's very different to say "you are the sex class."
BDSM is simply an extension, the progress down a continuum, that many of us already engage in everyday. If those Swiffer ads continue, we may all come to understand exactly how people are sexualized to certain abusive concepts, like the “erotic” experience of mopping the floor. Or the orgasmic joy of doing laundry. Ahh, the pleasures of unpaid mandated labor, why, it’s almost like foreplay already.
I actually don't mind mopping the floor. If I didn't, the floor would be gross! I might resent doing it for a partner who doesn't pitch in, but I have no aspiration to never mop the floor.
Anyway, this doesn't fit with my observation that kinky women are rarely the most oppressed. It's not like BDSM clubs are full of migrant laborers and street hookers--it seems like middle and upper-middle class women, who are usually fairly powerful in their "real" lives, make up the majority of female submissives.
The properly empowerful response to external interrogations of one’s stated causes of personal empowerfulment is not justification through extended dialectic, personal anecdote, or terse “but I like it!” statements. Such responses indicate a distinct lack of empowerfulment, in fact.
But I like it. I like it! I really, actually, from here to there with no reason, like it! I don't know what else to say! I'm throwing up my hands! I like what I like and I want it love it enjoy it desire it LIKE IT.
And that's what matters. Why is hitting women wrong in the first place? Because they don't like it.
Blame the fucking shitheads, the rapists, the willfully ignorant. Blame the motherfucking patriarchy and burn down the houses of those who sell it to us as “empowerment.”
You'll be burning down a lot of women's houses.
Oh, for goodness’ sake. I’m just asking for an argument instead of just “BDSM is gross. And your writing sucks.” [...]
I am also asking for an argument against all het sex that amounts to more than “How can the oppressed give consent?” and perhaps takes account of reality. (Here’s where I would use my personal experiences to discuss how het relationships can be non-oppressive, if that were welcome. But it’s not, which means any attempt to make a properly supported and illustrated argument will, presumably, be met with hostility.)
If questions and discussion in a public forum are unsafe and unfriendly, then discourse is impossible. If you’re not looking for discourse, fine. But I’m just sayin’.
This comment is just posted here for preservation before it gets deleted, I think it's awesome.
People should also understand that because BDSM often involves violence, pain, degradation, and/or use of force – in a sexual context – it is very likely to trigger extreme emotional responses from people who acutely feel the constant threat of sexual violence. That’s why a pro-BDSM stance – or even a “neutral” stance – can make a space feel unsafe for discussion, as Jonathan pointed out.
If you're under the constant threat of sexual violence--like, for reals--you shouldn't be wasting time on some goddamn blog, you need to get the fuck out of there! Pack and leave when he's out of the house, don't let him know where you went, and don't be afraid to get the police involved! If you're living with threats of violence, insensitive blog comments are the least of your worries.
I don't know what sort of "discussion" can be had in a truly "safe space," then, but I assume it consists largely of "ooh, you're even more super awesomer than me... now tell me how awesome I am again."
The next post is on femdom, and how dominant women aren't really dominant because submissive men enjoy it, and that's terrible. I'll get to it tonight or tomorrow.
Anyway, Twisty Faster says entirely predictable things about BDSM.
It is a myth that self-expression (on radical feminist blogs or elsewhere) is a health-giving antidote to mental and physical diseases precipitated by dangerous levels of pent-up creativity or opinions. Self-expression is merely a pop-psychology franchise that grants captive audiences to the self-absorbed.
Boy don't it take one to know one.
[Also, I have no idea what this has to do with anything but she goes on for four paragraphs about it.]
When stating an opinion in the comments section of a radical feminist blog, it’s stupid to begin with the personal pronoun I. ... The truth is, you are boring. You exude ennui from every pore. Any sane reader would rather have root canal than subject herself to your moldy old first-person secretions. But, by expunging boring old you from the subject of your statement, you might stand half a chance of actually engaging in discourse that people give half a crap about.
I don't see why this is the case. As a child of pop-psych, I was taught to speak in "I" statements, especially when I'm arguing. I believe it doesn't mean that I'm only talking about myself, but that I'm acknowledging my limitations--I only know what I know, so saying "this is my belief" is less hubristic than trying to say "this is the way it is." When I say "I don't see why," I admit that a statement could make sense (on Mars or something), but this reader sure can't make head nor tail.
Only through obedience can you know the freedom that is slavery! Only through discipline can you revel in the love that is hate! Only through appeasement of the oppressor can you experience the unfathomable mysteries of the great submissive gift of unconditional masochism!
Well... yeah.
Also, I don't see how this is worse than conventional heterosexual sex. That also "appeases" the "oppressor," (while appeasing the shit out of me, if anyone cares) it's just more popular. If the goal is to deny men pleasure, you've got a lot more work to do.
For it takes great strength, Grasshopper, to order patent leather spandex French maid outfits off the internet so you can get off sucking up to some asshole who gets off on rape fantasies.
Wait... I'm that asshole! They are my fantasies! MINE! I want these things to bring me joy! I don't know about great strength (although taking a beating takes quite a bit, don't knock it), but I know what I want, and I wanted these things before any man wanted them from me.
That was barely about BDSM. She only touched on it in two sentences. It was much more about "this may look like a blog with a comment section, but it's actually my personal fiefdom in which I decree the form and content of all opinions." Which, hey, it's technically feasible and not illegal, so I guess if she wants to delete everything that isn't virulently antisocial and composed in iambic pentameter, she can go have fun with that.
Oh, but that comment section. That's always the entertaining part. Let's get to that.
I think that when some people are writing blogs they should try to be a little less judgemental about how some people choose to write their personal opinions because certain people ought to know that a lot of people don’t have fancy spell checking computers because they might have spent all their fucking money on super CUTE!!! leather thingies and just because I have black bangs and look a little like Bettie Page doesn’t mean that others really ought to judge me just because I’m into the life style because I am imprinted that way OK?
My spellchecker doesn't stop me from using the word "I," it must be a bug. My spellchecker also doesn't remind me to discount the opinions (and finances???) of people based on their hallucinated fashion choices. What a cheapass spellchecker.
...women like this exist to shit on things. ‘I actively try to be everything you hate!’ A nasty brand of narcissist – they get off on it. People like her are best ignored and were probably an only- child. They’re no different to anyone else and yet think they’re Gods.
Boy don't it take one to know one. Anyway, when you hate so many things, it's hard for me not to be a few of them. And anyway when you go to your average BDSM gathering there isn't anyone present who doesn't approve, but I promise you we don't just play Heads-Up-Seven-Up and say "let's tell the radfems we were beating each other in here, they'll go nuts."
“My kinky former partner was my equal in every way”
Equal in every way except, I am obliged to suggest, insofar as you were a member of the sex class and he wasn’t, the only way that really matters.
This is Twisty herself talking, and getting quite efficiently to the differences between her breed of feminism and mine. I'd rather have the best life I can have here and now, and be equal to my partner even if I can't be equal to all men. She doesn't seem to find anything worthy of hope in the current world order. And in doing so, she always manages to sound a bit sexist herself--saying that women are "sex class" even when no specific man is oppressing them makes it sound like the problem is with women themselves.
I always thought the problem was "a lot of men treat you like you're the sex class," but it's very different to say "you are the sex class."
BDSM is simply an extension, the progress down a continuum, that many of us already engage in everyday. If those Swiffer ads continue, we may all come to understand exactly how people are sexualized to certain abusive concepts, like the “erotic” experience of mopping the floor. Or the orgasmic joy of doing laundry. Ahh, the pleasures of unpaid mandated labor, why, it’s almost like foreplay already.
I actually don't mind mopping the floor. If I didn't, the floor would be gross! I might resent doing it for a partner who doesn't pitch in, but I have no aspiration to never mop the floor.
Anyway, this doesn't fit with my observation that kinky women are rarely the most oppressed. It's not like BDSM clubs are full of migrant laborers and street hookers--it seems like middle and upper-middle class women, who are usually fairly powerful in their "real" lives, make up the majority of female submissives.
The properly empowerful response to external interrogations of one’s stated causes of personal empowerfulment is not justification through extended dialectic, personal anecdote, or terse “but I like it!” statements. Such responses indicate a distinct lack of empowerfulment, in fact.
But I like it. I like it! I really, actually, from here to there with no reason, like it! I don't know what else to say! I'm throwing up my hands! I like what I like and I want it love it enjoy it desire it LIKE IT.
And that's what matters. Why is hitting women wrong in the first place? Because they don't like it.
Blame the fucking shitheads, the rapists, the willfully ignorant. Blame the motherfucking patriarchy and burn down the houses of those who sell it to us as “empowerment.”
You'll be burning down a lot of women's houses.
Oh, for goodness’ sake. I’m just asking for an argument instead of just “BDSM is gross. And your writing sucks.” [...]
I am also asking for an argument against all het sex that amounts to more than “How can the oppressed give consent?” and perhaps takes account of reality. (Here’s where I would use my personal experiences to discuss how het relationships can be non-oppressive, if that were welcome. But it’s not, which means any attempt to make a properly supported and illustrated argument will, presumably, be met with hostility.)
If questions and discussion in a public forum are unsafe and unfriendly, then discourse is impossible. If you’re not looking for discourse, fine. But I’m just sayin’.
This comment is just posted here for preservation before it gets deleted, I think it's awesome.
People should also understand that because BDSM often involves violence, pain, degradation, and/or use of force – in a sexual context – it is very likely to trigger extreme emotional responses from people who acutely feel the constant threat of sexual violence. That’s why a pro-BDSM stance – or even a “neutral” stance – can make a space feel unsafe for discussion, as Jonathan pointed out.
If you're under the constant threat of sexual violence--like, for reals--you shouldn't be wasting time on some goddamn blog, you need to get the fuck out of there! Pack and leave when he's out of the house, don't let him know where you went, and don't be afraid to get the police involved! If you're living with threats of violence, insensitive blog comments are the least of your worries.
I don't know what sort of "discussion" can be had in a truly "safe space," then, but I assume it consists largely of "ooh, you're even more super awesomer than me... now tell me how awesome I am again."
The next post is on femdom, and how dominant women aren't really dominant because submissive men enjoy it, and that's terrible. I'll get to it tonight or tomorrow.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Accommodating the disability.
I used to work at a place where there was one client who was mentally competent but was extremely grabby with female caregivers and on at least one instance masturbated in front of one. (He once grabbed me by the back of the head and shoved me down towards his crotch, urggh. I was able to break free before making contact, but urggh.) Management's solution was to put a note in his chart: "MALE CAREGIVERS ONLY." Not "we will no longer be providing service to this person," and certainly not "we will be pursuing legal action," but just a simple accommodation of his little problem.
I was reminded of this yesterday when I went to HR to complain about a coworker who had been treating me extremely disrespectfully because--although I'm more than a year senior to him in the organization--I'm just a little girl. HR's response: "Hm, it sounds like he needs to work with a man." No, it sounds like he needs to work somewhere else, dammit. I know firing and hiring aren't as easy as all that, I understand where she's coming from, but it still pisses me off.
Being an asshole isn't a special need.
I was reminded of this yesterday when I went to HR to complain about a coworker who had been treating me extremely disrespectfully because--although I'm more than a year senior to him in the organization--I'm just a little girl. HR's response: "Hm, it sounds like he needs to work with a man." No, it sounds like he needs to work somewhere else, dammit. I know firing and hiring aren't as easy as all that, I understand where she's coming from, but it still pisses me off.
Being an asshole isn't a special need.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Crazy.
Percentage of people I met on Craigslist for random sex who turned out to be crazy: ~20%. Most of them were simply fellow lonely souls looking for something convenient.
Percentage of people I met on Craigslist for minor household purchases who turned out to be crazy: ONE HUNDRED FUCKING PERCENT.
Seriously. I thought I'd sell my old futon for twenty-five bucks. So far I've been haggled down to twenty (whatever, I just want to get rid of it), requested to deliver to Boonieville, asked the most minute questions, asked to add accessories, and gone through three emails and two phone calls to confirm that my futon is properly futonly.
JESUS CHRIST. IT IS A BIG RECTANGULAR SOFT THING. IT IS CHEAP. IT DOES NOT SMELL BAD. BUY IT OR DON'T. I AM NOT YOUR PERSONAL FUTON SHOPPING ASSISTANT.
I realize that this has nothing to do with my sex blog really, it just happens every damn time and it drives me insane.
Percentage of people I met on Craigslist for minor household purchases who turned out to be crazy: ONE HUNDRED FUCKING PERCENT.
Seriously. I thought I'd sell my old futon for twenty-five bucks. So far I've been haggled down to twenty (whatever, I just want to get rid of it), requested to deliver to Boonieville, asked the most minute questions, asked to add accessories, and gone through three emails and two phone calls to confirm that my futon is properly futonly.
JESUS CHRIST. IT IS A BIG RECTANGULAR SOFT THING. IT IS CHEAP. IT DOES NOT SMELL BAD. BUY IT OR DON'T. I AM NOT YOUR PERSONAL FUTON SHOPPING ASSISTANT.
I realize that this has nothing to do with my sex blog really, it just happens every damn time and it drives me insane.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)