Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
The first paragraph quoted is in fact an excellent flip on the "gay sex is unnatural--just think about what's involved!" argument, which is where I thought this was going. The second paragraph quoted is true.
"She needs to smoke some weed."
It would not only loosen her up (Haha!), but might also give her the chance to enjoy the great evil that is PIV.
My husband has a friend that thinks all women are like this raving lunatic. I said "NO woman is so crazy, that guy is seriously confused." Great, now I'm wrong :(
Maybe she's also a radical vegetarian and is referring to stuffing a turkey. Although the more apt analogy in that case would be fisting, not PIV.
I told her we only did JO.
All penetration is rape. Dildos used by lesbians? Rape. Dildos used on oneself? Rape. Finger banging? Rape. Ingesting Popsicles, bananas, carrot sticks without the approved amount of gnashing and mashing of said snack (No sucking! Godess above! NO SUCKING!!1!1)? Rape.
The people who feel this way are not reasonable, so any attempt to reason with them is futile. If it weren't for the fact that a significant number if them are also virulently and aggressively anti trans, I'd say let them were their tinfoil Mooncups in peace. I only ever get into it with them on the Radfem blogs I visit when they start with that nastiness.
Not to defend the blogger, but I sometimes wonder if this sort of sentiment is simply a reaction from lesbians who have had it up to here with men telling them they just need a good screw to turn hetero. I think that male attitude is just as extreme--perhaps this craziness is just an attempt at a pseudo-rational sciencey justification of being lesbian?
I guess a true gentleman should go for the butt to avoid being labeled a rapist.
What do you guys think the username should be?
Exactly. They're best left alone, and do not deserve too much spotlight for mocking outside for fear of the much nastier crowd we'd draw to the Slog for doing so. Their influence and credibility is already limited.
Sadly this was not uncommon on college campus's in the eighties. I remember attending a mandatory lecture on campus in 1983 where the two main speakers actually and seriously debated, among many things, if doggy style sex should be considered rape - or at the very least misogynist. They concluded you probably shouldn't do it. Just to be safe.
So when people talked about "political correctness" this is the sort of crazy shit they meant. And it was stifling.
Bearing in mind that I'm ALWAYS wrong in these etymological speculations, I've always read the origin of "fuck you" as short for "I'll fuck you" or "I could fuck you," and not in a good way, delivered from one man to another. As usual, I'm way to lazy and/or incompetent to look it up.
What worse thing could a man do, the haters think, than to lower himself to the position of a woman?
I can't claim to know whether that's true for every homophobe, but I've certainly similar expressions from some. Obviously, never that explicit, but implicitly that's part of it.
What can I say. I'm bored.
Mr Finch: Patriarchs tend not to believe FF is "real" sex. Your idea is plausible, and would seem likely if the matriarchs had a secure sense of power. I think I see it as more of a sort of reversal of The Handmaid's Tale with a premium on sperm.
Then they should fucking restrict the use to this particular example.
"Political correctness" is actually used in real life as not being a hateful, misogynistic, homophobic, ableist piece of shit and respecting the separation of church and state.
The phrase is loaded in conservative, regressive ideology, that they should "pretend" to not be assholes when we're only asking that they not be assholes.
http://theabsolute.net/misogyny/sim.html
Before she wags her finger at me for putting only a part of my body into another's, she should stop and consider what a vicious beast she is herself. I have it on impecable authority that her very first act in life--before her first breath of air even--was to savagely violate her own mother for Christ's sake! With her whole body!
Disgusting beyond words.
Come on now, examine the basic etymology and tell us that it was ever intended to be anything but a tool to be dismissive about the legitimate concerns of others.
This is some South Park Conservative bullshit.
@ 133, so comment moderation is big on these sites? No wonder raku is always calling for it here.
@ 141, I recall the phrase "politically correct" being used freely by people who were politically correct in the 80s. It ended up becoming a dirty word, but it didn't start out its life as a popular term that way.
For a site like Slog, where controversial topics bring in page views, having a staffer moderate each of those topics would move them from being lucrative to being costly.
Consent is not absolute: for example, sex with a child is always rape - we agree that children are not capable of informed consent. So the question is a valid one: under what conditions can consent be freely given under institutional sexism? Many, if not most, women have consented to sex under pressure: from their friends, boyfriends, society, whatever. That's not rape, and the men they have sex with might not even understand that their partners have given their consent under duress - the women themselves might not even understand that. Yet coercion is still present, and we do need to recognize that.
The individuals are not to blame in these situations: the system is. But such power imbalances - and there are many in society - do make unambiguous consent difficult to achieve. However, calling all heterosexual sex "rape" is an extreme, inaccurate, and unhelpful way of responding to institutional sexism. It doesn't work to change the system, and it doesn't help individual women. However, recognizing the pervasiveness of patriarchy, and raising awareness about these complicated forms of coercion, will do both.
@142: I'm well acquainted with the former, but the latter is hardly attacking a straw position.
Conservatives claim that the origin was in thoughtcrime and communist doctrine, that persons who give a shit about others were trying to "co-opt society" and destroy the idea of free speech (funnily enough, demanding that society do exactly the same thing to avoid offending fundamentalist believers and their asinine hatemongery views), some progressives at the time utilized it sarcastically, but it was always used in a pejorative manner.
Yeah, even moderate feminist discussion sites can be overzealous on the moderation, I forget the site, perhaps Feministing, but I posted a few times only to see reasonable, not-at-all-controversial comments remain forever unpublished.
And, sure, sexism is real, but expecting people (including women) to not have sex until the patriarchy is defeated is unreasonable. Questioning sex they choose to have because maaaaybe it was coerced by society making them think they wanted to have sex but they didn't really want to is about one and a half steps from locking all the poor dears away since they can't really make decisions for themselves.
Look what women in India or Afghanistan endure in terms of society-sanctioned rape, and then please don't get back to me about how western women might say "yes" but we're really thinking "no" but we can't say it because patriarchy: it really is very close to locking all the poor dears away where they can't make any wrong decisions, since they can't be given true ownership of the decisions they claim to be making.
She was a lot more thoughtful than she gets credit for, certainly more so than these clowns.
145, thanks for that. Though personally I at least lean towards feeling that sex you're coerced into is rape even if the coercion isn't physical, especially as a lot of people shut down and go passive when they don't know how to react to something.
There was this romance novel I read because all the reviews swooned over how progressive and not like the old bodice rippers it was and how awesomely consensual everything was. The first time the hero and heroine had sex, she was his prisoner. And had been taken into the bathroom with him alone. And thought he or his colleagues might torture or kill her at any time. And of course, they were massively hot for each other, and everything turned out fine, but reading it was the first time I thought "that's really not consensual *even if she thinks it's consensual*" -- the power differential, the massive incentive she had to please him and the fact she couldn't know how he'd react if she didn't --it was all too great. Obviously that's an extreme scenario, but I think it's worth thinking about how more subtle power imbalances impact decision-making, and so I do think it's important not to look at this and forget that it's genuinely worth questioning how consent works and whether its always as meaningful as it looks within a system that gives more power to one sex than the other. But the black-and-white thinking, the lack of empathy, the failure to consider that actual people have ways of actually DEALING with these things, the fact they don't even seem to know that woman-on-top or het female orgasms exist..!, the fact their frothing does nothing to actually dismantle the patriarchy and insofar as it does anything at all just hurts other women, especially Trans women, ! ... well, it's why TERFs are so toxic and loathsome.
How about we don't compare us to others who are worse off in order to ameliorate and distract from our own flaws? It's a poor idea to tie progress to the "worst" in the world.
That's not literally what you're suggesting, but that worse exists is not a reason why we can't self-reflect and criticize if we don't like what we see.
That it promptly got co-opted into a deliberately generated bogus moral panic by the right in the 90s is also unquestionably true.
I have a friend, he's in his late 50s or early 60s. He lost his virginity around 15 because he was waiting for the girl to say no and she didn't. He clearly remembers not wanting to have sex with her but lacking the tools to do anything about it, because teenage boys were supposed to want to have sex. Neither he nor I would ever say that she assaulted him in any way, but I'd suggest that he was societally coerced.
I think the concept of enthusiastic consent can be a freeing one to all genders, in all sorts of relationships. It isn't everything, but "am I excited about this?" is often a more helpful question than "am I ok with this?"
" On the other hand, PIV isn’t natural, it’s an action done by men to us. They can choose not to do it, it isn’t necessary. There are many other ways of becoming pregnant than through penetration of the penis into the vagina. For instance, putting sperm on the vulva is enough to become pregnant. Women, if they wanted to become pregnant, could just ask a man for some sperm and apply it herself. PIV isn’t natural but externally imposed, cultural”
Can't wait til I'm in a bar and a fat ugly feminists asks me for a cup of sperm.
Can I assume from this feminist screed she won't be watching the Seahawks game on Saturday?
If you park a handgun there first (in your vagina), and then pistol-whip your SO with it, is the penetration still patriarchally mandated? (I guess they were arguing about aliens at the time, so the violence is now extraterrestrial in nature)
Peace
Oops, she just pointed it at him, no whipping involved...
Peace
The woman who was busted with a revolver in her vagina (and meth in her rear)? Is Methamphetamine a Patriarchal Tool Of Control & Domination as well?
Peace
One of the most depressing things I read in terms of going along with regretted sex is along the lines of "If only he had asked, of if only I had found the courage to speak up..." One of those was in the speaker's power to control, and one wasn't. Changing your own behavior is easier than changing the behavior of everyone you might encounter. Sure, try to change that too. (Social pressure, in which guys dismiss as pathetic the sort of guy who ignores body language, is more likely to work than trying to get everyone to say "I would like to now put my hand on your elbow, do you fully consent to that?") But so often the "social pressure" being invoked is along the lines of "will be annoyed with you" which is something adults are expected to cope with when they make decisions.
When the person you don’t want to be annoyed with you is bigger than you and also someone you are financially dependent on, it changes the balance.
“The personal is political” and “compulsory heterosexuality” were important concepts when they were invented and still are. If heterosexuality is not particularly compulsory for me today it’s largely because I had access to education, birth control and well-paid work. To the degree that women do not have access to these things we need to accept that consent will be constrained. (A woman might still consent enthusiastically if there were no constraints, but that’s hypothetical when the constraints are present.)
One of the great insights I got from Andrea Dworkin was from her book Right-Wing Women. She pointed out that both RWWs and feminists agree that it’s a man’s world; they just disagree on the most appropriate ways to cope with that fact.
And we're usually never entirely nude.
You don't have to agree with them, however you seem to want to impose your own standards on how a person is allowed to think and stand up for themselves.
It's always fascinating when fundamentalists from any political pole begin to see overlaps in end-goal. The Birchers and Antivax-ers, homeschooling to avoid being "poisoned" by public education, etc. I'll also check that one out.
Oh, please...this is like saying that not having access to a trust fund means that my consent to accept paid work is constrained, and therefore having to work for a living is slavery. I'm sorry, but this is just crazy and really does demean genuine victims of rape and slavery.
Yes, your consent to accept paid work is constrained. It’s likely that your choices are less constrained than those of the women and girls who worked at Triangle Shirtwaist though.
Constraints exist on a continuum. I referred to constraint, not rape.
So the time I fucked that kinda dumb girl working at an Ohio White Castle in 1987 and used no protection was rape? I mean, I sure regretted it when I sobered up but never thought I'd been raped despite the fact she jumped my bones.
Either that or we evolved to allow more positions while standing up ;-).
Peace
Sounds better to me ;-)
Peace
@148 - Evolutionary biologist Lynn Saxon makes a convincing argument that the outsized penis on human males (relative to those of other primates) evolved because it favors a better fit with the human vagina -- which is larger than that of other primates in order to accommodate the big heads of our big-brained babies. Otherwise, even more human females would die in childbirth than already do. Makes sense to me.
Continuing with the food analogy, you may discover that it's not the food itself you disliked, it was just the way it was prepared. Growing up, I thought I didn't like salmon, because the only way I'd ever had it was as canned fish mixed with breadcrumbs and made into fried patties. Then I tasted marinated, grilled salmon fillets and have loved it ever since. I don't think I need to explain how this maps to sexual experience.
@39: Excellent points, especially #4. People like this like to tell their detractors, "You disagree with me because you've been brainwashed by the patriarchy!" Problem is, we're ALL living in a patriarchal society. Where's their evidence that their own attitudes aren't simply the result of having their psyches poisoned by patriarchy?
Also, of course, radfems like this get justifiably angry when patriarchal society tells women "We know what you do and don't want better than you yourself do, so shut up and do what we think is right for you"... but then they turn around and do the same thing!
On the other hand, buying meat is always murder, for obvious reasons (unless you're buying meat from foraged carcasses, which doesn't happen and is gross). There's no consent in slaughterhouses.
I could see how you might manage conspiracy, but your better theories would all be desecration.
Also, the bit about men wanting women to fuck more than once a month in order to ensure that women are forced to bear children... yeah, well, tell that part to my husband. I'm sure he'd be surprised to hear he wants it more than once a month, just as I was surprised to hear that I was clearly mistaken when I said I just wanted him to fuck me at least a couple times a week. Oh, and for that matter, the "forcing her to be entirely naked" part is also particularly opposite my experience ("no, baby, leave your panties on," "...Okay, but I'm taking my shirt off this time whether you like it or not!").