The Worst Band Name of All Time

8 Jun

I was wandering around here in Atlanta the other day with Davetavius when I saw something that nearly made me lose my mind, a poster for a local band that call themselves the Bukkake Boys. Now, I normally wouldn’t complain about any stupid shit I see in Little Five Points, because Little Five Points exists solely as a collecting spot for stupid shit and because I was the one who decided to go there in the first place, but this was a bit much. I’ve now spent at least four hours of my life trying to figure out what could possibly have possessed these dudes to choose to name themselves the Bukkake Boys, and that kind of waste of my valuable time makes me very, very angry.

I had to go check out their MySpace page to see what such a band would sound like, and I have to say that I wasn’t surprised. They’re basically a shitty hardcore band that hasn’t figured out that it isn’t 1985 and that punk is, in fact, dead. Their song titles are fairly hilarious: “Nihilism Hate,” “Mind Vulture,” “Mind Copulation,” and “Trend Junkie.” Apparently they’re really angry and worried about mental contamination and they’re totally not down with social conditioning or trendiness, though I’m pretty sure that all of those sentiments are a bit trendy in the punk scene and have become parodies of themselves at this point. Regardless, nearly every week these guys can be seen here at the PBR-soaked hipster hangout known as the Star Bar getting fucked up and going off on stage about how lame those fucking posers who don’t have as many punk rock points as they do are and about how they see through all the bullshit.

As hilarious as all that might be, it doesn’t really matter. I could sit here and write about how stupid it is to be in a hardcore band in 2009 all day and never run out of bands to rip on, but that’s not the point. The point is that these guys are really special because they are indicative of the tenacity of a social trend that I was hoping was fading out; they thought that the most clever thing they could do to let us all know how punk they are would be to call themselves the fucking Bukkake Boys, to attempt to shock people into giving a shit about a band that couldn’t possibly be less noteworthy or more irrelevant. I thought the whole “talking about gross shit makes me edgy” thing was about over with, but I guess I was wrong and it’s still holding on strong here in “Hotlanta.”

But what, exactly, am I supposed to think about when I see the band’s name?  I’ve been trying to figure it out for awhile and I’ve come up with a few possibilities:

  • These guys watch a lot of porn and like to see women covered in semen. That means that they’re pieces of shit and should probably take up playing Russian Roulette, which would be punk as fuck if you think about it.
  • They like to get together and ejaculate on people as a group as a sort of band bonding activity. I’m pretty sure these guys have a hard time getting women to come to their parties whether this is the case or not.
  • They’re trying to tell people that they like to be ejaculated upon by large numbers of men. Maybe they’re going for a Jackass-style “pretending to be gay is so punk” thing.
  • They’re just dumbasses who couldn’t think of anything more clever and have no idea what they’re trying to say beyond, “Grrr, plthhh, shit, piss, semen, punk, argh, beer, fuck yeah!”

I’m guessing it’s a combination of the first and last.

I know I’m talking about a local punk band that can’t get more than forty people to come to a show, but the fact that people are naming a band after an incredibly degrading porn trend is a little worrisome to me, as is the fact that the entirety of the potential punk culture once had has been destroyed by punk’s devolution into yet another bro music scene. It’s absurd that there is a band out there that is celebrating an act that degrades and dehumanizes women by naming their band after that act and then writing songs about how stupid the general public is for not seeing their way past mainstream cultural and social values. I’m pretty sure that one of the most ubiquitous and destructive systemic social forces there is (misogyny) might deserve a bit of attention if one wants to claim to be bucking the status quo, if that was actually what was going on here. But these dicks aren’t really interested in any of that, they just want to rage against the Man for trying to keep them from partying, going off, and living in their parents’ basements forever and to attempt to distinguish themselves from John Fitzgerald Page by acting just like him while wearing anarchy t-shirts that they paid tax on.

41 Responses to “The Worst Band Name of All Time”

  1. syndicalist702 June 8, 2009 at 4:16 AM #

    This modern movement of lame, American Apparel-clad hipsters that call themselves punk is laughable, at best.

    They wouldn’t know punk if Dr. Graffin drew them a diagram and Hank Rollins bludgeoned them with the easel. Punk is not a pissing contest, but a set of ideals to which you either adhere, or don’t. It has always been that way. It will always be that way, no matter how much the bros and the hipsters try to cannibalize it.

    One thing punk is not, and will not ever be, is exclusive.

  2. RenegadeEvolution June 8, 2009 at 4:49 AM #

    Makes me think they like to be the bukkake-d ones, personally. Alas, the Circle Jerks was already taken….

  3. SargassoSea June 8, 2009 at 10:16 AM #

    Man, L5P! Woot dude! Sea totally did time there doing the edgiest of edgy – slavin’ for barely over minimum at one of those hip *Eateries*. Of course it’s been a while back now, but it is comforting to know nothing has changed. What a bunch of pukes.

    Taxable anarchy tees! Ahahaha!

  4. k!m June 8, 2009 at 1:09 PM #

    this post had me laughing so hard i was in tears. i’ve lived in atlanta most of my life, but never have i read something that so accurately and effectively wraps up little five.

    their band name is indicative of a few things, as far as i’m concerned: their lack of talent, intellect, sensitivity, progressiveness, and “wicked punkitude”.

    thanks for posting, this made my day.

  5. pisaquari June 8, 2009 at 2:39 PM #

    Welllll, now that you are back in Atlanta there is no excuse for you to miss my more feminist-leaning musical ensemble!

    Oh and most *indie* Atlanta acts are this:

    “They’re just dumbasses who couldn’t think of anything more clever and have no idea what they’re trying to say beyond, ‘Grrr, plthhh, shit, piss, semen, punk, argh, beer, fuck yeah!'”

  6. Roxie June 8, 2009 at 3:45 PM #

    I’m sure they won’t be at the Star Bar long…but I do love L5P

  7. Roxie June 8, 2009 at 3:46 PM #

    OH, wow. JFP. That takes me back..

  8. Peridot June 8, 2009 at 11:36 PM #

    The name probably has something to do with these hardcore heros literally being “in your face.” And we know that people who are otherwise not “subversive” at all but wish to appear so, will take the “anti-PC” stance and try to pass it off as speaking out against something oppressive (like say, radical feminists, who would call out stupid, sexist, oppressive shit like bukkake). Woah, look at these guys Talking Back! In your face, bitches! I’m sick of how blatant, intentional misogyny very often gets kudos for being edgy and thought-provoking (by virtue of not being “PC”) when it’s exactly the opposite. As for this band, I’m sure these unoriginal little followers won’t get very far.

  9. Sarah June 9, 2009 at 3:13 PM #

    These guys watch a lot of porn and like to see women covered in semen. That means that they’re pieces of shit and should probably take up playing Russian Roulette, which would be punk as fuck if you think about it.

    Because shaming anyone who doesn’t have sex your way is “feminist as fuck, if you think about it”.

    • Nine Deuce June 9, 2009 at 3:19 PM #

      Oh Christ, it’s you again. If these guys like watching women be degraded by acts such as bukkake, then I’ve got no use for them in my world. I’m shaming misogynists, not people who don’t “have sex my way.” Bukkake isn’t sex, it’s an act of intentional humiliation, and anyone who thinks otherwise is out of their mind. Don’t come here again and try to tell me I’m a bad feminist/selfish lover because I don’t want to “take one in the face” or put myself on the receiving end of a bukkake session, Sarah. It’s not even irritating at this point. It’s just embarrassing for you and laughable.

      I have a suggestion. Why don’t you look around at men who are actual misogynists and direct your anger at them rather than at me, a woman who spends all her fucking time trying to do something about misogyny. Sexism affects more than just your desire to recreate porn, you know.

  10. Nine Deuce June 9, 2009 at 8:15 PM #

    Alexandra Erin – I’m a racist because I think bukkake is misogynistic?! Unbelievable. I know exactly where the practice came from, it came from porn and the fact that the Japanese government wouldn’t allow images of penetration/penises. So they had to find some other way to titillate the viewer, and that was the degrading act of men ejaculating all over a woman. Yes, Japanese culture is sexually repressed, and yes that leads to misogynistic porn, but that porn also leads to increased misogyny. It’d be nice if we could extirpate the misogyny and thus remove the demand for porn like that, and THAT’S MY GOAL HERE. But who cares about Japan? Bukkake would’ve come out of American mainstream porn at some point because it’s an excellent degradation method. I don’t give a shit whether it’s gross, I care what the intent is, and the intent is to degrade. You can claim otherwise, but you’d be FULL OF SHIT and you know it. I’m probably more familiar with Japanese culture than you are (unless you’re in the process of getting an advanced degree in Japan studies), and I don’t need a lesson on what Orientalism is. There’s a difference between making racist, blanket, essentializing statements about Japanese culture and saying that bukkake is used to degrade women. The idea that you think the path to women’s liberation is through celebrating our own humiliation would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad. Anyway, I’m not posting your comments until you learn that you aren’t the feminism police and you don’t get to tell me I’m not a feminist because I’ve got a problem with women’s dehumanization via porn.

    I want a serious answer here if you’re going to keep commenting: are you trying to say that there’s nothing misogynistic about footage of several men ejaculating onto a woman’s face? And how, tell me, does my accepting porn and sex acts that degrade women “tear down the master’s house”? It’s the $6 million question, and I want a fucking answer from you assholes who come here and try to tell me that I’m just as bad as “the patriarchy” for suggesting that there might be something wrong with “taking one in the face.”

    Same goes for Sarah. And as to your response to my comment directed at Sarah, you don’t know what you’re talking about. We had a go-round awhile back that you weren’t a part of, in which she most certainly did tell me that I must be a terrible lover because I wasn’t into recreating porn scenes and that I’m a bad feminist for having the temerity to suggest there might be something wrong with anti-woman propaganda. So butt out of that, thanks.

  11. Aileen Wuornos June 10, 2009 at 4:29 PM #

    I want to print this out and frame it.

  12. Alexandra Erin June 10, 2009 at 5:38 PM #

    I just noticed something I’d like to highlight here because it really really underscores how very very much you are not fighting misogyny or dismantling patriarchy:

    Yes, Japanese culture is sexually repressed, and yes [sexual repression] leads to misogynistic porn, but that porn also leads to increased misogyny. It’d be nice if we could extirpate the misogyny and thus remove the demand for porn like that, and THAT’S [WHY I PREACH SEXUAL REPRESSION].

    Meet the new Patriarch, same as the old. Nine Deuce, reporting from reinforcingthemanchine.com

    • Nine Deuce June 10, 2009 at 5:41 PM #

      You can call it “sexual repression” all you want, but the fact that I’ve got concerns about why men want to treat women that way derives from my aversion to woman-hating. You’re using the same tactic men have used all along to coerce women into sex acts: “you’re sexually repressed because you don’t like X.”

      • Alexandra Erin June 10, 2009 at 5:58 PM #

        No, I’m not calling you sexually repressed. I’m saying you engage in sexual repression of others, which you do. You do it using the same tools that have always been used. Different language. Instead of saying, “Sinners, these desires are of the devil and you must resist them or you will surely perish in a lake of everburning battery acid.”, you say “Women, we should be examining our sexual desires to make sure that they’re not hurting society.”

        Okay. First of all, I have seen exactly fuck-all indication from you that you’re open to an honest examination which might lead to conclusions you don’t already hold, so that’s a dodge.

        Second of all, what’s the endgame? What’s the end result of the examination, in your mind? We realize how very wrong we are and stop doing the stuff you don’t like? If that’s not the case, please tell me what you are going for and how it’s going to be accomplished by insisting that people who have sex you don’t like need to keep examining themselves.

        • Nine Deuce June 10, 2009 at 6:02 PM #

          There is something you’re missing here in this absolutely absurd analogy: the object might be similar, but the motivation/reasoning/argument is much, much different. That analogy is tired and obviously not valid to anyone who wants to think about it.

          Stop pretending that this is about me enforcing my idea of what sex should be on people. It’s not. It’s me saying there’s something wrong with what our culture is telling people sex should be. Our cultural values ensure that sex is a physical manifestation of the gender hierarchy, and internalizing that doesn’t make it not so.

  13. Alexandra Erin June 10, 2009 at 6:22 PM #

    Self-examination time, ND. Look in the mirror time. Put up or shut up time.

    If it’s not about you enforcing your sexual ideals, then why is that every argument you raise against bukkake, against BDSM… every line of examination you claim to want to open… applies equally well to any other sex act?

    You are absolutely right to say that our sexual lives should not be exempt from self-examination. You are absolutely right that we should think about where our desires come from, what they mean, what implications they hold.

    But you don’t actually seem to be willing to do this. You simply divide sex acts into good… which aren’t quite exempt from scrutiny but you can rest assured that it is possible to have it a “feminist” fashion… and bad, in which examination becomes shorthand for “accepting that it’s bad and getting rid of it.”

    Dear God, I have examined. Dear God, before I take a sexual partner… much less engage in anything that “fetishy”… do I ever scrutinize his or her motivations. I have to. When you’re into the stuff I’m into, that’s part of “safe sex.” I spent years with the unexamined assumption that acting on my desires would be a betrayal of feminist ideals and would be reinforcing misogyny… regardless of the circumstances, regardless of my partner, regardless of interpersonal motivations… I believed as you seem to do that the acts themselves were degrading.

    That belief didn’t stop me from wanting them, though. It didn’t help me to excise them. It did make me associate humiliation and degradation with sex, though.

    Finally I started examining my premises. I realized I’d had a fascination with bondage and the appearance of peril long before I was a sexual creature, that my memories of this fascination went so far back (age of three) that it must have formed before I was really truly a conscious being. I’m not saying that babies aren’t affected by society, but it’s not a 1:1 association when the mind in question doesn’t understand the language and symbolism being employed all around it.

    Once I began to understand how deeply back it went, once I started to question the idea that I needed to feel ashamed, I stopped being turned on by humiliation. Cum on face? That can turn me on. As part of a mutually pleasurable experience with a partner who is as committed to my pleasure as I am to his, why would that be humiliating?

    Now you would probably say to this that my self-exploration isn’t very interesting because it ignores The Man’s Motivation. I have two responses to that: the first is that simply asserting that a man could have no motivation for putting his body fluids on A Lady except to humiliate her porn-style is not an examination. It is a refusal to examine by clinging to an assumption.The second is that you had better believe I do examine the motivations of a man before I let his body fluids near me.

    So if I examine myself and I examine my male partner and I find no problems… what? What then? Would you prefer that we then refrain because even if we’re “pure” in motive we’re still recreating porn and thereby damaging society?

    If that’s the case, then how is “regular sex” different?

    And if you really don’t have a preference about what two mind-occupied bodies choose to do with each other after a level of examination they feel is appropriate, then why do you make a point of saying so often that these sexual acts need to be examined?

    • Nine Deuce June 10, 2009 at 6:33 PM #

      There are two arguments being had here: one about porn, one about private sexual encounters. I’m much less likely to get on someone’s case about what they do in private. I would like people to think about what acts mean to them and to their partners, and I do so constantly, but if they decide to do something after having thought about it, I don’t care, even if I think the act is inherently degrading. They aren’t affecting my life unless I end up dating someone after they do, which is unlikely to happen for many reasons.

      As to the porn argument, I think I have a leg to stand on when I say that women who choose to participate in the sex industry are hurting the cause of women’s liberation.

    • isme June 11, 2009 at 2:23 PM #

      “simply asserting that a man could have no motivation for putting his body fluids on A Lady except to humiliate her porn-style is not an examination. It is a refusal to examine by clinging to an assumption.”

      I’d agree with that.

  14. RenegadeEvolution June 11, 2009 at 7:14 AM #

    “As to the porn argument, I think I have a leg to stand on when I say that women who choose to participate in the sex industry are hurting the cause of women’s liberation.”

    Yep, that’s me, keeping women down and sexually whatever since 1997!

    Or, not, but hey, we probably won’t ever agree on that.

  15. James July 2, 2009 at 1:24 AM #

    Just before I read this I was listening to Paint it Black and their song Womb Envy (all male hardcore band/pro-feminist song). Which is just funny, I’m not trying to prove anything.

    God, what complete fucking arseholes that band are. Pro-feminist punk songs (and there are plenty) haven’t intellectually moved on too much since the early 80s, probably because feminism within punk hasn’t progressed much itself. As much as I take your punk-culture ripping with a laugh, if I lived in the area I’d be putting your entry here into a zine and giving it out at their gig (well, maybe I’d have to think about giving the bastards any money).

  16. Jaguar Womon July 29, 2009 at 8:20 PM #

    Alexandra Erin:

    “Cum on face? That can turn me on. As part of a mutually pleasurable experience with a partner who is as committed to my pleasure as I am to his, why would that be humiliating?”

    We shouldn’t have a problem with what consenting people do in private. Once we as a society overcome our fear of sex, everyone will be benefitted. I’d be willing to bet misogynistic porn would lose its appeal. (I’m defining misogynistic porn as stuff that is, mainly, not consenual and unsafe.) Sex can be a way of liberating ourselves.

    I really find it hard to believe that any sex act is inherently misogynistic. (There might be some out there that I am unaware of, however.) It would have to depend on whether it was consensual–not coerced or forced–and the intention of all involved. Some things definitely seem degrading to me–for instance, bukkake–but maybe the people participating have a different view. We should let them define their own sexual lives. This is the only way we can build a society that is truly free of sexual repression, which can help pave the way for complete gender equality.

    I’d also like to add that, as a queer womon, I’ve noticed that most–if not all–of the heterosexual wimmin I know actively participate in their own oppression. It’s quite bizarre. If they’re not participating then they put on blinders and act like I’m nuts if I point out misogyny in the world.

    (As most people here seem to be quite confrontational, let me repeat that this occurs with wimmin I know, not all wimmin. I live in a very conservative womon-oppressing cesspool.)

    • Nine Deuce August 16, 2009 at 11:52 PM #

      You’re defining misogynistic porn as non-consensual or unsafe? So simulated rape porn isn’t misogynistic?

  17. Imaginary June 26, 2010 at 7:22 PM #

    Wow, I know this is old, but Nine Deuce, I think I have to give you a vegan cupcake for putting up with all these painfully stupid comments. And did she tell you to “shut up” on your own blog?

  18. Freddie July 29, 2010 at 12:06 PM #

    http://www.myspace.com/whatafeministlookslike

  19. joy July 29, 2010 at 7:48 PM #

    ““Grrr, plthhh, shit, piss, semen, punk, argh, beer, fuck yeah!””

    Yep. That sums up about every conversation I’ve ever overheard from any so-called ‘radical’ or ‘punk’ dudes.

  20. joy July 30, 2010 at 11:58 AM #

    Not to thread-jack, but speaking of radical dudes:

    What do you and the readership (if I ever call you ‘ladies’, understand that it comes from a place of deepest snark and troll-mockery) think of this?

    A radical-and-feminist, but not radical feminist, young woman told me last night that she thinks dudes in radical/punk circles just need “more positive female reinforcement.”

    I think that sounds an awful lot like, “Give the poor widdle mens a cookie for figuring out how not to rape! Hold their hands to teach them how to treat women like humans. Or else they might never grow up! Or even worse, they may throw a tantrum and that would be embarrassing for US.”

    However, I see a small point, if you agree that most men A. have everything invested in NOT figuring this shit out for themselves, and B. may be too thick to come to these conclusions on their own anyway.

    The part of me that tells myself, “You want to be a good radical, right? Not just a good radical -feminist-,” sees that point anyway.

    If this is truly my role in the revolution, I’d want to take on the schooling of more advanced subjects — let someone else coddle the drooling morons who haven’t yet decided that misogyny isn’t iconoclastic or “thought-provoking.”
    But the idea of schooling dudes still really depresses me. Fair or unfair?

    • Nine Deuce July 30, 2010 at 1:54 PM #

      It’s A. I mean, men are stupid, but this isn’t that hard to figure out. As for positive reinforcement, I go like this: if a dude gets why I’m a feminist, why feminism is important, etc., I’ll talk to him. If not, I won’t. Fuck being a “good radical” if it comes before women’s humanity, in which case it isn’t radical at all.

  21. joy July 30, 2010 at 11:59 AM #

    PS: Freddie, I doubt anyone’s going to click on that link without any extra information. I’m sure as shit not.

  22. Faith July 30, 2010 at 2:56 PM #

    “PS: Freddie, I doubt anyone’s going to click on that link without any extra information. I’m sure as shit not.”

    No worries. I risked getting metaphorical needles jammed in my eyes and clicked the link for you.

    It appears that “what a feminist looks like” is actually the name of an apparently all male band. Can’t tell you anymore than that tho because I was not inclined to download their songs, assuming, of course, that the link is legit.

  23. joy July 30, 2010 at 4:41 PM #

    Good call exactly, ND.

    It’s really popular in radical circles for dudes (and ladies! a surprising number of ladies) to think any combination of, “Okay, feminism worked, so now we can do misogynist things without it being misogynist!” and/or, “I’m a radical/punk, so I automatically can’t be misogynist ever.”

    Both of those things are wrong, and I do not feel like dealing with people who think either of them.

    The ones who say, “Actually, feminism is still relevant, please call me out if I ever slip up and act like a dick” I’m much more lenient with. The trouble is that I’ve found very, very few of that kind. Especially inb my age bracket.

    I suppose I could help ‘create’ some more of them, like the young woman said, but fuck if I want to do that. They can do it themselves. Which may be unfair of me and may be the reason why Feminism Fails.

    “Positive female reinforcement” just sounds too much like we’re playing a game and I’m the reward. I’m not playing any fucking game, and I’m certainly not anybody’s reward.

  24. joy July 31, 2010 at 1:49 PM #

    Sorry if there were repeat comments/sentiments up there. My internet was being a dick. (yes, omg, ‘gendered’ insult! on purpose.)

    Freddie’s link raised these questions in my mind:

    Is the band’s name ironic? Knowing what I know about punk (ie, I am a punk), I will say probably.
    Am I wrong, and is the band actually a bunch of male feminist supporters? Again, knowing what I know, I doubt it, but I’m not saying it couldn’t happen.

    Is the link posted as support for feminists, or as a boo-ya? “Bitches! Check out my irony. Owned.”
    Or is it a critique of the band, ie, “Look at these assholes and how unintentionally funny they are”?

    In lieu of other commentary, with the link left alone on ND’s blog like a lone wad of gum stuck in the center of the sidewalk, we may never know.

  25. Miss Andrist August 2, 2010 at 5:36 PM #

    Gotta weigh in.

    The band’s name is as funny, ironic, and profeminist as any other rape joke.

    -Miss Andrist

  26. joy August 2, 2010 at 9:31 PM #

    “The band’s name is as funny, ironic, and profeminist as any other rape joke.”

    More or less what I felt all along. I was just pretending to give a benefit of a doubt. Those got used up a long time ago.

  27. Jan March 5, 2011 at 7:23 AM #

    I’m absurdly late to this, but… man, I WISH Bukkake Boys was the worst band name ever. Oh, how I wish.

    And it would’ve been great if punk had ever really been substantially different this. But it wasn’t. It was always mostly sexist showing off, just like most phenomena in our crappy society. It was always very much exclusive. And what little hope and freedom there existed in early punk, hardcore almost completely obliterated. Hardcore was a cancer upon the punk scene, youth culture, and culture in general. And Henry Rollins…don’t even get me started on that overrated dudebro.

  28. joy March 5, 2011 at 1:30 PM #

    Someone else thinks Henry Rollins is a dudebro! High-five!

    I need to write a blog entry, perhaps even serial blog entries, about women in the music “world”.

    • Nine Deuce March 5, 2011 at 2:13 PM #

      Henry Rollins is most definitely a dudebro. You can hardly be punk when your fan base consists of Marines and people who aren’t tired of being reminded that you were in Black Flag, even though you were easily the worst singer the band ever had.

  29. joy March 5, 2011 at 4:08 PM #

    And then he played the role of a white supremacist rapist on that terrible motorcycle-gang show (which I did not see, only read about).

    Obviously acting is “just acting”, but it’s always made me wonder about people who take such roles and play them with celebration (from all evidence, although Rollins’ character eventually gets killed, this particular show celebrates and glorifies violence; it’s about a fucking -motorcycle gang.-)

  30. Jane March 7, 2011 at 11:46 PM #

    Interesting…have internet back after long Sabbatical from, and thought I’d go ahead and post to some comments, that I’ve been reading,

    on this: “”No, I’m not calling you sexually repressed. I’m saying you engage in sexual repression of others, which you do. You do it using the same tools that have always been used. Different language. Instead of saying, “Sinners, these desires are of the devil and you must resist them or you will surely perish in a lake of everburning battery acid.”, you say “Women, we should be examining our sexual desires to make sure that they’re not hurting society.”””

    Hmmm, interesting, let’s see, what happens then, when Women do not examine their or our sexual desires to see, as Responsible FREE adults should do, what influences and effects they yes have on not just society but millions of other women who may or may NOT give consent to the acts that other’s partake in and yet they are Forced to because of the willing compliance of countless other women under Patriarchal societies? IF we Women do not examine OUR desires, then that leaves what? Oh that’s right, MEN to examine their ‘sexual desires’ as well as define and dictate to Us women what OURS should be according to Their examination, and well, how has THAT worked out thus far? How many MEN examine their sexual desires as Responsible FREE adults, to see how THEIR ACTS, DESIRES AND PARTAKING OF, influences and/or impacts millions of other women and men around the world?

    IF women do NOT examine then in that, we are saying, that we let MEN do all the examining and defining for BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, what sexual desire Should be, so therefore to criticize examining of desires and the Constructs that define for a millennia what those desires are, by manipulation, coercion, social pressure and out right violent control, that women are doing, is really to say,

    ‘only MEN have the right to such examination’. Gee, isn’t that what Patriarchy HAS ALREADY?????????

    I don’t listen to punk music and don’t know what Bukkaki is, or what the band is, etc., I’m probably WAY older than many of you here but one thing I suppose I can bring into this is a long time knowledge of sex and sexual politics, so, on this I would like to examine, if I may,

    this whole ejaculation in face thing, what’s With that anyway? You know you mention the Bible [implied reference to with the sinners and all that] Erin, if I may call you that, funny how the same Bible you use to condemn Examination is the same Bible that guess what, Refers to the Humiliation of and by, God spreading ‘dung on the faces of those who do not submit’ to Him, actually it’s dung spread in the face of those who Oppress the poor, marginalized, widow, and such, to give a fair account [and not cherry pick scripture, after all, it's allegory, most still don't get that, and the context of the times/and literature/poetry Used then, by the language of the slave oppressed class] but anyway, Point being,

    the spreading of dung in the face [or semen] by Biblical standards was one of a Deliberate and Intentional humiliation and reminding of one’s proper Place under a higher Authority, under the laws of that time epoch [there were similar laws across all ancient Mesopotamian societies of that epoch, that placed a heavy emphasis on one’s place in the agrarian hierarchical-though communal world, under gods and their representatives, per se, though this varied according to the gods and types of societies but point being, the reference to ‘dung’ in the face, about shame and honor, was clearly something to be understood of that time frame. Same with castrating captive men and making them eunuchs [and if Porn were to be truly 'equal' then that should be highly celebrated as sexual liberation Don't ya think???? Oh Wait, MEN only get to examine, ah I see] ah but Anyhoo,

    the reference that goes back to B.C. is that dung or semen ejaculated and spread into the face IS in fact a symbol of a higher by divine lot Authority putting in place the subjugated class, as means of Punishment for defying that place of subjugation, therefore if the understanding of this ritual from B.C. times is understood as an act of humiliation and subjugation, then it’s only fair to say that the imagery of ‘ejaculating’ in faces of women is indeed, a Message of male superiority subjugating and keeping in place the Inferior by divine lot of Women, a means of punishment to keep the women in their subjugated place. The message is clear,

    therefore if women Examine this rite of subjugation ritual that has been Defined by Authorities since B.C., by MEN not WOMEN for it was MEN who wrote those ancient laws and customs, then the Question as to whether or not a Woman who Refuses to examine or who criticizes a woman or women who Do, is really simply a Woman policing the Questioning or Examining women into accepting her subjugation and well,

    taking on in the face as Nine eloquently put it. You say that the critiquing of long held [and that history Records as being an act or rite of symbol to dehumanize] normalized and defined by Men as acceptable means of spreading ‘dung’ [in this case semen acts as dung] in the face by a woman is HER telling you and others what is acceptable and what isn’t?

    That’s simply an oxymoron…as it’s the one’s who are NOT complying to the acceptance of rite who are examining and the ones who accuse such as yourself Erin who are in fact, simply Policing and Censuring the Questioner, Examining woman into fitting Back into her subjugated place…which,

    Ironically, is NO different, from the Bible Thumper zealot who cherry picks scriptures and says,

    Sinners it’s wrong to have desires and you’ll be thrown into a lake of fire…

    I’ve seen some kettle calling the kettle black but this one, just takes the cake big time,

    and As for this whole cum in the face experience you seem so vehemently determined to police women into accepting, I’d like to know,

    what Is so fascinating about this whole rite anyway? Is it that somehow magically this cum carrying seed thrown into the face of women just magically grows life on the face? Is it some male celebration of the glorious qualities of the life substance of sperm? Is That why you find it so exhilarating and uh, female empowering? If this is the case,

    then you know, YOU may be on to something and I’m sure, since ya know Porn is all about sexuality and equality and empowerment…why you know, Breast Milk too is about life sustenance and nurture, you know How about, we get an all female lactating band, that Ejaculates Breast Milk all in the faces of the males in the audience? WHY HOW HOT IS THAT?????

    Why gee, I feel so sexually liberated just thinking about it and well gee I don’t know, since Porn is all about respecting women and sexuality and all, why That should be a new trend, Don’t ya think? Lactating women squirting breast milk all on men’s faces, after of course these men give some vivacious awesome oral sex to unshaved women–because Why this is All about Women examining sex and Porn being All about sexual equality and empowerment and oooh fun,

    man oh man I can just See the pro porn women and the men they support just lapping this type of porn up, Can’t You? Why it would be top seller…because it’s Not about degradation, nahh, never, never,

    or humiliation and hey After all, I’ve EXAMINED IT WITH MY PARTNER and he agrees, this is the new hot thing–lactating women, all the world over, squirting breast milk in the faces of men who have been put back into their obedient place to Mommies of the World, the Womb,

    that’s right baby…take some of That! Why don’t the men feel All empowered and sexual? And you know we can throw in a slap or two in there just for kink’s sake…because you know it’s All about celebrating our modern sexuality, Yippee, and you know, since the Womb and Mommy Power is all about changing diapers, why by golly, let’s get them to be ‘good ole boys’ and spread some Dung in the face too,

    why, I think I hear my phone ringing, the porn industry is just all over this, they want first dibs, that’s right, why this will be a Top Seller because MEN don’t define or examine sex–why the Erin’s and Sarah’s of the world do and why now it’s Egalitarian Porn,

    why, Come on Sarah and Erin, I bet your men would be the First to let you spread Breast milk all in their face while wiping their face with dung too–to Celebrate those Bodily Life giving fluids, that are all about Power and Life Sustaining ability,

    after all, hey hey, that’s why Men do it to women Right? It’s all about their respect and luv for us…our face that is, why they luv us So much that they want to celebrate their sperm seed all over our faces, and why us Modern pro-porn women are All about supporting our ‘brethren’s needs to be all sperm empowered’!!!

    And since we are so Sexually Liberated, why we Share don’t we? Come on now boys, how about some breast milk…because Porn mags are just all full of spreads of lactating women spreading their bodily fluids–celebrating Sexuality, Life, ah Yes…

    and to Condemn such a beautiful life giving act of the lactating woman spreading her milk seed duct on the faces of men, why that’s just Sooooo repressive, you know, something only the ‘sinners can’t have those desires types’ would do–wouldn’t ever, Ever expect such Discrimination from the

    pro-porn lot?

    Breast milk and dung, ah yes baby–the New empowered bodily fluid sharing gift to de Menz, by the Empowered Sexually liberated Pro-Porn feminist!

    And just look at all those wet men out there just drooling over the thought of being debased, er I mean reminded of their little boy place to Mommy–by de

    breast milk ejaculation!

    Yep Erin, I’ve examined it…sure have, ain’t it Grand to be free baby?

    ;)

    [any not seeing the sarcasm is simply the fault of not my writing but the fact that the porn male lovers just didn't get enough of the life brain fluid of breast milk as infant and they are Severely lacking in the ability to discern or think...]

    Jane

  31. joy March 8, 2011 at 2:32 AM #

    Jane, that was awesome. You took that brilliant analogy to the edge, pushed it right over, pulled it back, and pushed it again.

    Wait, does that sound like a porn*? Fuck. Hey, it must be I’m liberated!!

    * I’m sorry that sounds kind of like a porn.

  32. Jane March 8, 2011 at 2:36 PM #

    Thank you Joy, yea sometimes I can do allegories and sometimes, I try and well, LOL, totally miss the boat and fall in deep mire….

    part of the taking back myself from the RA I did exercises, and it’s funny because in doing that, I often found the face of blatant hypocrisy in the justifications used so heavily in the pro-porn/prostitution industry/mentality, same with BDSM,

    because Truth of the matter is, IF porn were about the empowerment of Women and their humiliating men, it wouldn’t be in Demand nor would it be so adamantly defended by Patriarchal adherents of the phallic gods. Porn as far as I’m concerned, is the imagery of the worship and sacrifice of the phallic, as gawd. But that gawd,

    is not the life giver nor nurturer, but instead the Destroyer of life–

    the whole phallic worship is always centered around the sperm-seed [be it porn, religion, polemic, philosophy, pagan religions, etc],

    and the nurture-life aspect, that we See physically in Nature, is raped, pillaged, picked apart, cut up, polluted, ignored, diminished, erased, and then at the Same time–this myth of belief that the Sperm-Seed is the All giving life bearer, in the here and now–

    but in Nature, that seed born, if left, DIES. The image of the Mother, was erased, in the beginning–Genesis, Gene,

    replaced with Only the Father, Sperm [that should give a clue, huge one in fact, to the relation to the Porn imagery of Bible to the Porn imagery of Patriarchal Porn and this is why, the whole evolutionary psychology bullshit that says, ‘get rid of religion/God and women will be free but of course free to suck cock is what they Really mean and demand’ because they have Not addressed the erasure of the Life Nurture, the Egg, the Mother, the Milk of LIFE,

    without, everything in nature DIES. And the hatred of the Egg, the Milk,

    is the proof evident, and Sperm, of

    MISOGYNY.

    and Porn, is it’s

    CARVED IMAGE.

    Jane [could have said this better, may come back and edit as this is something I'm still working out]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers