Blogs Apr 9, 2014 at 11:33 am


Reading that makes me be very thankful I'm gay (once again).
Which reminds me of an old joke for the feminists:

What do you call nuts on a wall?


What do you call nuts on your chest?

Chest nuts!

What do you call nuts on your chin?

my money's on not a parody.

"regardless of the delicate balancing requiring to keep from suffocating him or breaking his nose"? this is highly unlikely, and can be dealt with by simply communicating this concern with said "man such as this".
The bio: "Susan Elizabeth Shepard holds a DGaF in Strippers' Studies. Charlotte Shane is a sexual justice activist working to end the reign of fuckboys on Twitter." suggests parody. Thank god.
If only feminists could critique themselves.
While I too prefer to give and receive oral sex consecutively rather than concurrently, anyone who really feels that way about 69 is living the hell they deserve.
Dan, I kid you not: a few months back a "leading" Cultural Studies journal featured a peer-reviewed article on chimeras--folks who have DNA from a twin absorbed during gestation ("fetal resorption"). The focus of the article was a case in which a court had taken custody away from a woman in a heated divorce case because genetic testing "showed" that she wasn't the children's biological mother. Subsequent DNA testing explained what happened, i.e. that she was a chimera, and thus allowed her to get custody back. Nevertheless, the entire point of the article was how science is an evvvvviiiillll tool used by men to try to reassert their legal possession of women's bodies and thus to re-inscribe patriarchy through both the courts and through contemporary medicine.

This was, for me, the gem of the piece: the author argued that biopsies of women, whether for cancer detection or genetic testing, amounted to yet another use of scientific technology to further objectify women and thus subject them to the male gaze.

A former colleague of mind posted it on facebook (I say former because this is the precise kind of shit that led to my defection). To it, I replied, "I am forever grateful to my oncologist for objectifying me when he biopsied what turned out to be ovarian cancer."

So, call me pessimistic, but my money's not on parody.
Eh, I'm with the author on this one, at least in conclusion. Maybe it's just the pairing, but my long torso combined with my wife's shorter torso makes the position too awkward to work. I figure this is likely true of many, if not most, heterosexual couples. I have no idea about homosexual pairings, but my particular issue with the position is probably less apparent in them.
I suspect it isn't parody. We all know women can't be funny intentionally.
"The position also echoes the service economy in its demand (mainly on women) of a convincing performance of pleasure."
It is obviously harder/impossible for the guy to FAKE an orgasm. That said, there is still a lot of pressure to give a convincing performance.
You can tell those two chicks are really just dying for a man to put them in their place and give them a nice, good fucking.

Afterwards they can get me a beer and a sammich.
I'd be careful about how you deploy that "carrot before the horse" metaphor, dear.
@Ophian: While I too prefer to give and receive oral sex consecutively rather than concurrently

In my experience, 69 is kind of like Dueling Banjos - a mix of taking turns, harmonizing, accompanying the other's lead.
too soon, @13, too soon. ;)
"The most disturbing aspect of the act we save for last: It literally silences women, physically making them unable to speak, whilst also allowing a man to believe he is giving her pleasure. A woman who he can make come but who can't even speak to tell him how? A misogynist’s (wet?) dream. Only the most wildly, wrongly over-confident man presumes to need no feedback during sex, or cares not to clearly hear a woman’s groans and murmurs and breaths of delight."

Wouldn't this also be true for the man? Being unable to speak?
And.... Ummmm.... last time I checked a man sure as hell can feel "murmurs and breaths of delight".
It's gotta be parody. The writer talks like 69ing is some kind of permanent state of being rather than something you do for a few minutes before you fuck.

But in true stereotypical feminist fashion she totally ignores the possibility of two men having sex and how that effects her dynamics. So....
I'm voting for parody.
I'm a gay man who's always found the actual practice of 69'ing to be more clumsy and awkward than just taking turns.

That said, while I've considered myself to be a feminist since junior high (in a time and place where most of the girls weren't feminist, much less any of the other boys), I do find that many of the more strident feminists fall under a form of Poe's Law. Usually, though, what I've assumed was parody was actually sincerity.
I follow these two on Twitter and can assure you they are very serious.
If this is the problem that floats to the top of your complaints list, you must be living a very comfortable life indeed.
@21: Where did they say it was at the top of their complaints list? By posting this comment I should assume this article is at the top of yours?
@9: Surely you are going straight to Hell. If it's any consolation though, you made me bust a gut laughing.
@7 (maddy811): Could you give me a title or author, please? That is actually an interesting topic in my field of study, and I'd love to read the original article for my own edification. There is a lot of that rejection of technology because it supposedly objectifies women, and I'm trying to find better ways to frame those discussions in a less binary fashion. Thanks!
The woman I am seeing now is 6'1" (an inch taller than I am) so the sore neck is her problem now. Fight the matriarchy!*

The level of eye-rolling experienced while reading this little snippet is about on par with what I experienced recently whilst listening to a 65+ year old lobbyist look over the top of his cheaters at my legislation class and warn us strenuously about the evils of "illegal dope." And by "dope" he meant pot, fer chrissakes. I can't even.
The enjoyment is in the attempt, not in attaining the summit. Leave the crampons off. Unless you like that sort of thing.
* not intended to be a factual statement.
Anytime anyone tells you that you're Doing Sex Wrong, the take-away message is usually that *they're* Doing Sex Wrong.
this reads like academic feminist theory, which means that this isn't the right audience for it, and it's pretty easy/lazy to take theory out of context and ridicule it. but, uh, you knock yourself out, dan.
These are the types of feminists that make all women look bad, and they really need to stop already.

Oh, and Lindy West needs to shut the fuck up as well.
@31: Assholes like you telling women to "shut the fuck up" are the reason feminism exists.
This is from Kshama Sawant's "LustLab" profile, right?
They didn't even broach the biggest source of oppression: the heteronormative oppression of the body's natural urge to break wind while your partner's face is capitalistically maximizing sexual efficiency.
' Why must my nose in your balls be the carrot before the horse? '
because god.
The one time I "69ed," I was in the process of blowing a guy while he gently maneuvered me into the position. That guy LOVED eating pussy--he couldn't even wait for the blowjob to end.
the problem with (hetero) 69ing is that if they guy is doing a good job the girl loses her focus. true story.
@31 your implication, of course, is that there is no context in which a woman should ever have to "shut the fuck up". It must be quite the world in which all opinions are valid[ated].
Oh for fuck's sake. Physically unable to speak? Riiiiigghhtt. You're not shrieking with enough gusto if a cock in the mouth silences you.
It's only "distinctly capitalistic" if someone is getting paid afterward.
It really concerns me how Slog commenters, more and more, jump at any opportunity for an anti-feminist pile on. Dan, I hope this show you something about how, maybe, you are fighting the wrong fight here. I know you are a feminist. Whether the people who wrote that are spoofing are serious, does it matter? They don't have any power in society. Punch up, my friend.
after a quick look at their twitter feed, I doubt this is entirely serious. I'm not sure what their deal is and it may not be exactly parody, but it does have, at a minimum, a certain amount of tongue-in-cheekness to it. One of them declares this "The only thing you need ever read, on any subject". There's also a "rally" planned. The stripper and, if I read this correctly, sex worker who wrote this also wouldn't seem like your typical anti-sex folks...
43 I've never 69'd before but it seems like they've put way too much time and effort into this.
I agree with seandr @13. I enjoy 69ing. Having to be only on the giving end, or only on the receiving end of sexual pleasure, even for say as little as five minutes, bores me to death. As for necks and noses and such stuff : anybody who believes this as accurate has never tried 69 with an open mind.

tainte @37 That's a feature of 69ing, not "a problem". The girl won't lose her focus for very long because she'll get one or several orgasms, and then she'll want the stimulation to stop. After a few seconds she'll regain enough focus to bring the boy on to the edge of his orgasm, at which point he'll totally lose focus. Taking turns in losing focus is the trademark of good 69 ; no focus lost just means no one enjoyed it.

And I agree also with emmaz @41 : does Dan have to give fodder to the hateful misogynist Sloggers every. single. week. ? I mean, in real life I can't spend a day without being reminded I'm a designated victim of sexism, just because I wasn't born with some silly oversized and overextended clitoris dangling between my legs, and ovaries in a pouch behind it. And now, when we're getting at last to the point when even a Zimmerman wouldn't dare to spew a similar level of racist shit in public -- targetting "women as a whole" as the butt of hatred is still, if not even more, just humorous and funny and quite innocuous fair game.
I can't even tell if it's parody or not, but it got my Poe's Law-o-meter going haywire, like trying to use a compass while standing directly on the North Pole. It's like it was written by Raku.
Parody or no, hollow rhetoric stupidly applied to inappropriate subjects is not feminism. It's what morons think feminism is. Moving right along...
Nevah. 69 makes me come like Old Faithful. (I'm female btw.)
@47: The proper way to indicate on the internet that one is female is to say "btw im a grill"
I'm not sure parody-or-serious is the right dichotomy here. I read it as people who are familiar with serious academic arguments and are just sort of playing around with them in a non-serious way. Kind of like the Latke-Hamatash Debates.
There seems to be a genuine frustration with 69, but I doubt the universalization/politicization of that frustration is serious.
My money is that the authors are being tongue-in-crotch here.
@46 that's like saying the USSR wasn't Communism. I mean sure, it's not the pure thing, but that's how it gets expressed in the real world.

The best "excuse", if this is legitimate writing, is that the role of feminist theorists isn't to, you know, actually identify structural inequality, but to expound how such inequality might be practiced; it's up to others to determine if it's meaningful.
@40: It probably won't end up being capitalism unless you get the money first.
Something in the article does not add up, whatever number is missing isn't sitting in broad daylight (like the story from comment 7 that fails to recognize that it is only the identity of a paternal parent that can be called into question, that females don't have the luxury of being physically responsible for creating a new life without receiving unmistakable notification from the associated notification authorities of Life Creation)

Not sitting in broad daylight, but also sticking out as would a sore thumb it the bullshit portion of comment 36's words (asserting that the sex act in question has only been participated in one time)

Something doesn't add up, and I cannot say for sure what it is other than I don't personally know any lesbians who wear strap-on while 69ing, although my roommate has just informed me I am confusing feminism with the female homosexuality.

All I know for sure is it is awful hard to engage in sex acts that include more than two people when two of them can't handle the emotional trauma of feeling obligated to "do a good job" and balance that feeling with enjoying the job being done

It's not wrong to prefer not to 69, however if there is not a punchline at some later point, the authors would be well advised to come up with truthful examples as to why they don't like that particular sex act

or better yet, inform them that there are some things in life you do not need any reason for your preference (such as who you choose to love and the acts you engage in with them, the simple reason "because I felt like it" or "because I don't feel like it" or already overkill when it comes to justifying yourself)

nobody cares why the two authors do or don't like 69ing

The next installment had better explain how the nose breaking event might happen, because that is the only intriguing thought any reader -- in their right mind -- is left with
I prefer '77' myself.
@51: So you're saying feminism as actually practiced is all hollow rhetoric applied to inappropriate situations? That seems quite "meaningful" w/r/t you maybe, but not necessarily the entire "real world".
"Something in the article does not add up" said Dirtclustit.

Thanks for your expert opinion, Dirtclustit.
I think that I am on the wrong side of this argument, but I happen to think that there is some truth in this. Why the hell do you think women fake it so much. He wants a blowjob and only wants to do lip service to reciprocating. If a guy is following a ladies come first policy, then he probably isn't too into 69. IF it is more of, there's something wrong with you if you don't get off with minimal incidentally secondary stimulation then there must be something wrong with you.

FFS, the "69 is awesome for everyone IF they're doing it right" position is every bit as solipsistic as the "69 is always terrible & lame" position. It's not a function of my "open mind" so much as it is a function of relative torso length and erection angle and whatnot. If you like it, enjoy. But to insist that everyone must like it unless they're doing it wrong is to beat your chest about how much more of a sexual badass you are than everyone else. Hang on, I'll take a moment for my sarcastic slow clap.

Frankly, some of my experiences with 69--and yes, I made a sincere, enthusiastic effort--mesh with the description in the much-mocked article. It depends on the partner I was 69-ing. I wouldn't go so far as to say that all 69 is "a misogynist's wet dream" or "distinctly capitalistic" or any other such absurd crap. But the difficulties with strained necks and suffocation ring true, as does the hilarious comment @34.

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.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.