Dear “sex positive” “feminists” who think I’m a dick for having a problem with bukkake…

10 Jun

I often get comments from people telling me that my raising questions about acts such as men ejaculating on women’s faces, bukkake, ATM, etc. equate to “the patriarchy” trying to limit women’s sexual freedom. They claim that I’m “trying to use the master’s tools to tear down his house” by making arguments against women’s participation in porn and other activities that derive from and abet misogyny. I understand the reasoning behind that argument (though I don’t agree with it), which I explained here (short version: men have been telling us we can’t like sex for so long, and now that we’ve gotten some freedom to like it, how dare you – as a woman – come and try to tell us what we like isn’t OK). But I’d really like an answer to one serious question: how does participating in the production of misogynistic porn “tear down the master’s house”? How does participating in sex acts intended to degrade, whether you personally enjoy them or not, result in the destruction of male supremacy? I don’t know that all that many people claim that it does or will, but I’ve gotten the distinct impression from several commenters that they think that it’s a better route than trying to extirpate the systemic misogyny, both external and internalized, that allows the sex industry to exist and that creates a situation in which some women take enjoyment from acts that their male partners enjoy specifically because they’re degrading.

232 Responses to “Dear “sex positive” “feminists” who think I’m a dick for having a problem with bukkake…”

  1. Laurel June 10, 2009 at 9:46 AM #

    OFFS!

    Defending such things in the name of feminism is using the master’s tools to

    redecorate the master’s house
    add a dungeon to the master’s basement
    and rearrange the furniture in the master’s house

    …all in the name of dismantling it.

  2. Aileen Wuornos June 10, 2009 at 3:42 PM #

    You know, I’ve finally gotten my head around this whole kind of thing, and I totally fucking agree. Bukkake/cum shots/whatever the fuck you want to call them just seem in 9 times out of 10 messed up & degrading because on the whole it’s something that “gets done” to a woman rather than something that is a reciprocal and equal enjoyable act for all parties concerned.

    You know, I’ve never seen anything in the world of pornography that shows female ejaculation as anything more than a cheap trick, whereas male ejaculate seems to be a symbol of power/something special. Funny that.

    I wonder where all the videos of guys getting covered in female ejaculate are?

    But female orgasm isn’t really you know, anything special or important so it’s not like it matters { / sarcasm }

    Long comment short: I agree.

    • RenegadeEvolution June 10, 2009 at 9:55 PM #

      “I wonder where all the videos of guys getting covered in female ejaculate are? ”

      It’s a fairly popular specialty market.

      • Aileen Wuornos June 11, 2009 at 3:56 AM #

        Really? Well there we go, I suppose you really do learn something new every day. I have to say I haven’t really encountered too much of these even when I worked in a sex shop/on the web.

        Most people I’ve personally encountered within the sex industry (and indeed irlz/afk) seem to think that female ejaculation is a cheap party trick, urine or non-existent. Fuck, it shits me so much.

        • RenegadeEvolution June 11, 2009 at 6:52 AM #

          Really. It has become quite popular.

          • Nine Deuce June 11, 2009 at 6:58 AM #

            I know there are tons of dudes who like to watch squirting porn, but it’s usually showy nonsense with women squirting what’s most likely water or urine either nowhere or onto another woman/into another woman’s mouth, no? I’m saying, if there are men being ejaculated upon in porn, does it come anywhere close to the prevalence of the reverse? And what’s the tone?

            • RenegadeEvolution June 11, 2009 at 7:03 AM #

              Um, I have watched plenty of porn with women ejaculating on men…because I rather dig watching that. Is it as prevelent? No. It’s not at all. But it is there…context usually being they have sex, he masturbates her, or she masturbates then does it on him.

              And not all women ejaculate, so that might be why it is not super prevelent.

              • Nine Deuce June 11, 2009 at 7:18 AM #

                But the tone matters, I think. Who is the viewer supposed to be? Who is doing what for whom?

                • RenegadeEvolution June 11, 2009 at 7:39 AM #

                  Tone matters, sure. I’ve said before I do not think sex acts have politic, the people doing them add that. As for your questions, I think that depends. I’ve seen it in lesbian porn made for real lesbians by real lesbians and I have seen it in hardcore gonzo. I think with the lesbian porn, it is probably a “hey, sometimes some of our bodies do this, lets show it, celebrate it, and enjoy it”…I think with gonzo a lot of the time it is “women do that?”

              • m Andrea June 19, 2009 at 5:07 PM #

                Dare I mention that there is zero logic here?

                The assertion was that “a particular sex act is mostly done by males to females” and that this prevalance indicates a certain level of sexism.

                RE’s response is “in niche markets a small quantity of females perform this particular sex act upon males”.

                That isn’t even a refutation, it’s a fucking excuse. Because “some women perform violence on men” does not ever mitigate the fact that 98% of all physical violence is committed by men. It’s an outlier, and I’m supposed to not mention the low IQ necessary to remain ignorant of outliers, or of the people too fucking stupid to understand how logic works.

                • Liselotte June 20, 2009 at 2:57 AM #

                  The difference is that violence is definately bad in itself. It is not bad because mostly men do it, it’s bad because it’s done and for some reason it happens to be done mostly by man so the assumption that it’s a gender problem is likely.

                  Ejaculating into other’s faces is viewed as bad BECAUSE it’s mostly done by men. Ejaculation doesn’t hurt, is not necessarily forced, doesn’t smell that terribly, and has apart from a slightly increased AIDS risk no true bad health effects. The only reason that it is viewed as a generally bad thing is that it’s mostly done by men.

                  Violence indicates a problem and it’s stats indicate the problem is sexism.
                  Bukkake has some stats that may indicate sexism.

                • RenegadeEvolution June 20, 2009 at 6:16 AM #

                  Well gee there M, I don’t see squirting as violent. Its a biological act. A question was asked, I answered it…

                  How stupid of me, I know.

                  Then again, jumping in with both feet going OMG logic! violence! when someone mentions a trend in a market in response to a question doesn’t ring particularly logical or intelligent to me.

                  And see what Liselotte said there, too. Someone walking up and punching me in the face is violent. Some dude who I have granted permission to cum on my face is an entirely different beast.

                • karinova June 24, 2009 at 12:34 AM #

                  Exactly.
                  “Plenty of a niche market” does not equal “most of the entire market” or necessarily “a significant fraction of the entire market.” Female ejaculation IS seen as something of a trick, and not so much the meat-n-potatoes of the porn industry. It’s not so much, “is it EVER portrayed,” it’s more “how pervasive is it?” And clearly, it’s not pervasive. At all.

                  If it were, then “cum shot” would be an ambiguous term. But it isn’t.

                • Oren Yaaniv November 22, 2009 at 9:03 AM #

                  and 90%+ of men never commit violence against men or women.

                  • Nine Deuce November 22, 2009 at 5:52 PM #

                    That’s a pretty poor showing.

                    • aray November 22, 2009 at 8:43 PM #

                      I’m not sure how accurate this is, but I’ve read that statistically women are more likely to commit domestic abuse/violence, and more likely to cause serious physical injury in doing so.

                    • Nine Deuce November 22, 2009 at 9:01 PM #

                      Aray – Get the fuck out of here. Are you an MRA?

                    • lith November 22, 2009 at 10:11 PM #

                      Can you ban this dick already?

                    • isme November 23, 2009 at 3:56 AM #

                      I think the accuracy of that is “not very at all”.

                      Unless you are counting various things as psychological abuse (some MRAs like doing that).

  3. Alexandra Erin June 10, 2009 at 4:02 PM #

    Oh, I didn’t see this post before checking the recent comments section.

    During the heyday of Bush’s presidency, I had a conversation with a coworker where I opined that certain actions the president took were not actually conducive to catching Bin Laden and dismantling Al Qaeda. Yeah. Controversial. I know.

    Her response was, “Well, it’s easy to criticize, but at least he’s doing something, when no one else is.

    Okay, I’m sure you can see that’s a ridiculous response, right? I mean, we only have one president. I don’t have my own army and my own intelligence apparatus I could be using to pursue my own goals in re: Al Qaeda. So of course “no one else” was doing anything. But that’s beside the point.

    It’s the “at least he’s doing something” that I’m addressing here.

    No, I don’t think “taking one in the face” dismantles Patriarchy. I don’t think brushing my teeth dismantles Patriarchy, either. I do several things in the course of a day that don’t dismantle Patriarchy. Fighting Patriarchy is a great cause and it’s something that needs to be done, and I do my best to do my part, but some actions I take are more about my emotional and biological needs than fighting Patriarchy.

    But do you think that shaming women who have external contact with ejaculate for sexual purposes is dismantling Patriarchy?

    That’s what we’re trying to get you to examine.

    You said in a comment on your last post that you are someone who spends all her time fighting misogyny, or words to that effect. But maybe you’re “chasing Al Qaeda in Iraq”, so to speak. Are you willing to look at that possibility? Are you willing to consider that your actions may not be productive towards dismantling Patriarchy? Are you willing to own the possibility that they may in fact be strengthening the insurgency?

    The porn industry as we know it depends on the idea that sex in general is shameful and dirty and humiliating, and it makes big money on the idea that specific marketable acts are even more so.

    They bank on the stigmatization of bukkake and BDSM.

    If you said, “There are huge problems with the porn industry.”, I’m sure you’d get a lot of agreement from both sex-positive feminists and your radfem friends and even from many people who work in the porn industry.

    But you can’t “extirpate the misogyny” from it by engaging in actions that parallel misogyny. (There, I’m not calling you a misogynist… but seriously look at what you do. You earlier objected strenuously to the idea that your actions paralleled homophobia.)

    Destigmatizing the phenomenon of a woman enjoying contact with ejaculate is no more celebrating degradation than destigmatizing the phenomenon of a woman enjoying sex. In both cases the very idea of it as “degradation” is a Patriarchal meme geared towards controlling women and in fact controlling sexuality and thereby just plain controlling people, allowing the current hegemony to continue… whoever’s at the top of the shitheap for the moment stays at the top, in other words.

    Destigmatizing “facials” doesn’t feed the porn industry as much as the stigma itself does. That was what I was getting at when I mentioned Japan. I assumed you weren’t familiar with the history or else you might recognize this phenomenon in action.

    If sex is truly destigmatized… not just “men and women having correct appropriate approved sex” but sex itself becomes free of stigma and shame then the misogynistic porn industry as we know it won’t exist. Some men and women who enjoy visual stimulation and like to see people enjoying sex acts will undoubtedly still buy what we’d call porn. I’m not really a visual person so I wouldn’t be among them. My stimulating material of choice is more likely to be words.

    So anyway, to come to a bottom line:

    No, getting a “facial” (stupid name but I don’t have a better one for it, most sex acts have stupid juvenile names because of the way our society treats sex) doesn’t itself dismantle Patriarchy. But attacking something that fails to dismantle Patriarchy doesn’t dismantle Patriarchy, and when you’re attacking women in the process, that’s when you’re rebuilding the Master’s House.

    • Nine Deuce June 10, 2009 at 5:35 PM #

      I’m not attacking women, I’m saying that we ought to think about why we might enjoy something that men get off on because it’s a symbol of power. Why doesn’t anyone get the difference?

      • Alexandra Erin June 10, 2009 at 5:51 PM #

        No, ND, you are attacking women. If I punch you in the kidney while saying I’m not, I still am.

        Let’s have some examination:

        If I wanted to watch porn, I could find without looking a video that takes a man and a woman having sex, cranks up everything potentially misogynistic and creepy about that act to 11.

        So, ND… why do you think you might enjoy having sex with a man? It’s clear… according to the existence of this porn… that the only purpose of sex is to degrade women!

        Obviously that’s not true. But that’s the narrative porn creates about that sex act, though. As feminists… heck, as human beings who can’t function healthily without a healthy view of our sexual selves… we cannot accept that narrative as definitive. We cannot let the fact that men use the sex act as a form of control stop us from enjoying it.

        Do you disagree with any of that, from “Obviously that’s not true.”? Serious question. I’m assuming you would.

        So now we come to a specific sex act: man ejaculating on woman. Substitute it in for the assumed default “sex act”.

        What changes?

        I’ve seen you say again and again that this act exists only to degrade women. But what separates it from any other sex act, that the porn version of it becomes so definitive that we can’t “safely” engage in it when we can “safely” engage in other sex acts that are even more common and more deeply entrenched in porn?

        You say no sex act is above examination. I’m serious. Let’s examine. What is it about the ejaculation-contact that is inherently degrading to the woman that’s not the case with Just Plain Sex? Let’s see if we can’t come up with an answer that couldn’t be said about Just Plain Sex.

        And if we can’t… well, we’ve got two places to proceed from there. It can follow that both these acts–vanilla heterosexual intercourse and “facials”–even when done by individuals in privacy for their own reasons are recreating misogynistic porn and participating in a vicious cycle that results in the suffering of women, or we can conclude that neither is. If we go with the first… well, heck, even the radical lesbian separatists are out of luck because there is -no- sex act that has been fetishized in misogynistic form by porn. Even the act of female masturbation. Especially the act of female masturbation. I guess we’re either doomed to live an unexamined life or die extremely frustrated.

        Or… we could follow the other path, which lies in realizing that whatever you do with your fiance(?) has nothing to do with porn and a woman who enjoys being ejaculated upon doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with porn, either. This doesn’t mean we can’t examine porn for problems. This doesn’t mean we can’t rail against it.

        It would mean you stop taking potshots at people who enjoy the sex acts, acting like women who have a different reaction than you do to contact with semen are bystanders/victims of their own sexuality…

        In short, following the second line of reasoning would mean you need to stop throwing around lines like “the only point of this act is degradation.” You’re taking the criticism away from pornography and putting it on people who enjoy the act. In doing so, you’re shaming–hurting–women.

        Is that enough examination for you?

        • Nine Deuce June 10, 2009 at 5:53 PM #

          Let’s get some examination as to where the enjoyment comes from on both sides, huh?

          • Bean June 22, 2009 at 4:23 AM #

            Well, that’s easy.

            I’ll leave aside the people who actually like the idea of being degraded. Even doing that, there are plenty of people who love getting semen on themselves. I’m not one of this group; but my observations have been that these people find it sexy because they see it as “proof” of their partner’s arousal and orgasm, and that is deeply erotic. Wanting to “mark” yourself (or be marked) with this proof, is, I imagine, a pretty visceral response.

            And no, there is no equivalent to bukkake in porn for straight men. You will never see, “Slutty dude gets his face covered in vaginal secretions!” on a porn site. That cultural baggage admittedly isn’t there.

            But I have yet to meet a straight man who does not find that fluid hot to one degree or another. The straight men I’ve talked to have liked everything from the sight of it to getting it smeared from their hairlines to their chins.

            There’s clearly nothing inherently degrading about getting sex-related fluids on your person; and it can be hot for both parties without that context.

            So why is the standard here different for women?

            Why should the fact that porn is misogynistic dictate how much pleasure women are allowed to get out of their [male] partner’s bodies and sexual fluids?

        • Aileen Wuornos June 11, 2009 at 4:09 AM #

          “Obviously that’s not true. But that’s the narrative porn creates about that sex act, though. As feminists… heck, as human beings who can’t function healthily without a healthy view of our sexual selves… we cannot accept that narrative as definitive. We cannot let the fact that men use the sex act as a form of control stop us from enjoying it.”

          So gays, lesbians, transgender and asexuals just don’t darn well count do they?

          “You say no sex act is above examination. I’m serious. Let’s examine. What is it about the ejaculation-contact that is inherently degrading to the woman that’s not the case with Just Plain Sex? Let’s see if we can’t come up with an answer that couldn’t be said about Just Plain Sex.”

          The fact that you view penis-in-vagina as ‘just plain sex’ demonstrates to me that you either have an a) very limited defininiton of sex, b) fail to recognise that there is no “just plain sex”, c) probably watch a LOT of porn. Not winning my vote of confidence here either.

          “It would mean you stop taking potshots at people who enjoy the sex acts, acting like women who have a different reaction than you do to contact with semen are bystanders/victims of their own sexuality…”

          You know, I like a hot load of bodily fluids as much as the next woman, but when something is constantly being shown as an act that is DONE TO a woman rather than PARTICIPATED in by a man AND a woman, I might find it kind of difficult to enjoy it anymore. It’s like when you learn where your meat actually comes from you might find it a little difficult to swallow (if you’ll pardon my poor jokes.) Sometimes you have to think a little deeper to actually understand where ND is coming from and that’s something I’ve appreciated about reading here.

          These days, if I was fucking with someone and I knew they watched a lot of porn (who these days I probably wouldn’t go out with at all due to the inherit rape-jokes and misogyny that seem to accompany that as a favourite film genre) and they wanted to come on my face, I’d really be questioning WHY. And more importantly, what’s in it for me? Oh that’s right. Sweet fuck all. Maybe if they wanted me to return the favour I could see it as a reciprocal act, but, uh, until then. Nuh huh her.

          P.S I hope this okay NineDeuce, but this comment fucking bugged me and I quite literally just rolled out of bed, so I hope it’s understandable and not just jibberish.

          • Nine Deuce June 11, 2009 at 5:54 AM #

            That comment also bugged me. There’s the assumption in that first quote that it’s the porn that contaminates the sex act with misogyny, rather than the sex act deriving directly from misogyny. Yeah, porn tells us a man ejaculating on a woman’s face is hot because it’s degrading. And yes, many men who want to do that in real life are doing so because they get off on degrading. These men are pieces of shit. The woman who enjoys having her face ejaculated upon is, in my book, internalizing misogyny. If she likes it, whooptyfuckingdo. She doesn’t suck, she’s not a dumbass, she’s not a bad person, but that doesn’t change the intent or the derivation of the act. Guess what almost NO ONE was doing before the advent of internet porn? That’s right, ejaculating onto faces.

            Can’t we aim higher than participating in our own degradation? Sure, life in the 50s was not so hot for women, and their sexual needs and wants were repressed and/or ignored. That wasn’t a good thing. But the replacement is pretty shitty, too. We go from having our sexuality suppressed and erased to having it warped to meet the desires of men who hate us. No thanks, dude.

            The assertion that I’m just opposed to contact with semen is an intentional mischaracterization of my argument. I’m not squeamish about nature, I’m squeamish about intentional degradation and the eroticization of women’s dehumanization. I feel like I’m writing a Bad Religion song with all these -tion words.

            And yes, the assumption here seems to be that my conception of sex is “lame” and “boring,” and is limited to hetero, penis-in-vagina, missionary style with candles and goddamn Enya on the stereo. Guess what, assholes? You’re doing the exact kind of shaming you’re accusing me of, and it’s even worse because you are making assumptions about my private sexual activities with no information on which to base them. And you’re wrong.

            (This rant isn’t aimed at you, AW. I just got going here and went on with it.)

            • Aileen Wuornos June 11, 2009 at 6:33 AM #

              To be quite honest your rants get me a little bit more than excited. They give me some faith in humanity to know that not everyone is a fucking moron.

              “That comment also bugged me. There’s the assumption in that first quote that it’s the porn that contaminates the sex act with misogyny, rather than the sex act deriving directly from misogyny.

              Yeah, porn tells us a man ejaculating on a woman’s face is hot because it’s degrading. And yes, many men who want to do that in real life are doing so because they get off on degrading. These men are pieces of shit. The woman who enjoys having her face ejaculated upon is, in my book, internalizing misogyny. If she likes it, whooptyfuckingdo. She doesn’t suck, she’s not a dumbass, she’s not a bad person, but that doesn’t change the intent or the derivation of the act.”

              Too true, it took me ages to get my head around this concept, but now I finally fucking get it, but it’s just so god damned obvious when you make the connection. And I think that’s a large part what this needs to be about – more women AND men need to be making the connection between inherit misogyny and certain sexual acts.

              These sex acts themselves are in no-way totally 100% foolproof misogynistic but when you throw in people (which you kind of have to do for most sexual acts) who have these attitudes, values and individual contexts it sure as fuck does become misogynistic.

              “Guess what almost NO ONE was doing before the advent of internet porn? That’s right, ejaculating onto faces.”

              This I’m not 100% on because the internet has been around nearly my whole life (why yes, 19 is in fact, a baby in the grand scheme of things)
              but it honestly wouldn’t surprise me.
              All the boyfriends I’ve had who watched porn EXPECTED this kind of behaviour, and guess what, they were also ALL rapists (of myself and other women), domestic abusers and just generally fucking horrible, wretched wrecks of human beings. Oh yeah, and a few of them did watch legitimate rape porn. Stuff that makes the things on kink.com look like vanilla, missionary, Enya & candles (that is fucking genius btw ND.) The ONE boyfriend I had who actually didn’t watch porn was the only boyfriend/sexual partner I’ve had to date that hasn’t been a pressuring/raping/abusive bastard. Funny that. I guess I’m beginning to make the connection, too.

              On the other hand – I don’t really ever remember any of my girlfriends asking me to “take a load” of theirs on my face, but I do remember one who was keen in showing off our relationship for boys (she watched a lot of porn.) We didn’t last long needless to say, because well, I don’t really see my sexuality as some kind of showpiece.

              “Can’t we aim higher than participating in our own degradation? Sure, life in the 50s was not so hot for women, and their sexual needs and wants were repressed and/or ignored. That wasn’t a good thing. But the replacement is pretty shitty, too. We go from having our sexuality suppressed and erased to having it warped to meet the desires of men who hate us. No thanks, dude.”

              Pretty fucking much.

              “The assertion that I’m just opposed to contact with semen is an intentional mischaracterization of my argument. I’m not squeamish about nature, I’m squeamish about intentional degradation and the eroticization of women’s dehumanization. I feel like I’m writing a Bad Religion song with all these -tion words.”

              Again, I’ve finally gotten my head around this concept and I just wanted to add that again, I agree.

              My apologies that this has kind of turned into a rant as well, but well, I read yours and I just couldn’t help it.

            • Nico_D October 21, 2009 at 9:03 AM #

              “Guess what almost NO ONE was doing before the advent of internet porn? That’s right, ejaculating onto faces. ”

              Probably, no real way to tell. The Marquis de Sade wrote about it way before the internet, tho.

              • Nine Deuce October 21, 2009 at 9:25 AM #

                Yeah, but he also wrote about fucking cows’ nostrils.

                • Nico_D October 21, 2009 at 9:36 AM #

                  True that. Definitely not holding him up as a shining pillar of moral theory.

      • Gayle June 21, 2009 at 5:16 PM #

        They’re desperately trying to defend their industry, that’s why. It’s super hard to defend the indefensible so they change the argument. Suddenly being *against* cum-on-the face is anti-women.

        It’s so bizzaro-world ridiculous, it’s kinda funny.

  4. Alexandra Erin June 10, 2009 at 4:05 PM #

    P.S.: Nice use of scare quotes in the subject heading. I guess we know who the feminist police is.

    Yeah, how dare I call myself a quote-feminist-endquote when I oppose the shaming of women in order to control their sexuality.

    • Nine Deuce June 10, 2009 at 5:42 PM #

      I don’t control anyone’s sexuality, dude. All I do is discuss sexuality as a political phenomenon.

  5. Nine Deuce June 10, 2009 at 6:29 PM #

    Listen, Alexandra Erin, here’s the point of contention I think we have. You say that you think the misogyny in porn comes from a sexually repressed society in which sexuality, due to a hangover of Judeo-Christian ideas about it, is seen as dirty. Shame mixed with desire equals hostility misplaced onto the object of that desire. I get that, and I agree with it. But where we have a problem is in the solution. I’m all for women’s freedom of sexual expression, but I don’t think that internalizing misogyny to the point where one enjoys acts intended to degrade is true sexual freedom. I’m not saying that you can’t do such a thing, but I am saying that the solution to misogyny is not through participating in it, whether joyously or not. You clearly disagree. So, what is your solution?

  6. Laurel June 10, 2009 at 7:33 PM #

    I don’t, for the record, think “external contact” with ejaculate for sexual purposes (or fellatio) is inherently degrading or disgusting. But my experience is that many men DO think their semen is an inherently icky, disgusting substance magically capable of rendering a woman a “freak who’ll do anything” if she swallows it or lets it touch her exterior.

    I can’t remove bukkake from that narrative. (I don’t think it _exists_ outside that narrative, whereas intercourse most certainly does.) If I did find a man who had never seen any porn at all, then what in Hell would make him wake up one morning and think “Gee, I’d like to come all over your FACE, Honey,” if not a desire to degrade me?

    It’s the fact that it’s the face that bothers me. In what other context is squirting something on someone’s face, or even discussing same, not insulting and degrading? “In your face!” is, after all, slang for “I just dominated you.”

    I wouldn’t argue, without knowing much more about someone, that doing bukkake made that person “not a feminist.” But I’m of the opinion that a “facial” can never be anything but the opposite of a feminist act.

    • Nine Deuce June 10, 2009 at 7:34 PM #

      Here’s my concurrment (not a real word, I know).

    • Aileen Wuornos June 11, 2009 at 4:10 AM #

      This.

    • James June 21, 2009 at 5:08 PM #

      I think you are disregarding the urge to make a mess.

  7. Charlie June 10, 2009 at 7:42 PM #

    I think that there’s a distinction that needs to be made here because there are at least two things that are true.

    1) For many people, external ejaculation in general and facial ejaculation in particular is connected in any of a number of ways with humiliation. This is especially evident in m/f porn, particularly in gonzo and a lot of internet porn.

    and at the same time,

    2) for some people, external ejaculation (including facial ejaculation) is arousing for reasons that have nothing to do with humiliation. For most people with whom I’ve spoken about this, they enjoy the sensation of it or the experience of it more than watching it happen to someone else.

    One place where I think you rile up many sex-positive folks, including me, is in your use of sweeping statements based on one set of experiences around a particular activity to describe everyone who engages in that activity. I fully agree that many people experience external ejaculation as degrading and I also believe that the prevalence of gonzo porn encourages men to pressure women into doing things that they don’t want to do. Most of the sex-positive people I know, whether feminist, “feminist”, or not, would agree with that.

    Where I think your arguments can sometimes fall short from a sex-positive perspective is that you often neglect to mention that there are people whose experiences are different from whatever you’re describing. Even when it’s a small minority, I think that it’s still valuable to recognize that diversity of experience. If what you describe isn’t something that happens in every single case, then it’s possible to explore why experiences differ from person to person. That can be valuable information from both a theoretical perspective and from a strategic/political perspective. But to make sweeping statements and ignore the diversity of sexual experiences is one of the ways that sex-negativity is reinforced.

    Another place where I think that your arguments fall into sex-negative patterns is when you write about “sex acts intended to degrade.” It’s not the sex act that’s degrading because almost any activity you can think of can be degrading or not, depending on the relationship between the people involved and their feelings about the sexual activity. To argue that the degradation is inherent in the act is to use another tool that has been used to reinforce narrow and negative definitions of acceptable sexuality.

    So when two of the tools that are used to reinforce sex-negativity are woven so deeply into many of your arguments, is it really a surprise that many sex-positive people disagree with you? Usually, I’m able to separate out the kernel of truth from the sweeping statements or the assumption that the problem lies with the sex act rather than in the people. It’s usually worth it, but it’s not always easy.

    I don’t think you’re a dick for having a problem with bukkake, although I don’t use sexual terms a pejoratives since that also reinforces the idea that dick/cunt/asshole = bad. I think that the way you frame your arguments often reinforces sex-negative beliefs and I find that problematic.

  8. RenegadeEvolution June 10, 2009 at 9:54 PM #

    ND:

    I am going to engage this question in good faith.

    Because women aren’t supposed to like sex at all, I think when a woman is upfront and very blunt about liking act X- from receiving oral sex if that is what she likes and wants, to whatever, be it bukkake or whatever else- is at least speaking out and saying what it is she wants. Which IMHO is a step forward since women aren’t supposed to like or be sexual. I think it is silly to assume we’re all going to like the same things, or get all over eachother when we don’t. I think women naming and acting on their own desires and saying what they want is a GOOD thing- even if those things are widely diversified.

  9. Nine Deuce June 10, 2009 at 11:00 PM #

    Let’s think about Occam’s Razor here for a second (though everyone knows I hate both Occam’s Razor and the people who bring it up in evopsych arguments). I don’t like simplistic, black-and-white arguments or else I’d put everything down to evolution, but the train of thought here is insane. I’m basically being told that I’m the one who’s fucked up for having a problem with bukkake. I can see how someone could stretch his mind into a pretzel to make my position look anti-woman, and I can follow the mental gymnastics one could go through to make me out to be a cultural imperialist for denigrating a practice that derived from another cultural context. But you know what’s much simpler and makes much more sense than all of those logic-defying stretches of the imagination? Coming to the realization that bukkake is, in fact, misogynistic. Just think about it for one second, for fuck’s sake. I don’t care if one time, long ago, in a galaxy far away, someone found a way to do it in a loving manner and with no intent to degrade (which I doubt anyway). It’s an act intended to degrade, the end.

    • RenegadeEvolution June 11, 2009 at 2:57 AM #

      For the record- I don’t get or like bukkake either. Ick. So not my thing. Do I know men who are grossed out by it and women who like it? Yeah. To each their own. And ND, I would say anyone saying you are fucked up for not liking it is…a moron…you are in no way required to like it.

      This whole thing is head smashingly annoying. People like different things for different reasons- and yep, a lot of times those reasons are highly personalized and have indeed been examined. I guess I am of the mind if whatever those things are, they are done with consenting adults…game on. I mean, I am into shit other people are not, other people are into shit I am not into. I’m not asking anyone to do what I do- or implying that they are messed up some how if they don’t- I’d merely like the same consideration (in general) in return.

      And I think sometimes there is an over-assumption on what men think is degrading or why they like/do various things. Half of me on that says, well, if the woman likes it and is there of her own will, who gives a fuck, why does it have to be all about him- I mean, Robert Jensen has made a damn career out of telling women they should not do whatever because men might think it’s degrading- fuck all about what the woman may or may not feel about it…and odd that, I don’t think it is or should be all about the men. The other half of me thinks, and knows, that a lot of things people assume men do because they are all about the degradation- well, often times, either the men aren’t, or are not into those things themselves unless it is for pay. Strange world we live in no doubt, but I do think there is way too much assumption going on.

    • Gorgias June 18, 2009 at 12:58 AM #

      Behold, the Applejacks defense. We think bukkake is misogynistic because, well… we just do!

      • Nine Deuce June 18, 2009 at 1:56 AM #

        Oh come on, dude. Are you saying it isn’t?

        • Gorgias June 18, 2009 at 3:22 AM #

          I’m saying that it’s conceivable that someone has a different reaction to something than I do. Masochism tends to reinforce that notion early and often.

          I don’t doubt that bukkake is degrading for the vast majority of people. I don’t even doubt that of the people who enjoy bukkake, that the degradation is precisely why they enjoy it, though I do think that it’s possible to navigate such an experience in a way that preserves the dignity and respect of both (or all) participants. I also don’t doubt that the number of permutations of human sexuality will never cease to amaze me and therefore I cannot a priori discount the fact that some person had the right factor of inborn traits and lived experiences to somehow conclude in their sexual self that bukkake was both not degrading and sexy. If anyone came forward claiming such experiences, I would certainly believe them, as they know far more about their sexuality than I do.

          In other words, let other people define their own sexuality. You know, the things the queers and the feminists have been fighting for for so long?

          • Firefey June 23, 2009 at 1:34 AM #

            ok, so this has been mulling over for a few days and i have to sort of agree with gorgias here. let people define their sexuality.

    • James June 21, 2009 at 5:11 PM #

      It’s an act intended to degrade, the end.

      I find it strange that someone who’s constantly acting the clarion & calling for analysis has already made up their mind.

  10. k!m June 10, 2009 at 11:10 PM #

    ND, I understand the distinction you’re trying to draw. And I agree with you.

    I also agree with some of what Alexandra, Erin, and RenegadeEvolution say.

    I see how a video of a woman being covered in ejaculate represents the “power” attached to penises and men. (Renegade: While there IS a presence of men being covered in women’s ejaculate in porn, the fact that you called it “specialty” says something about mainstream expectations when it comes to women in porn, be it amateur or professional. Also, I’m glad someone with your expertise (I read your blog as well) was around to add to the conversation. :~)

    But I also see the importance of a woman who WANTS to engage in bukkake or some other form of typically “non-feminist-approved” sexual encounters (BDSM, rape fantasies, bukkake, etc.) being able to explore their sexuality and get exactly what they want and how they want it without fear of being ostracized or having their feminism called into question. Apply that sentiment to any other area of a woman’s life (romance, career, etc.) and every feminist would stand behind a woman’s right to choose her own path. But sex is still SO stigmatized that the second we mention the kinky and fetish sides of sex, there is suddenly a huge divide in our feminist ranks. I think this phenomena serves to enhance both sides of your arguments.

    ND, I’m assuming this post is with regard to the Bukkake Boys sticker you saw in LFP in Atlanta. If that is the case, then I feel like your words are being taken slightly out of context, which explains the disagreement. A band comprised of middle class white boys who call themselves the Bukkake Boys because they think it’s punk as fuck to reference a sexual action that is considered by MAINSTREAM SOCIETY to be degrading and taboo IS furthering the misogynist and patriarchal agenda, because they are making light of fundamental inequalities (represented by their interpretation and use of the term “bukkake”).

    I guess this is the most waffle-y post ever, but I couldn’t help but feel there is a middle ground we’re missing in this debate.

    I could be wrong. :~)

    • Nine Deuce June 11, 2009 at 12:55 AM #

      Thanks for that, k!m.

    • Aileen Wuornos June 11, 2009 at 4:19 AM #

      That was really well said and gave me a couple more things to think about.

      I also kind of feel as though because a womans sexuality is more likely to be used against her, rather than for her, this is where sexual acts like bukkake and cumshots become a bit more problematic. Hope this makes sense also.

      • RenegadeEvolution June 11, 2009 at 7:00 AM #

        “I also kind of feel as though because a womans sexuality is more likely to be used against her, rather than for her, this is where sexual acts like bukkake and cumshots become a bit more problematic. Hope this makes sense also.”

        You’re right, 100% there. Women with “deviant” sexual proclivities will have it used against them. Why? Well, because they are sluts, pervs, fallen harlots, messed up, blah blah blah so OBVIOUSLY they deserved it. An attitude found all too often in all too many places.

        • Nine Deuce June 11, 2009 at 7:18 AM #

          There’s a HUGE gap between questioning the ideas behind a consensual behavior and blaming victims of assault or disregarding the mistreatment that women deemed deviant suffer. I’m not even going to put those two things on a continuum. I don’t condone anyone being abused for any reason, in any fashion, no matter who they might be (OK, I don’t care if someone abuses Max Hardcore, but that’s about it), but the fact that condoning the abuse of women is connected in the minds of misogynists to shaming women for their sexual proclivities does not mean that connection exists for feminists.

          • Firefey June 12, 2009 at 12:28 AM #

            and yet ND…. and yet. you may say, “oh this connection doesn’t happen with feminists.” but. it. does. i think it’s something that needs to be acknowledged, and dealt with rather than keep sweeping it under the rug.

          • Gorgias June 18, 2009 at 1:14 AM #

            Questioning the ideas behind a consensual sexual behavior IS stigmatizing it.

            Consider a hypothetical well-meaning and good hearted conservative Christian. He is unlikely to engage in some of the more distateful manifestations of homophobia in society. But if he said something along the lines of, “Now, I’m not saying that it’s wrong in all circumstances, but maybe you should think about why you’re a homosexual? Maybe you don’t feel masculine enough and need to take that into yourself? Maybe you had some issues in your relationship with your mother? Maybe this is God’s test of your moral fortitude?” Such a person would not necessarily be hateful, and he’d certainly be a whole lot less offensive than the “God hates fags” crowd. But he would also, beyond a shadow of a doubt, be contributing to the continuation of homophobia in our society.

            • Vic July 22, 2009 at 3:21 AM #

              First of all, cut the homophobia parallel bullshit.

              Second of all, it is imperative that we as responsible individuals analyze and yes, even question, certain sexual behaviors as they relate to the broader social spectrum. Questioning sexual behaviors isn’t bigoted, or oppressive; its fucking obvious and responsible.

              ND points out that bukakke is, at its core, a degrading act. The proper definition of bukakke is the act of one person (overwhelmingly female), being ejaculated upon by several males. It was invented as a way for the Japanese hentai industry to circumvent censoring regulations of the 70s and 80s. How the fuck is that “empowering” or “anti-misogynist”? Bukakke is not some mystical experience about feeling your partner’s sexual fluids on your body. It is about men shooting their loads onto a woman’s without regards to that woman’s comfort or pleasure. Getting jizzed on is not an enjoyable experience. It doesn’t promote emotional or physical bonding. It makes me want to punch the guy in the throat because he got it in my FUCKING EYE and it burns like a MOTHERFUCKER.

              And frankly, if you do participate in practices that focus on the pleasure of one party at the expense of the other, you should look at the root of why you perceive such acts to be enjoyable. Look at whether your partner would be willing to let you do the same to him/her. My favorite response to my BF wanting to try anal is “only if you let me put in your ass too”.

              • Chaos November 7, 2009 at 1:47 AM #

                “Bukakke is not some mystical experience about feeling your partner’s sexual fluids on your body. Getting jizzed on is not an enjoyable experience. It doesn’t promote emotional or physical bonding.”

                I just totally disagree with this…I enjoy being ejaculated on, and it never even occurred to me that it was degrading until I saw people on the internet saying that it was. To me it is sexy to have my partner’s fluids on my body, and I do feel like it’s an emotionally bonding experience, like being covered in his sex. I really don’t think any of the guys who have done this with me would desire to degrade me…I suppose they think it’s sexy for the same reason I think it’s sexy to get in the “face sitting” position to receive cunnilingus and get my fluids all over my partner’s face. And yeah most guys will totally go for that, in my experience. So I think a lot of guys would be cool with letting you do the same to them.

                Also, more guys than you think are into pegging (receiving anal sex from a woman using a strap-on), I’ve done it to several guys, so your anal sex response is cool but lots of guys would be like, “Go for it!”

    • isme June 11, 2009 at 2:17 PM #

      I’d agree with k!m on this.

  11. RenegadeEvolution June 11, 2009 at 7:35 AM #

    ND, I wasn’t accusing you of such, I was agreeing with AW’s assertion that it will be used against them by a variety of people. The examples I listed are ones often seen, oh, in courts of law and public opinion when such matters go to trial and such.

  12. bonobobabe June 11, 2009 at 10:47 PM #

    But do you think that shaming women who have external contact with ejaculate for sexual purposes is dismantling Patriarchy?

    I don’t think 9-2 is shaming anyone for their sexual behavior. What I have seen her do is refute the claim that sex pozzies make that what they do is empowering and feminist. She’s saying, “No, it’s not feminist.” She’s not saying women who engage in degrading sex acts and enjoy them are bad or are sluts or anything. She’s saying simply that it’s not feminist. Because the sex pozzies indeed claim that they are empowered by doing those things and that they are feminist things. But they clearly aren’t.

    • RenegadeEvolution June 12, 2009 at 2:23 AM #

      Only that is not actually the case. There have been a few people who have said “my sex is feminist!” out of the great sea of “sex pozzies”. Far more have said “I don’t care if it is feminist or not, it’s what gets me off” or that they do not drag feminist politics into their bedrooms. And people can (and in fact are) empowered by things which are not feminist. When did the world become a place where feminism and empowerment had, at all times, to go hand in hand? That’s not the way it works. They can be entirely seperate things.

      • Faith June 17, 2009 at 10:52 PM #

        “Far more have said “I don’t care if it is feminist or not, it’s what gets me off” or that they do not drag feminist politics into their bedrooms.”

        People are more than welcome to not drag feminist politics in their bedroom. But since a great deal of misogyny takes place in the bedroom, I fail to see how we’re going to have any hopes of ending the oppression of women if we do not.

        It seems to me that this all boils down to whether or not the individual is truly concerned with working towards the eradication of misogyny from society..or not. And if an individual isn’t, that’s basically fine by me (meaning: I understand that people can’t be forced to give a fuck so I do my best to accept that some people just aren’t going to give a fuck, or aren’t going to care enough to make any radical changes in their own lives in the name of eradicating misogyny). I just don’t know why anyone who isn’t all that concerned about eradicating misogyny has much interest in feminism. Or hangs out around feminist blogs.

        • RenegadeEvolution June 18, 2009 at 6:05 AM #

          Faith-

          You wound me, really. Or not. Is there a rule somewhere that says every single action a person takes must, always, forever, no matter how they personally feel about it, aim towards the greater good of (all) women? If that isn’t their full time agenda, does it negate everything else that they might do that does fit that criteria?

          I happen to find ND’s blog interesting. If she wants me to leave, I seriously doubt she’d have any problem telling me. Yes, I know it so pisses some people of that various folk are allowed on, even have guest blogged at, feminist blogs. Guess what? I fail to care on that one, big time. If my presence irks you, my comments are not to your taste…here’s a thought…ignore them.

          • Faith June 18, 2009 at 11:00 PM #

            Oh, good gravy, Ren.

            “Is there a rule somewhere that says every single action a person takes must, always, forever, no matter how they personally feel about it, aim towards the greater good of (all) women?”

            Not to my knowledge. All I’m saying is that sexuality is a fundamental part of the oppression of women and I fail to see how consenting to a misogynistic practice or act is going to end the oppression of women. Sexual acts cannot be neutral when it comes to feminism. The argument is patently absurd to anyone who knows anything about misogyny and the oppression of women. You are free to do whatever the hell you like in your bedroom. But you can’t openly admit to enjoying activities that are misogynistic in nature and expect to get a pat on the back from those of us who seek to eliminate misogyny from society for participating in those activities.

            “If that isn’t their full time agenda, does it negate everything else that they might do that does fit that criteria?”

            ::shrugs:: I’d say to a certain extent, yes, it absolutely does. For instance, I know someone (a male someone) who contributes to causes to empower women. Yet at the same time…he engages in sexist practices in the bedroom – and admits that his desires are sexist. Doesn’t even deny it. So, frankly, as far as I’m concerned, the fact that he supports women’s rights doesn’t mean dick so long as he’s degrading the women in his life in private.

            “If my presence irks you, my comments are not to your taste…here’s a thought…ignore them.”

            Is it possible for you to not get unnecessarily defensive? For once? Just once? I don’t give a damn where you read or comment. I just made the point that I don’t happen to understand why people who aren’t for eradicating misogyny hang out around a feminist blog..and I don’t. Aside from wishing to cause trouble and looking for reasons to get self-righteous and indignant, I just don’t see that reason. But carry on, you are perfectly free to do as you will, Ren. I’m sure as shit not going to try to stop you. I have no desire to try to stop you. Even if I had that power, doing so would only feed your never-ending narcissism and paranoia.

            • RenegadeEvolution June 19, 2009 at 4:20 AM #

              Faith:

              The thing is, I do not see a lot of people claiming that their bedroom practices are feminist. I mean, I see three…maybe…making that claim.

              As for the cancelling out other good works thing- fine- okay- you are entitled to your opinion…but if a doctor provides free abortions to lower income women and also happens to like getting tied up in the bedroom, hummm….tough call there- or not.

              Paranoid? Yep. I am paranoid. With reason. And woooo, narcissist! Cause I am always just so vain, selfish, and psychologically dysfunctioned, right? Thanks for the ablism! Gotta love the armchair shrinks in the house! Forgive me for being assertive, confident and not overly passive agressive and appologetic. Or not. I fail to care. God, Goddess and all the little deities know I have been called worse…by feminists even….as for my interest…well, see, I am interested in a lot of things and like discussing them. I mean, I like learning about Japan a whole lot- does not mean I am in a rush to move there- but yeah, I will discuss it. And agree with her or not, I like ND’s writing style….reminds me of someone, actually…even when she pisses me off something fierce she makes me snicker. So, thusly, I read her blog. Horrible, I know.

            • Liselotte June 19, 2009 at 2:23 PM #

              Can you really not believe that some people define mysiogynism differently? Quoting you:

              >you can’t openly admit to enjoying activities that are misogynistic in nature and expect to get a pat on the back from those of us who seek to eliminate misogyny from society for participating in those activities.

              >people who aren’t for eradicating misogyny hang out around a feminist blog

              I can’t speak for everyone who has ever posted on this blog in world history, but I am and so, I believe, is Ren. We just define it differently.

              I believe that what is mysiogynistic are norms, conventions, coercion and force. You believe it’s the acts.
              I believe it’s mysiogynistic for people to act differently from what they want to act like- because of their gender. You believe it’s feminist for people to act differently from what they want to act like- because of their gender (don’t tell me you don’t; you believe that women shouldn’t do certain acts because society sees them as degrading, even though the woman simply sees them as fullfilling and doesn’t feel degraded).

            • Laurelin June 20, 2009 at 9:57 AM #

              “I know someone (a male someone) who contributes to causes to empower women. Yet at the same time…he engages in sexist practices in the bedroom – and admits that his desires are sexist. Doesn’t even deny it. So, frankly, as far as I’m concerned, the fact that he supports women’s rights doesn’t mean dick so long as he’s degrading the women in his life in private. ”

              I think this example brings up a very important point. Pro-feminist men cannot use the argument that because they are nice to women when they choose (= giving money to feminist causes) that they can get away with shitty and misogynistic behaviour elsewhere (=degrading practices in sex, woman-hating jokes, etc). The right course of action for this chap is clearly to change his behaviour.
              I’m not suggesting some kind of feminist ‘purity’- I don’t think such a thing exists – but men have a duty to women to alter their behaviour. ‘I like it and she said yes’ should *never* be accepted as an excuse for misognynistic behaviour on the part of supposed allies. It doesn’t answer the question ‘why are you doing it’, and none of us should accept such a bullshit analysis.

              Similarly I have seen men engaging with third wave feminism completely shouting down and insulting other women who disagree with them, using their position as members of the dominant class to abuse and humiliate survivors and generally women they disagree with. They know what they are doing; they know they are bullying.

        • James June 21, 2009 at 5:13 PM #

          It seems to me that this all boils down to whether or not the individual is truly concerned with working towards the eradication of misogyny from society..or not.

          Anyone who would claim that RE falls into the latter category must be new here.

          • Faith June 22, 2009 at 8:45 PM #

            “Anyone who would claim that RE falls into the latter category must be new here.”

            I’ve been reading Ren’s blog and interacting with her for quite some time, James. She herself seems to even admit that her main goal is not to eliminate misogyny. She all but came right out and said so on a recent post (actually I believe she did say so, but I’m not going to go look at the moment). Ren seems more interested in sex worker rights than she is in eliminating misogyny. You can’t engage in misogynistic porn (and admit to engaging in misogynistic porn) and be all that damn interested in eliminating misogyny from society.

            • AliceRubberFeet. June 22, 2009 at 9:53 PM #

              Ren seems more interested in sex worker rights than she is in eliminating misogyny.

              I’m not sure how you can champion sex-workers rights, without eliminating hatred of women (misogyny).

              • RenegadeEvolution June 22, 2009 at 10:43 PM #

                It’s easy. “Hey, guess what? We deserve the same legal rights and consideration the rest of humanity (even the female half) have.”

                Basic concept, really.

              • Faith June 23, 2009 at 2:46 PM #

                “I’m not sure how you can champion sex-workers rights, without eliminating hatred of women (misogyny).”

                I agree that there are plenty of people who are interested in sex worker rights who are interested in eliminating misogyny from society. I do not agree that being interested in sex worker rights is automatically synonymous with eliminating misogyny from society. I have encountered numerous people who claim to be interested in sex worker rights who are little to nothing but misogynists. Several of those people are regulars at Ren’s blog.

                • AliceRubberFeet. June 23, 2009 at 10:17 PM #

                  The point is, I guess, that those sex-workers rights do not exist in a vacuum. Surely, at the root, behind the demonization and general shabby treatment of sex-workers lies – misogyny? Hatred of women who perform sex for money. So, to try and elevate the position of one group of (mostly) women seems nonsensical and a waste of energy without tackling the underlying cause of just why sex-workers rights are ignored and denigrated. I believe that ultimately, misogyny is the driving force behind the vilification and lack of rights for women in the sex-industry.

                  • Faith June 24, 2009 at 12:19 AM #

                    “I believe that ultimately, misogyny is the driving force behind the vilification and lack of rights for women in the sex-industry.”

                    Agreed. However, I also believe that misogyny (and just a general lack of humanity and compassion on the part of the consumers of sex workers) is the driving force which creates the demand for most sex work in the first place (particularly prostitution). Hence the reason I am anti-sex work.

                    (Note: I am not anti-sex worker rights. There is a difference as much as some people might like to believe that there isn’t.)

            • RenegadeEvolution June 22, 2009 at 10:42 PM #

              Actually, I think it is probably impossible to eliminate misogyny. I think it is probably impossible to eliminate a whole lot of things. I am not a terribly optomistic human being with a whole lot of faith in my fellow human beings. Shrug.

              So, yes, I am more interested in sex workers rights, because sex workers need those NOW, and not in some distant future where there may or may not be misogyny.

    • antiprincess June 17, 2009 at 9:53 PM #

      I suppose that “empowerment” is, clearly, in the eye of the beholder.

      • James June 24, 2009 at 7:17 PM #

        That might even be kind of the point. :D

    • truthvscompliance October 21, 2009 at 3:18 PM #

      EXACTLY – it’s sort of like how some feminists wear make-up. Does it make them not a feminist for going along with some gender standard of beauty placed upon women by patriarchy ? Of course not. I shave my legs and when people tell me that I’m suckin’ the big one of patriarchy – I’m not going to deny it… Because it’s freakin’ true! The only reason ANY woman shaves is because of patriarchy. It’s not like women have this in-born desire to have perfectly smooth legs or have liquids that dry like glue squirt into her eyes and hair.

      • James October 21, 2009 at 5:50 PM #

        The only reason ANY woman shaves is because of patriarchy.

        That’s a fairly bold normative. I agree with your follow through (desires originate from culture) but that isn’t suffecient evidence: you have to demonstrate that any culture which favours hairless legs is Patriarchal in order to support your point.

        • Nine Deuce October 21, 2009 at 5:57 PM #

          What culture isn’t patriarchal?

          • James October 21, 2009 at 6:05 PM #

            I’m including imaginary cultures, since surely all feminists have some vision of a non-Patriarchal one which they’re working towards, otherwise they wouldn’t bother. I’d presume. I mean you wouldn’t expend effort if you honestly can’t imagine an improved future you’re labouring towards realising.

            I mean, I can empathise with futile causes, that are wild fantasies, but caring about an absent cause, beyond your imagination? How would you know if it’d be an improvement?!

            • thebeardedlady November 5, 2009 at 11:30 PM #

              So you want truthvscompliance to prove that women wouldn’t shave their legs in an imaginary culture, in order to support her point? How the hell is she supposed to be able to do that? You just kind of abandoned any attempt at logic there, huh?

              Truthvscompliance doesn’t ‘have to’ do anything for you, James. Her point was perfectly reasonable, and if you don’t get it, that’s your problem.

              Also, of course we can’t imagine what a non-patriarchal society would be like. We’ve never seen one, or anything like it. We don’t know how things might be organised, whether some people would shave or not, what sex would be like, what it would feel like to be a free woman, whether we would even refer to ourselves as ‘women’. We might, or we might not. How can we know?

              The point is that feminists are NOT working towards some imaginary future ideal. We are asking that women be treated as human beings right here, right now. If it ever happens that this demand is met, then we can start imagining the future as free humans.

              Why not stop being a dick and start listening to feminists instead of trying to be clever and attempting to pick them apart with your silly comments?

              • James November 6, 2009 at 3:25 AM #

                What’s silly is claiming that: “The only reason ANY woman shaves is because of patriarchy.”

                • Nine Deuce November 6, 2009 at 4:04 AM #

                  So is claiming that it usually isn’t.

                  • James November 6, 2009 at 11:31 AM #

                    Leaving aside whether that is true or not, it isn’t something which I’ve said.

                    • thebeardedlady November 6, 2009 at 5:35 PM #

                      James, you said: “you have to demonstrate that any culture which favours hairless legs is Patriarchal in order to support your point.”

                      When challenged on this, you added: “I’m including imaginary cultures[.]”

                      So, if you can IMAGINE a non-patriarchal culture in which leg-shaving is favoured, you’ve won. And truthvscompliance has to prove that such a culture can’t exist, even in your imagination, in order to support her point.

                      Way to go proving that women can never win. What a lovely, manly, twist of logic that was. And you’re calling truthvscompliance’s point silly? The irony.

                    • James November 6, 2009 at 6:06 PM #

                      Yes, bearded, it is indeed quite difficult to take apart assertions which are absolute nonsense. But I do my best.

                    • polly styrene November 6, 2009 at 8:43 PM #

                      Oh and the reason it’s patriarchal is because men aren’t expected to have hairfree legs. Doh!

                • polly styrene November 6, 2009 at 8:42 PM #

                  Ok I’m imagining a society in which a woman shaves her legs for reasons other than patriarchy.

                  Imaginary society no 1. Everyone shaves their legs. A religious edict/law has been passed which means everyone must have hairless legs or die.

                  Imaginary society no 2. Everyone is a keen cyclist and shaves their legs to show off their muscle definition.

                  http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-do-cyclists-shave-their-legs-only.html

                  I have now run out of imaginary societies. However can you cite me a REAL society James, in which ANY women shave their legs for any reason other than to meet beauty standards? Because I’ve never ever run across a woman who shaves her legs for any other reason (and certainly not to show off her developed calf muscles). I’m not saying they don’t exist, just that I’ve never come across one.

                  • winter_lights November 7, 2009 at 3:25 AM #

                    I’ve considered shaving my legs because the hair makes some of my pants rub in uncomfortable ways.

                    Decided it was easier to wear different pants instead.

              • isme November 6, 2009 at 10:24 AM #

                “The point is that feminists are NOT working towards some imaginary future ideal. We are asking that women be treated as human beings right here, right now.”

                Um…sorry, but I’ve missed the distinction there.

                • thebeardedlady November 6, 2009 at 5:29 PM #

                  I merely meant that we are not in the business of planning out the post-patriarchal society, deciding what it will be like to be born female in a free world, drawing up schemes for government and family. These are all things which we cannot currently conceive of. Even if patriarchy is overthrown in our lifetime, we will still be dealing with the legacy of patriarchy – it will be a few generations before females are truly born free. So we can’t know what a non-patriarchal society will be like. Rather, the focus of feminism is on trying to achieve full humanity for women, now.

                  Obviously, full human rights for women can only be achieved in a non-patriarchal society. That’s why the demand for full human rights is revolutionary – currently society cannot grant those rights without destroying itself.

                  I was trying to explain to James that feminism is not based on ideas about an imaginary future culture, but about the present day, real world in which we live.

                  After all, there won’t be any need for feminism in a non-patriarchal society, will there?

  13. buttersisonlymyname June 17, 2009 at 7:09 PM #

    Great entry, as usual.

    Do you believe in outlawing/censoring porn? Just curious.

    • Nine Deuce June 17, 2009 at 9:17 PM #

      No, it wouldn’t do any good. I believe in changing social attitudes.

  14. Polly Styrene June 21, 2009 at 10:31 AM #

    Alexandra Erin: most human beings do not live in a cultural vacuum.

    Therefore the argument here is that the primary and hugely widespread meaning of bukkake in current culture is as a degrading act, which distinguishes it from other sex acts, even if they have at some point been depicted in porn as degrading. And the popularity of bukkake as sexual practice results from its depiction in misogynist porn.

    Now the reason for this is not that feminists have criticised bukkake as patriarchal, but because we live in a woman hating culture which enjoys humiliating women.

    This cultural meaning exists regardless of whether women enjoy bukkake or not. And it is the cultural implications of the act that are being questioned.

    Why bukkake has assumed this specific cultural meaning is a different question, but it sure as hell isn’t as a result of feminist criticism. So feminists not criticising it won’t stop it being regarded as degrading.

    The argument that you are using is the same one that says because feminists criticise porn and right wing Christians criticise porn, feminists are automatically allying themselves with right wing Christians. No they’re not because feminist reasons for objecting to porn are entirely different from right wing Christian reasons.

    (repeating what others have already said, I realise).

  15. Firefey June 23, 2009 at 1:38 AM #

    i have to say that the idea of finding a body fluid degrading in and of itself seems counterproductive. i mean, i know my feminism is largely concerned with body politics and beauty myths and sexuality, and that others are not as involved in that aspect. but those are the aspects that speak to me and that i can hold onto. and saying this or that naturally produced fluid or excretion is degrading is kinda anti-body positive thought. the stuff that goes into and comes out of my body, my fucking body itself, is not degrading or shameful or bad. getting it on someone is none of those things either. but seeing it that way, seeing the fluids of others that way, MAKES the act degrading. and i think the issue shouldn’t be so much, ewww cum on my face makes me less human.

    and i was discussing this with some of my net buddies who are also into the bdsm scene, and so who’s prespective on erotic humiliation is different, and one of them brought up the idea of the fluid of strangers v/s the fluid of the adored. the idea that my beloved getting cum on me as an act of devotion and worship, as opposed to the idea of a strange man cumming on me to mark me in some way. i can see where one is hot and the other degrading. i get that it’s the intent you object to ND.

    i just wish there was a way to have this discussion without it being about icky body fluids.

    • Nine Deuce June 23, 2009 at 1:49 AM #

      That isn’t the argument here, and I think I’ve stated so in many places. It isn’t that a fluid is icky, it’s that the intent is to degrade. I’m frankly tired of my arguments being reduced to “Ew, gross!” when they’re a little more sophisticated than that.

      • firefey June 23, 2009 at 4:52 AM #

        but my statement is that the depredation COMES from the gross factor. if there was nothing “gross” about it it wouldn’t be degrading.

        • Nine Deuce June 23, 2009 at 7:18 AM #

          Wrong.

          • firefey June 23, 2009 at 7:53 PM #

            oh really? there is no need to examine why the act is degrading? it just is. no further statement needed.

            ND, i get that the idea of a whole bunch of guys cuming on a woman they don’t know as a way to mark her and shame her is degrading. said as much. don’t have any issue with your statements as such.

            but you ask the question “How does participating in sex acts intended to degrade, whether you personally enjoy them or not, result in the destruction of male supremacy?” and i answer, that the act of getting cumed on doesn’t have to be degrading in and of itself. that the intent and the participants are a huge part of the equation. and that, frankly, the redirection from any and every body fluid as shameful or dirty or bad, to more wholesome and inclusive and natural, IS part of destroying male supremacy.

            women, as you have pointed out, are told not to enjoy sex. not to enjoy their bodies. not to enjoy their lovers bodies. it is this prohibition on enjoyment, and the body/its fluids as gross, that allows for and creates a forum for the thought “you filthy slut, you like cum so much? here have a whole bunch.” and thus bukkake porn.

            again, not saying bukkake is not problematic, but i think focusing on the act and only the act leaves out the bits that can and should be examined.

        • Faith June 23, 2009 at 2:58 PM #

          “but my statement is that the depredation COMES from the gross factor. if there was nothing “gross” about it it wouldn’t be degrading.’

          I disagree with this completely. No one here has said that bukkake – or ejaculate – is gross. Their concerns and complaints have been quite a bit more substantial that this. I myself have difficulty believing that bukkake can be anything other than misogynistic. It is rumored (I don’t believe there is any solid evidence to confirm this) that bukkake actually originated in Japan as a punishment for women guilty of adultery.

          abstracts.co.allenpress.com/pweb/sexo2005/document/50214

          “Theory has it that in ancient Japan, women who were found to be unfaithful were publicly humiliated in the town center by being tied up while every man in town ejaculated all over her to show his distaste.”

          • firefey June 24, 2009 at 7:38 AM #

            yea, by all means. lets use a theory with little to no back up as proof that a sex act is degrading and thus horrible. let’s also totally forget that an activity can move beyond it’s original, and heavily culture specific genesis.

            • Faith June 24, 2009 at 7:43 PM #

              “lets use a theory with little to no back up as proof that a sex act is degrading and thus horrible. ”

              Yea, by all means, ignore the fact that I made it quite clear that there is no evidence of the above phenomenon being true. Let’s ignore the fact that it was quite clear from my post that I acknowledge the possibility that there could be other origins for the practice.

              “let’s also totally forget that an activity can move beyond it’s original, and heavily culture specific genesis.”

              I see no evidence that anyone has forgotten such a thing. I simply see little evidence that such has occurred. I also have little belief that such a thing is likely to occur.

              • Firefey June 25, 2009 at 11:19 PM #

                if you are going to state that bukkake is mysoginistic, and then point to an unsupported theory implying that one is true because the other is true then you are making a faulty argument. and i am calling you on it.

                also, i have not once stated that bukkake is free from any and all issue and it’s just you and ND being squimish. i have said that the degredation of bukkake, as experienced in this culture by non-japanese people without that cultural tie, is derivitive of the very real cultural mandate that we all find our bodies and their excreations gross/bad/shameful.

                • Faith June 26, 2009 at 1:55 PM #

                  “if you are going to state that bukkake is mysoginistic, and then point to an unsupported theory implying that one is true because the other is true then you are making a faulty argument. and i am calling you on it.”

                  Oy.

                  Well call away then. Nothing more to say. I’ve made myself quite clear.

            • Gayle November 6, 2009 at 10:46 PM #

              “let’s also totally forget that an activity can move beyond it’s original, and heavily culture specific genesis.”

              No one’s forgetting anything. This isn’t happening in a cultural vacuum; its meaning doesn’t change because you or I suddenly decide to reclaim or redeem it.

              If this ‘activity’ did magically move beyond degradation to something benign or friendly, it certainly wouldn’t be so popular in porn.

  16. Laurelin June 23, 2009 at 7:15 AM #

    It’s easier for a lot of people here to reduce your argument to ‘oh, ick!’ than actually consdier the implications of what you are saying. It’s also insulting to women who have been degraded by such practices to have their experiences reduced to ‘oh, ick!’ by deliberately ignorant commentators. Maybe that’s not what they mean to do, but that’s what it amounts to.

    Very ironic that you should be accused of the ‘oh, ick’ argument considering that the idea that bodily fluids are ick results in any case from the idea of the mind/body split with the body being associated with women and treated as vile by traditional patriarchal (im)morality. As bodily fluids are considered ‘ick’ the thrill for consumers of pornography is the fact that the bodily fluid is seen to degrade the women- thus the bukkakke practice of more than one man doing so to a woman, thus the whole ‘cum covered sluts’ rhetoric that goes with it.

    People finding ejaculation onto skin enjoyable personally in a non-degrading context is neither here nor there. If it’s not practiced to be degrading, then why the defensiveness? If it is meant to be mutually enjoyable, then surely it is in your interest to protest its use to humiliate women in porn!

    Look at the language of porn. Tells you everything you need to know. See the language of porn defenders. Tells you everything you need to know, and much more besides.

    • Liselotte June 23, 2009 at 7:01 PM #

      The same applies for the very “normal” vaginal intercourse.
      Look at the language, look at everything- you sure can, with as much information as porn and as much ideology as feminism, conclude that vaginal intercourse was originally a punishment for unfaithful women in Japan.

      BTW, do you find all group sex degrading? And if yes, why?
      You rad fem folks often claim that “the term pro sex feminism implies that rad fems are anti-sex” and that “we’re just against the things we percieve as mysiogynistic” but when I read your posts I often find that this is not true and that you seem repelled by everything that is not intercourse (or cunnilingus), monogamous, done with much, much love and a very private, intimate thing (if you want to, I can pick out some quotes from Bonobobabe, Faith and you that basically imply “siblings shouldn’t talk about sex and masturbation with each other”, “the age of consent should be at the very end of puberty and not at the start” or “children shouldn’t know about sex until they’re 6″ -e.g. while I acknowledge that you may be atheistic (or whatever else you are) and your motives sure are different from the extreme christian fundamentalist right wing, what you say is basically the same and does endanger sexual freedom as you rad fem folks seem to want a world in which even friends and familiy memebers only talk about sex with shut curtains and a lowered voice- and more but this ain’t the topic here).

      • Nine Deuce June 23, 2009 at 9:27 PM #

        Where in god’s name did you pull those nonsensical quotes from?

        • AliceRubberFeet. June 23, 2009 at 10:26 PM #

          Oops, that was in response to Liselotte not you ND.

          Something else to remember Liselotte, not everyone lives in the “extreme christian fundamentalist right wing” godbaggery US.

          “extreme christian fundamentalist right wing” ideologies are laughed off the face of the earth, here in the UK.

      • AliceRubberFeet. June 23, 2009 at 10:14 PM #

        Wow, you are having an argument with your self, it sounds. Projection much.

      • Faith June 24, 2009 at 12:11 AM #

        “The same applies for the very “normal” vaginal intercourse.
        Look at the language, look at everything- you sure can, with as much information as porn and as much ideology as feminism, conclude that vaginal intercourse was originally a punishment for unfaithful women in Japan.”

        Liselotte,

        I have absolutely nothing to say to anyone who supports adults having sex with children or animals under any circumstance. Which you do. Pedophilia and bestiality are hideous abuses and I will not associate with anyone who supports them.

        • Gorgias June 25, 2009 at 1:30 AM #

          Did I miss something? A cursory glance only shows that Liselotte advocated the age of consent being near the start as opposed to the end of puberty- hardly a claim that grown adults should be having sex with children.

          Or are you referring to comments made in other places?

          • Nine Deuce June 25, 2009 at 6:50 PM #

            I think she’s referring to some comments on older posts. Liselotte’s first comments here included some very odd arguments that seemed, if not pro, then at least not anti bestiality/pedophilia.

            • James June 25, 2009 at 10:09 PM #

              Apparently a lot of dogs are into it.

              • truthvscompliance October 21, 2009 at 3:26 PM #

                Oh yeah? You asked those dogs and they told you all about it?

        • polly styrene November 7, 2009 at 8:38 AM #

          Two things:

          1)as far as I know the ‘bukkake was a punishment for unfaithful women’ thing is a made up story.

          2)Doesn’t the fact that the originators of bukkake porn (or whoever else made it up) in Japan made up such a story tell you something? They didn’t make up a story about how it was a treat for women did they?

      • Laurelin June 25, 2009 at 8:18 PM #

        Heh, I’ve said those things?! There must be a part of my blog I don’t know about!

        • Faith June 26, 2009 at 1:50 PM #

          “Heh, I’ve said those things?! There must be a part of my blog I don’t know about!”

          Not sure what you mean unless I missed something here. The comment was directed to Liselotte, not you, Laurelin.

          • Laurelin June 26, 2009 at 3:10 PM #

            Hi Faith, I was responding to Liselotte, who I thought was responding to me (I thought I was the ‘you’):

            “if you want to, I can pick out some quotes from Bonobobabe, Faith and you that basically imply “siblings shouldn’t talk about sex and masturbation with each other”, “the age of consent should be at the very end of puberty and not at the start” or “children shouldn’t know about sex until they’re 6″”

            I knew you were talking about Liselotte, as I remember the disturbing comments all too well…

            WordPress tends to bung the comments in different places. This new system is weird.

      • Silent Agony (@DiscordantFlesh) February 27, 2013 at 9:49 PM #

        Typical of sex pozzies you don’t know anything about radical feminist theory but ignorantly think your “feminism” is superior. If you had done some basic reading on radical feminism you would be familiar with the criticisms of PIV centric sex. U completely pulled it out of your ass that we think it’s “normal”. Also you saying that children with developing sex organs should be allowed to “consent” legally is downright creepy. Fucking weirdo.

    • Gayle November 6, 2009 at 10:51 PM #

      It’s also kind of funny Nine and others are accused of rejecting it ’cause of the ick factor when the entire reason for its popularity in porn IS the Ick factor.

      If they want to start accusing people of having puritanical attitudes towards sexuality they should be pointing at p0rn producers and consumers.

      • winter_lights November 7, 2009 at 3:31 AM #

        So you know the exact reasons of everyone who likes any given fetish?

        That’s pretty remarkable. It sometimes takes me a lot of work to figure out just my own reasons.

  17. Laurelin June 23, 2009 at 7:54 AM #

    Firefey- I’ve just realised my comments look like they are directly pointed at you; that is not my intention, as I was trying to point to a general trend. Your comments are much more considered than those of many other commentators, so apologies if I sounded like I was accusing you: I should have been clearer.

  18. Charlie June 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM #

    I think that we’re talking at cross-purposes here.

    Bukkake in porn does often seem to me to be performed for the purpose of humiliation and degradation. The language that the men use, the way that they look at the (usually) woman, etc. frequently looks to me as if the goal isn’t to make anyone feel pleasure (including the guys participating).

    And at the same time, there’s nothing inherently degrading in facial ejaculation. I’ve spoken with quite a few men and women who enjoy it. They may enjoy the sensation, or the fact that it’s an STI risk reduction method (non-internal ejaculation = lower risk for many STIs), the fact that it turns their partner on, the fact that it’s “naughty”, etc. If there’s even a single person whose experience is one of pleasure without degradation, then I don’t see how one can logically conclude that it’s intrinsically degrading. I fully acknowledge that many people experience it as unpleasant and/or degrading, but not everyone does, so it can’t be inherent in the act.

    And yes, some people find consensual humiliation to be arousing. When it’s done within the context of consent and leaves no lasting negative effects, I don’t see a problem with it, although I often recommend that anyone who does it spend some time thinking about what they want to get out of it and assessing whether they actually got what they wanted. It’s all too easy to cause emotional harm when engaging in it.

    What makes something degrading is the intention behind it and the experience of it. So yes, to the degree that a lot of bukkake porn looks to me as if the intention is to (non-consensually) humiliate someone, that’s problematic, IMO. And I think it’s important to recognize that there’s a difference between the intention and the act itself.

    • Nine Deuce June 25, 2009 at 6:54 PM #

      No one said it’s intrinsically degrading, just that in the vast majority of cases it’s intended to be and that that’s where the excitement derives from due to the fact that we live in a sick society in which women’s humiliation is seen as titillating. It doesn’t matter if one person thinks they’ve figured out a way to do some sex act that transcends its commonplace intent. That person is not the point, except in the sense that I’d like to know how exactly they’ve managed the feat of shrugging off conditioning that no one else is immune to. The point is the vast majority of cases, and in the vast majority of cases, facial ejaculation and shit like bukkake are misogynistic.

      But what, exactly, is the difference between intention and act? If someone wants to degrade me and I’m pumped about being in on it, does that mean I’m not being degraded? Sorry, I think not.

      • antiprincess June 26, 2009 at 2:59 PM #

        No one said it’s intrinsically degrading, just that in the vast majority of cases it’s intended to be and that that’s where the excitement derives from due to the fact that we live in a sick society in which women’s humiliation is seen as titillating.

        so, if a woman also for whatever reason finds humiliation titillating, she is sick? even if it’s because of the sickness of society, she’s still sick, right?

        It doesn’t matter if one person thinks they’ve figured out a way to do some sex act that transcends its commonplace intent. That person is not the point, except in the sense that I’d like to know how exactly they’ve managed the feat of shrugging off conditioning that no one else is immune to.

        well, what if the conversation between partners went like this, maybe:

        Man: Hey, baby, I wanna come on your face!

        Woman: sure, why not, whatever…I don’t know why you guys are so obsessed with that “facial” thing. it’s not like there’s anything inherently damaging or corrupting about semen, really…is that, like, a thing with guys, or something? that’s weird…hey, what are you going to make for dinner?

        does the fact that I’ve had this conversation make me “sick”? or somehow magical or statistically freakish enough to make my experience irrelevant?

        (I am thinking that because I am totally NOT a special snowflake, other women have had this experience as well. maybe two other women, maybe ten other women, maybe enough women to be statistically relevant?)

        But what, exactly, is the difference between intention and act? If someone wants to degrade me and I’m pumped about being in on it, does that mean I’m not being degraded? Sorry, I think not.

        if you’re “pumped about being in on it”, how degrading is it, really?

        and, like, if you can still look at yourself in the mirror and feel good and positive and okay about yourself (instead of wanting to die), then yes, I think there’s a difference between, er, humiliation for mutual sexual pleasure, so to speak, and deliberate degrading of one’s partner out of a one-sided need to crush and destroy and harm.

        also, this comment has made me wonder if we often focus on sexual humiliation as the only form of humiliation between partners. certainly that is not the case.

        as far as my abusive ex-husband is concerned, I can tell you that the occasional load in the face was FAR FAR FAR from the most humiliating and degrading thing he ever did. I found it little comical, if anything. but it totally did not even register on my humiliation radar.

        would things have changed any (would he have been less abusive) if I had said “hey, no more ejaculating on my face! I’m not that kind of girl!”

        • Nine Deuce June 26, 2009 at 10:06 PM #

          You aren’t sick or anything of the sort for having had that conversation. What I wonder, though, is why it went like that rather than this:

          Man: Hey, I want to ejaculate on your face.
          Woman: Why?
          Man: It turns me on.
          Woman: Why?

          • antiprincess June 26, 2009 at 10:38 PM #

            eh, sometimes it did, sometimes it didn’t. sometimes Man was into it for the humiliation/titillation thing, sometimes not. it still seems more comical to me than insulting, at least on a one-on-one level.

            and also, if you’re really really trying hard to degrade me, and I refuse to be degraded, just plain refuse to feel like my human dignity has been damaged or compromised in any way, yes I do feel like that changes things.

            because, how much of human dignity is rooted in what happens to our sexual selves, anyway? don’t other things, other behaviors, other aspects of life experience, have an effect of one’s human dignity?

            just ruminating, really.

            it may be worth noting here that I’m way more likely to feel crushed and humiliated and degraded by someone calling me “stupid” (or similar), even online, than by any amount of semen on my face. I’m just that freakishly hypersensitive. Semen washes off, but that kind of insult burns forEVER.

            and I know that other women have very different experiences. I also know that other women have had similar experiences. it’s a big world.

  19. Laurelin June 26, 2009 at 9:12 AM #

    “if you are going to state that bukkake is mysoginistic, and then point to an unsupported theory ”

    Because, as always, women telling you that they experience bukkake as misogynist and the language of porn in describing such a practice, is not theoretical enough for you? we need to produce a study, yes? Women’s words are never enough.

    • RenegadeEvolution June 26, 2009 at 12:44 PM #

      Of course not, Larurelin! Because the diverse words of many diverse women matter so much, right? Some womens words & experiences, obviously, matter more than others!

    • Caroline June 26, 2009 at 3:40 PM #

      “Women’s words are never enough.”

      – Yep, what Ren said. Can’t believe you could keep a straight face saying that.

    • Firefey June 29, 2009 at 5:49 PM #

      no, it isn’t theoretical enough. not when there’s so much cherry picking of who’s words “count” and who’s need to be backed up by studies. and yes, i think that brining in a highly questionable, sparcely supported, and non-anotated summery of a talk given as “proof” that any sexual act has a genisis point rooted in anything is just a cheep argument.

  20. Laurelin June 26, 2009 at 3:13 PM #

    Oh for heaven’s sake that’s not what I said. Read me properly or not at all.

  21. Laurelin June 26, 2009 at 4:25 PM #

    Woah, who rang the troll dinner bell?

    Ah, it was me. Damn my charm.

    • Gayle November 6, 2009 at 10:56 PM #

      Heh.

      I think it’s hilarious your detractors are pretending women love the bukkake and you (ya big meanie!) are trying to take it away from them.

      I don’t know of any women lobbying for this shit –at all.

      Except for the usual bloggers, of course.

      • Laurelin November 7, 2009 at 6:15 PM #

        Just me being my usual nasty self. From what I hear about myself around the blogosphere, I’m quite the asshole!

        Yeah, suggesting that people should listen when women say ‘I find sex act X degrading’ without then saying ‘shut up, I like it, you’re censoring me, how dare you, did I mention it’s all about me’ is the work of a…. well… I’m a polite girl, so I don’t like to say it.

        I think I also suggested that there is a difference between a) a porn scene with a woman being jerked off on and verbally by several men and b) getting some of your partner’s semen on your skin in the comfort of your own chosen sexlife.

        That also makes me irretrievably evil.

        Or at least, so the pornographers tell me… and why would I doubt them?!

        • Ren November 7, 2009 at 10:30 PM #

          asshole is not the exact word.

          i think what a lot of people are saying is that human sexuality is very complex and some people will find things degrading that others will not find degrading, thus making univesal statements like “sex act X is always degrading to women” untrue. When people see things they know to be untrue, often times, they will challenge them. This is not a bad thing.

          • Laurelin November 7, 2009 at 11:46 PM #

            The first line of my last comment was a joke.

            The rest wasn’t.

        • Laurelin November 8, 2009 at 12:28 AM #

          Or rather, I should say… I find people’s blustering mischaracterisations of me highly amusing (my all-time favourites are ‘genteel’ and ‘self-righteous’- that’s just wonderful! I think I shall ‘reclaim’ them!).

          I also find them trivial.

          What I do not find either amusing or trivial are the abuses of women I speak up against.

          • Ren November 8, 2009 at 11:11 AM #

            Laurelin: i think you are very passionate about your beliefs. I don’t necessarily think that is a bad thing. And genteel is a crap word to describe you. We disagree on, well, almost everything. But disagree or not, at least you are upfront about where you stand.

          • Ren November 8, 2009 at 11:39 AM #

            Actually, you know what? When i read in my morning paper about a the body of a ten year old girl found beheaded, I do not find it trivial. When i read about a MtF streetworker found mutilated, i do not find it trivial. When I watch the news and I hear about the people murdered at Ft. Hood, or V-Tech, or anywhere, I do not find it trivial. There are truly evil people out there…no question, and by all that is sane or holy I think they deserve some..something. Justice? Payback? Karma? Whatever you want to call it. And no, that is not trivial.

            I do find endless debate about what people may do Consentually trivial. I am Just as for ending forced sexual labor and abuse as you are. Somehow, though, that gets lost now, doesn’t it?

            • Laurelin November 8, 2009 at 3:15 PM #

              I was not accusing you of anything, nor speaking of your attitudes, RE. My comment was not about you at all.

              I probably should not have mentioned myself at all, tbh, as now I appear to have made it about individuals, which it is not.

              I just couldn’t resist the joke…

              • Laurelin November 8, 2009 at 3:36 PM #

                Joke in my first comment I mean, re: asshole. Nothing else I said was meant to be funny- and is not.

  22. RenegadeEvolution June 26, 2009 at 6:14 PM #

    Laurelin, I did read what you said. Women’s words are never enough. You did type that, yes?

    Well guess what, you are right. They do matter. However, that little idea there- applies to ALL women…not just those whom agree with you. A woman like AntiPrincess saying what she is saying up above there? Her words rate just as much as yours or any other womans. Or at least they should…if women’s words should matter at all that is.

    • buggle June 26, 2009 at 7:44 PM #

      Wow, I can’t believe you wrote that with a straight face. You don’t listen to “all women’s words,” only people who agree with you. You attack people who don’t agree with you. And then you yell at Laurelin for daring to state her opinion? FAIL. Major, major fail.

      • antiprincess June 26, 2009 at 10:26 PM #

        Wow, I can’t believe you wrote that with a straight face. You don’t listen to “all women’s words,” only people who agree with you. You attack people who don’t agree with you. And then you yell at Laurelin for daring to state her opinion? FAIL. Major, major fail.

        well, to be fair, I don’t hear anyone saying “your words matter to me, even though I don’t agree with them.” maybe it would be better if someone said that. maybe it would be less conflict-y and more respectful.

        there has been, historically speaking, this big deal in feminism over whose words matter and whose words don’t, whose words matter more then others. it would be great if we could get this resolved somehow.

        see, how it seems to me to go often is like this: (entirely paraphrased for effect by way of trying to sum up three or four years of blog wars) –

        I go: eh, semen on the face doesn’t bother me. what really bothers me is other stuff, stuff like blah blah blah blah blah blah blah and tl/dr blah….

        Laurelin (or ND or someone equally smarter-than-me) goes: you’re a statistical outlier who is also lying to herself and under false consciousness and poisoned by society and also dumb and stupid. now stop making it all about you!

        so, in effect, they’re saying that because I’m not intelligent or mentally sound or emotionally honest*, and also because there are not enough women in the world who have had a similar experience, my words don’t matter.

        and because WOMEN’s words matter, and mine don’t, I must conclude that there’s something not womanish? womanly? woman-enough? about me. which, when thinking about feminism and all women mattering, really makes me wonder about a feminism that gets to pick and choose which women are sufficiently woman-enough to matter.

        • Nine Deuce June 26, 2009 at 10:31 PM #

          Well, AP, I’m telling you that your words matter, even though I disagree with you. That’s why I seek these conversations, which I suppose I assume is a given, but there it is. And I’m not telling you or anyone else you’re stupid. But what should I do? Just agree with you that there’s nothing wrong with people ejaculating on women’s faces? Or retain my opinion about the general nature of the practice with the caveat that I know at least one person (you) who doesn’t see it the same way I do?

          • antiprincess June 26, 2009 at 10:49 PM #

            But what should I do? Just agree with you that there’s nothing wrong with people ejaculating on women’s faces? Or retain my opinion about the general nature of the practice with the caveat that I know at least one person (you) who doesn’t see it the same way I do?

            (I assume that by “people” you mean “men”.)

            you don’t have to agree with me at all. and I hope I didn’t insult you or imply otherwise by any of my comments.

            we can still discuss stuff and learn stuff from each other without being in complete accord about the nature of semen on the human face. The fact that you’re even willing to consider admitting to the fact that you know at least one person who doesn’t see it the same way you do, and that this person is not automatically stupid – that is heartening beyond belief.

        • antiprincess June 26, 2009 at 10:59 PM #

          and also worth mentioning about the mattering thing – historically, that’s sorted itself along class lines and along race lines, not just on the basis of how we all feel about sexual behaviors. but once one starts deciding whose words are more matter-y than others (even on something like sex), it gets really hard to sustain the mental scaffolding around the “I’m fighting for ALL women” idea.

          I mean, how can you fight for ALL women if you don’t really care for women whom you don’t consider to be your intellectual equals, or who are sexually active in a way you think is not okay, or who make less-enlightened choices than you do, or…or…or…

          • Faith June 27, 2009 at 2:34 PM #

            “The fact that you’re even willing to consider admitting to the fact that you know at least one person who doesn’t see it the same way you do, and that this person is not automatically stupid – that is heartening beyond belief.”

            Well of course you’re (or anyone else who disagrees with radical feminists/m) not automatically stupid. That goes without saying, at least for me. It is possible to disagree with someone and not view them as stupid, or delusional, or uninformed. I know. I do it all the time.

            “I mean, how can you fight for ALL women if you don’t really care for women whom you don’t consider to be your intellectual equals, or who are sexually active in a way you think is not okay, or who make less-enlightened choices than you do, or…or…or…”

            I think it’s perfectly possible to support all women while disagreeing with them, at least in certain regards. The problem is going to be -what- and -where- the support will be, I suppose. For instance, I can’t support a woman willing choosing to engage in misogynistic porn -if she has other options-. I can’t and won’t do it. I know too much about the dangers of misogynistic porn – both the dangers to the women performing and to women in general. -But- while I might not support performing in misogynistic porn, I’m certainly not going to turn my back on a woman who does so if she were to get raped, or be denied access to abortion or birth control. I’m going to defend her in those regards just as vehemently as I will any other women. I’m also going to defend any woman who engages in bukkake or BDSM as a sub to men just as vehemently in those regards.

        • RenegadeEvolution June 27, 2009 at 6:04 AM #

          AP- you matter to me.

          • antiprincess June 27, 2009 at 9:21 PM #

            :)
            but understand, I’m not trying to make it all about ME ME ME ME ME and my mattering. I’m trying to say, if I feel this way, it’s likely that some other women somewhere also feel this way, and that, um, matters.

            • Nine Deuce June 27, 2009 at 11:24 PM #

              Sure, but so do the the feelings of those who have been abused by men via these acts.

              • antiprincess June 28, 2009 at 12:18 AM #

                Sure, but so do the the feelings of those who have been abused by men via these acts.

                obviously, ND. but why isn’t there a way to honor both experiences and learn from both experiences?

                which sounds like I’m saying “gee, why can’t you learn to llllluuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrve the cockjuice? and be all empowerfulled like me? giggle headtilt?” which is not what I’m trying to say at all.

                and yet, I hear often, in text and subtext, “gee, why can’t you learn to be disgusted with this part of yourself that tolerates what is CLEARLY misogyny, and fix yourself so you see what I see, which is clearly the truth?” which is no better. maybe nobody is trying to say that, I don’t know.

                for me, semen’s effect on self-esteem is relative to how all parties involved (and I mean ALL, including any women) feel about it. and I don’t think that’s misogynistic at all, to think that.

                the fact that I personally am neutral on the subject of semen on the face does not in any way assume that I think everyone DOES or SHOULD feel the same way I do. nor does it imply that I lack sympathy for people who are, for painful personal reasons, not neutral on the subject.

                also, the fact that I’m semen-neutral, so to speak, should not imply that I’m also a heartless mindless fun-feminist misogyny apologist. and I get annoyed when that assumption is made.

                • Bean June 29, 2009 at 3:05 PM #

                  obviously, ND. but why isn’t there a way to honor both experiences and learn from both experiences?

                  Mmm, this.

                  Personally, my problem with this post is not the idea that the portrayal of bukkake in porn is misogynistic. I think it is, based on the few instances of it that I’ve seen thus far. If someone wants to prove that it isn’t always, I’m willing to listen to that, but they’d have to make a good case.

                  So that’s not my issue. Nor do I have a dispute with the idea that many women find the idea of having someone come in their face hurtful.

                  My problem is that, as soon as you move this behaviour out of porn – that is, as soon as you say, “Well, this is where guys get the idea, and this is how they feel about it, and this is what they do about that,” well, then you’ve moved on to talking about various types of people in various types of relationships in the real world.

                  And that, to me, is where these arguments all fall short. Because off the top of my head, I can think of three people I’ve run across who like getting a load in the face (admittedly all kinky, but I can’t do anything about the sample bias):

                  -A submissive guy who finds it hot because he sees it as degrading – he’s said that he has an unrealistic but intense wish that his wife could actually step back and squirt on him and mark him the way a man could a woman.

                  -A submissive woman who said that she finds the experience joyful, and that the idea that it’s supposed to be humiliating had never even struck her until someone else pointed it out.

                  (Both of the above came up in a conversation that was specifically about “facials.”)

                  -A dominant woman who just plain loves semen (that’s her own statement), and loves getting it on herself, anywhere. If her partner wasn’t willing to come on her, I imagine she’d just order him to.

                  The various ideas brought up here: that men would never be interested in getting a “facial,” or being sexually degraded in that way; that there’s no other way to interpret the act; that women would never ask for it out of their own sexual desire… All of these ideas, I see them falling apart when applied to the test of the real world.

                  Women who find it degrading and hurtful are undoubtedly the majority. Not doubting that. That this interpretation is universal though, I strenuously object.

                  And if it’s not universal, then, “this act MUST be misogynistic,” is a false claim (and accusation).

        • rachel cervantes November 8, 2009 at 6:39 PM #

          AP, I was totally with you til you called Laurelin dumb and stupid. I’m hoping maybe that was said in a dry humor, tongue-in-cheek sort of way? Or maybe I misread it?

          I disagree with Laurelin on more than a few things. And I love her dearly. She’s one of the smartest folk I know.

          And AP, your words matter to me even though we disagree on many things as well. Hell, even the words of the truly “dumb and stupid” (that you referred to above) matter to me because they’re still human (well, they matter after I get over being pissed off).

          What does bother me is that it seems almost impossible to disagree on porn and be civil about it.

          • Laurelin November 8, 2009 at 7:16 PM #

            Rach, I think you misread AP: she said I was calling her ‘stupid and dumb’*, not calling *me* stupid and dumb.

            *I didn’t.

            • rachel cervantes November 8, 2009 at 8:57 PM #

              Oooooooooooooops! Please accept my apology, AP.

              Change that to “I’m with you, AP, and I want to hear your voice.”

              Now I’m going to slink off be vewy vewy quiet.

  23. delphyne June 27, 2009 at 5:42 PM #

    So who here has actually been the woman in a bukkake scene?

    Also why do the words of women who say they don’t find something misogynistic matter more than those who say they do? Those two stances are not equal in the slightest. If women are being hurt, surely feminists should be standing against the cause of the hurt rather than saying “Oh, it doesn’t bother me, so the misogynists can carry right along”.

    People are forgetting the men involved in this. They know they are degrading women, no matter what the deniers claim. In fact it’s the whole point of it for them:

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&ei=allGSq_mPJqhjAeG_Nhh&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=bukkake+degradation&spell=1

    Wake up and stop defending woman-hatred.

    • antiprincess June 28, 2009 at 12:18 AM #

      Also why do the words of women who say they don’t find something misogynistic matter more than those who say they do? Those two stances are not equal in the slightest. If women are being hurt, surely feminists should be standing against the cause of the hurt rather than saying “Oh, it doesn’t bother me, so the misogynists can carry right along”.

      I am not trying to say “oh it doesn’t bother me, so the misogynists can carry right along.”

      I’m saying, it might be helpful to ask why some women don’t find certain sexual practices particularly misogynistic, or why some women find other, non-sexual activities, more misogynistic.

      our (can I say our?) voices don’t matter MORE. but they shouldn’t matter less, quite so often.

      why is the conversation not more like this:

      “hey, what do you find non-misogynist about this? because I find it really woman-hating. how has your experience been different?”

      “well, it’s different like this and like this, I guess. at least in my experience. I’m a woman, and I don’t feel hated by it, but I can see where some women would because of this and this and this…”

      and then some listening, and considering, blah blah blah (not necessarily mind-changing or agreeing, just considering), instead of:

      “how could you POSSIBLY not see the WOMAN-HATING in this? what is WRONG with you? honestly, are you THICK? WAKE UP! etc.”

      “I am not THICK! I am not SLEEPING! I am blah blah blah and blah! and you’re a great big blah blah blah…”

      and meanwhile, while I’m losing my shit, women I really could help are going unhelped, which was never the plan. obviously.

      and I’m not trying to make a point about politeness or anything. I’m just trying to explain why everyone’s voices should matter.

      and just because I haven’t identified myself as a victim of this particular type of semen-in-the-face-misogyny does NOT mean I’ve escaped abusive and damaging woman-hating behavior completely and am now happily skipping through the daisies.

      • delphyne June 28, 2009 at 11:08 AM #

        I never said you were thick and neither did anybody else. Just stop pulling that crap Anti-princess.

        Why on earth would I be interested in finding out why *you* aren’t hurt by something when so many women, including me, are? Why aren’t you interested in our feelings and experiences, why does it always have to come back to you? Why don’t you care about us? Why aren’t you saying, “I’m sorry that it hurts you, maybe I will rethink my stance on it given that many women are hurt by this?”

        Why are you defending something that destroys and degrades women, even if you are one of the few female exceptions?

        You can’t wish women out of misogyny and oppression however hard you try.

        You’ve won. Bukkake exists. Men all over the world are enjoying women being degraded. Women are being degraded and hurt by this practice. The women that this hurts don’t have a voice except in tiny places like this and even here you are trying to drown us out with your “What about me, me, me?” Well you’ve got what you want – ejaculation on the face is mainstream and many women have experienced it, often whether they liked it or not, yet somehow you’ve still managed to twist this into your feelings not being taken care of.

        • antiprincess June 28, 2009 at 4:51 PM #

          you certainly have called me “thick” and worse. but I don’t blame you for not remembering.

          The women that this hurts don’t have a voice except in tiny places like this and even here you are trying to drown us out with your “What about me, me, me?”

          not my intention, but if that’s all you’re hearing me say, despite my best efforts, then there’s not much more I can do.

          You can’t wish women out of misogyny and oppression however hard you try.

          do you really think that’s all I’m doing?

          that’s an interesting idea. and maybe it’s true. I’ll think about it. I mean, if that’s how it comes across, I can probably do better.

          Well you’ve got what you want – ejaculation on the face is mainstream and many women have experienced it, often whether they liked it or not

          not sure I ever said I wanted people who were not into it to experience it. not sure I ever implied it. but again, if that’s how you read me, there’s little I can do to change your mind.

          • delphyne June 28, 2009 at 6:12 PM #

            “you certainly have called me “thick” and worse”

            No I haven’t. Back it up if you’re going to make claims like that.

            I don’t think I’ve even interacted with you for about two years because of *exactly* this kind of thing. You pretend you’re being picked on and make up attacks when in fact what has happened is that people have disagreed with you. But being disagreed with doesn’t have so much dramatic effect or opportunity to attack rad fems as claiming that we’ve said nasty things to you or about you.

            Nobody called you “thick” here yet you still felt free to claim it right in the middle of this discussion.

            “not my intention, but if that’s all you’re hearing me say,”

            No that’s what I’m seeing you do.

            “despite my best efforts, then there’s not much more I can do.”

            Actually there is something you can do. You can stop demanding women who are hurt listen to you, a woman who hasn’t been hurt by this, under the guise of you “helping” them. I’ve never in my life heard of the injured having to listen to the non-injured because somehow that will help.

            Of course if you’ve got an explanation as to how a hurt person listening to a non-injured person will help them, I am actually quite interested because it’s a new one on me.

        • buggle June 28, 2009 at 4:58 PM #

          Delphyne- EXACTLY. Yes, this. Especially this:

          “Why on earth would I be interested in finding out why *you* aren’t hurt by something when so many women, including me, are?”

          • Silent Agony (@DiscordantFlesh) February 27, 2013 at 10:17 PM #

            I am very hurt by it. I also think it would be scary to have STIs in your eyes and on your face. I just wanted to make m feelings known that I have been hurt from it. Thank you for giving me this space.

        • Bean June 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM #

          Why on earth would I be interested in finding out why *you* aren’t hurt by something when so many women, including me, are?

          Maybe I’m weird. But if I’ve experienced X and found it deeply hurtful, while someone else has experienced X and not had a problem with it… I most certainly want to compare notes!

          I don’t see how their having a different experience could possibly be hurtful or offensive to me, or a reflection on mine. It’s not. It’s a different experience.

          And I’d want to compare notes, on the chance that doing so might illuminate either or both of our experiences.

          Why are you defending something that destroys and degrades women, even if you are one of the few female exceptions?

          1. With this, and everything that comes after it, you are blaming another woman for either perpetuating misogyny or not caring about it – when all she’s done is claim a different experience.

          What (as a feminist) do you gain from that, exactly?

          2. Telling Anti-princess that she doesn’t care about other women because she doesn’t feel the way you believe she should about her experiences – and that her view is completely dismissible – is not the victimless act you are pretending it is. Women have been hurt by men acting to degrade them, yes, and I don’t see her denying that. But the attitude you’re pushing here is potentially also hurtful, and I don’t see you demonstrating any awareness of that fact.

          3. Women failing to honor each other’s experiences has historically been one of the biggest internal stumbling blocks of the feminist movement, one of the greatest sources of division. Women standing on soapboxes and telling other women, “the way it is,” and expecting those other women to accept this where their experiences don’t match up has never, ever worked.

          Now, I’m not suggesting that the question of whether or not catching semen in the face is intrinsically misogynistic is ever going to be a major dividing line.

          But feminism can only be improved by women having a general willingness to listen to each other; and only harmed by dictating to one another.

          • RenegadeEvolution July 1, 2009 at 2:59 AM #

            yes, this!

          • truthvscompliance October 21, 2009 at 5:02 PM #

            I see a lot of people who call themselves “sex-positive” totally dismissing the opinions of people who find bukkake degrading. MY personal experiences have shown me that EVERY SINGLE GUY who wanted to jizz all over my face was a complete misogynistic asshole (some took longer to recognize than others) obsessed with degrading porn. If this is my experience – than it’s hard for me to believe any woman who says there is a respectful intent behind it at all, from any context (who knows, maybe you are the only girl to have dated guys who don’t attempt to manipulate women with their entitlement and privilege). I don’t believe them. It’s not that you don’t have a voice or that I don’t think it’s possible for you to have a different experience but I have to wonder whether or not you are really being honest about the MEN who want to do this to you (or whether or not the men are being honest as to why they wish it). In my opinion – the problem isn’t about whether or not you enjoy it (if you do, all the power to it) – the problem is about the intent the guy has in even asking for it. Just because you enjoy it, doesn’t mean the intentions of any man doing it are erased… Do you get what I’m saying? I don’t think that the intentions of any woman who takes one in the face is bad but I question the intentions of the MAN. The guy is the issue here, the guy is the one that I’m questioning.
            Many of the women who are speaking out against such acts have experienced them and don’t blame ourselves but the guys who manipulated or coerced us, or made it seem like our protests were ridiculous.
            I’m so tired of being accused of shaming women who enjoy these sex acts – when I’ve actually done some of them (and you know, I felt like I enjoyed them then too but I don’t think I could now). If I’ve done some of them – why the fuck would I shame other people for it? If anything – I’m shaming the MEN who think it’s amusing to get their glue-like bodily fluids in my hair, eyes, or mouth.

            • Bean October 21, 2009 at 8:14 PM #

              Wow, okay. It’s been a while since I’ve been to this thread, but I distinctly remember several people taking pains to point out that they weren’t trying to say that women who find this act personally degrading are somehow in the wrong. And I know that I’ve said elsewhere on this thread that I don’t personally disagree that bukkake in porn is misogynistic. (At least, the shots of this that I’ve seen.)

              No, my point revolved around the tendency of some feminists to declare that Sex Act X is innately misogynistic, and women protesting to the contrary are Enemies of Feminists Everywhere. Which really is dismissive and divisive.

              If you’d scroll back up to the comment I was replying to, you’ll see that it was not, in fact, shaming any real or imagined men committing this act at all. It was entirely about how a WOMAN’S statement of her experience – and only her experience – is an attack on other women. Complete with the not-so-subtle implication of responsibility for men’s misogyny. (“Congratulations, you’ve won.”)

              Do you actually see MEN being held accountable in any way up there? Really?

              Do you actually not see shaming tactics up there? Really?

              Because it happens rather frequently in this space that a woman will say, “But I like anal sex/being tied up/etc., and you saying it’s a hateful act isn’t how it’s been for me at all. I don’t think it’s always a hateful act.”

              And the response to that, far more often than not, is an order to silence, and the accusation that the poster doesn’t care about other women who’ve been traumatized by the same acts. There’s not usually much questioning of her male partner’s motives – no, it’s usually about how dare she say that. She’s hurting other women!

              When “sex-positive” (I’m not actually sure how many people here identify with that term, but I’ll use it) point this out, the response is, “You’re defending misogyny and violence against women. You scum.”

              Honestly, how does this happen? How is it that I make a comment calling out a blatant attack on a woman’s allegiance to feminism because her sexual experience differs…and get told I’m “dismissing” the women who find bukkake degrading?

              Does the Babelfish translator have an option that I’m not aware of? English-to-enemy rhetoric?

              Because you have to distort my words pretty badly to be able to argue that I was brushing off women who hate getting semen in the face.

    • Laurelin June 28, 2009 at 12:00 PM #

      This, and the link given by Delphyne, brings us to the point. I think that many here are conflating a bukkake scene in porn (which, as illustrated by that google search *is* intended to degrade) with ‘oh I’ve got some of my partner’s semen on my skin’. This conflation trivialises the subject matter entirely and makes it about who likes/ will tolerate what and *not* about the sheer hatred of women as expressed in bukkake porn scenes.

      • Nine Deuce June 28, 2009 at 2:46 PM #

        Exactly.

        • buggle June 28, 2009 at 4:58 PM #

          Nice clarification, Laurelin.

      • James June 28, 2009 at 2:54 PM #

        You really haven’t done enough to demonstrate that there’s “sheer hatred of women” behind bukkake. As I said, you’re underestimating the urge to make a mess. Same logic as lies behind messy sex/custard pie clown porn. It’s not about loathing, its about defying conventional norms of tidiness.

        • delphyne June 28, 2009 at 3:52 PM #

          You really aren’t the arbiter James.

        • Nine Deuce June 28, 2009 at 5:58 PM #

          James, be serious. I don’t have to prove it’s generally a misogynistic practice to you because you know damn well that it is. The proof is everywhere. In fact, I’d say the burden of proof lies on you all who think it’s not a misogynistic act, and I’ve yet to see you meet it.

          • James June 28, 2009 at 6:18 PM #

            Right, right, I’ve got to prove a negative…

            • Nine Deuce June 28, 2009 at 6:21 PM #

              No, but you’ve got to be able to prove the possibility of a negative existing.

              • James June 28, 2009 at 6:30 PM #

                Eh. Enjoy your non-falsifiable.

                • Nine Deuce June 28, 2009 at 6:39 PM #

                  Whatever, dude. Face the facts.

                    • Nine Deuce June 28, 2009 at 8:27 PM #

                      What does that have to do with what we’re talking about? And does it take account of the drop in reporting? Of changes in attitudes as to what rape is? Of other forms of sexual assault (which have risen)? What about the conviction rate (which has been dropping)? And its effect on women’s willingness to report? Weak.

                    • James June 28, 2009 at 8:35 PM #

                      I’d say it demonstrates American society is one in which women are less likely to get raped. This despite women being “degraded” before more viewers than ever before courtesy of the internet & despite the innovation of bukkake.

                      Amazing, huh?

                    • James June 28, 2009 at 8:40 PM #

                      It’s almost like feminism was a success or something…

                    • Nine Deuce June 28, 2009 at 8:53 PM #

                      Is that as far as your skills of analysis go? Are you saying feminism worked, and we’re in a post-feminist age?

                    • James June 28, 2009 at 9:05 PM #

                      Depends. There’s still clearly a gender binary, in fact the last decade saw it entrench itself in the public consciousness (“Women are From Venus…” etc.) That’s been followed through with this decade on the middle-brow academic level (a book who’s name escapes me was basically a beefed up WrfV, MrfM using cod neurology got a lot of newspaper coverage), as well as a lowbrow horde of Dr. John Gray copy-cats. In fact we’ve reached the stage where the biological essentialists are so bold that they’re arguing transexuals show the strength of traditional understandings of sex-gender identity!

                      So that needs working with. Any declarations of absolute harmony at this stage would be moronic hubris. What I’m sceptical about the capacity of feminism to attract a mixed-gender base (vital for any attacks on the gender binary, for obvious reasons). Everything from the name upwards is problematic. Whether any “post-feminist” movement would even be possible with the rancour & heckle-raising that term causes amongst the existing feminist movement is something I’m also doubtful about though, unfortunately. It would be nice, though & I think it’s needed.

                      But yes, a drop of rape rates that large would be a very peculiar coincidence if it were merely correlated with, rather than caused by, feminism. Much work still to be done, but a victory worth celebrating, I’d say.

                    • Nine Deuce June 28, 2009 at 9:27 PM #

                      See Alice’s comment. And as to the mixed-gender base that you think feminism’s goal ought to be, I’m not sure I care. I mean, why would I expect men to support a movement that seeks to eradicate their privileges?

                    • James June 28, 2009 at 9:39 PM #

                      As for why men would want to get rid of it, well I’m again fairly surprised why you’d be so surprised to see victims of prejudice rising against it. The gender binary’s greatest failure is that it doesn’t work. It isn’t an adequate way to understand humanity, its ideals aren’t ones that fit properly & the expectations it fosters are intensely destructive to both sides of the utterly arbitary division.

                      I’m convinced of that, & I don’t think it would be too hard to expand on me & others like me, if only there was a movement that realised you can’t annihilate a pointless spectrum if you still honour and revere it enough to include only those on one half of the divide which you are arguing shouldn’t be there!

                    • Nine Deuce June 28, 2009 at 9:40 PM #

                      I can appreciate the men who are working to destroy the idea that there is such a thing as male or female behavior, and I am not opposed to working with them, provided they’re willing to confront male privilege. Are you?

                    • AliceRubberFeet. June 28, 2009 at 9:14 PM #

                      So what is this from Human Rights Watch then?

                      “(New York, December 18, 2008) – A new government report showing huge increases in the incidences of domestic violence, rape, and sexual assault over a two-year period in the United States deserves immediate attention from lawmakers and the incoming administration, Human Rights Watch said today. The statistics show a 42-percent increase in reported domestic violence and a 25-percent increase in the reported incidence of rape and sexual assault.”

                      http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/18/us-soaring-rates-rape-and-violence-against-women

                    • Firefey June 29, 2009 at 6:03 PM #

                      so… the reported cases are up. isn’t that actually a GOOD thing? that women are reporting their violent partners and their rapists more often is good, right? i don’t know what the study asked or how sound their methodology was, but it sounds to me like more women were comfortable saying that they had experienced these things, that less women were hiding these abuses.

                  • Laurelin June 28, 2009 at 9:12 PM #

                    I think its ‘true colours’ time for Jamie dear.

                    • James June 28, 2009 at 9:34 PM #

                      You’ll note that the link I provided wasn’t a straightforward plunge, Alice. There were spikes (most notably in the early ’90s) but across the decades the trend was down. Perhaps that era is over, but I can’t see why that would be.

      • antiprincess June 28, 2009 at 4:56 PM #

        oh – not meaning to trivialize at all. but I can see where you’d get that impression.

        but that brings me to wonder – what is it that is humiliating about this particular type of semen-on-skin contact? volume? number of people involved? the randomness of the people involved, with no other connection or relationship with each other? the nonconsensual nature of it?

        because I would not be immune to certain aspects of that, just because I don’t have a particular aversion to semen.

        again, not endeavoring to further harm people who have been already harmed. just wondering, as a fellow survivor of many forms of humiliation and violence.

        • Nine Deuce June 28, 2009 at 5:57 PM #

          The intent, which has been stated at least a hundred times, and the social/political context.

          • antiprincess June 28, 2009 at 7:47 PM #

            yeah, I get that. the intent the intent the intent.

            but I still wonder who assigned semen-on-the-face that particular intent?

            ok, MEN. (not mankind but men specifically.)

            but again, why that act? why has it come to symbolize for many people that deep sort of humiliation?

            “I know what we’ll do. we’ll put our semen on her face! that way she’ll be really really humiliated!”

            it just seems arbitrary to me. on the part of those MEN who see it that way.

            I’m inclined to ask of them – what, you think getting semen on me is going to damage me, or hurt me, or make me look silly, or cause me to lose IQ points or something…or what?

            “It is ‘cuz men say it is” is not a good enough answer for me, personally. I’m looking for a better one. which does not diminish my sympathy or empathy for people who have been hurt, I don’t think.

            • RenegadeEvolution July 1, 2009 at 3:03 AM #

              AP: Yes, yes, yes! Everything is about what the men think…or it seems that way to me. I could be totally off base, but yeah…so many people worried about what the men think….so yeah, what about…oh, the women? If a woman finds it degrading, in act, in theme, in intent of her partner(s)…well then to her it IS. But if a woman does not, and does not CARE what The Men might think…okay then, fuck the men, her opinion is the one that matters.

              I know I have been tossing out that crazy idea of eons now, but…yeah.

    • RenegadeEvolution July 1, 2009 at 3:08 AM #

      “So who here has actually been the woman in a bukkake scene?”

      You asked and all…

      I did one because I was curious. Not my thing. I found it boring. Not particularly degrading or soul-killing or whatever, but boring.

      HOWEVER, I can absolutely see how some women would find it degrading because unless she gets off on being ejaculated on, there is not much fun or excitement or pleasure in it for her.

  24. Polly Styrene June 27, 2009 at 9:17 PM #

    Can I just say -vis a vis class – since this was said:

    historically, that’s sorted itself along class lines and along race lines,

    Presactly. Which is why people like myself who historically come from the shat upon classes are so opposed to ideas of power and domination. Which is what bukkake is depicted as in popular culture.

    • antiprincess June 27, 2009 at 11:38 PM #

      sure. and I know several of the historically-downtrodden who are really into ideas of power and domination (in a non-sexual sense, maybe in an economic sense or social sense), who are just waiting for their chance to do the shitting. what’s your point?

      do you assume that all folks who are into kink are also from the non-shat-upon classes?

  25. AliceRubberFeet. June 28, 2009 at 12:06 AM #

    Maybe this seventeen year old woman would like you to defend these men’s “kink”.

    “Pornography users will immediately recognise the brand of rape the men used against the girl. There is a genre of pornography called “bukake” in which men stand around a single woman masturbating and ejaculating while they wait their turn to orally penetrate her. The anti-pornography documentary Pornography: the musical features footage of bukake scenes being produced, as well as a heart wrenching interview with a woman immediately after being filmed in bukake pornography. Readers can also consult the Internet, of course – it is teeming with bukake pornography sites.”

    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7114&page=0

    • antiprincess June 28, 2009 at 12:24 AM #

      Alice – if the interview was heartwrenching, it probably wasn’t a situation of “kink” worth defending. I’m not going to be baited into defending the actions of abusive monsters.

      I will say that genuine all-parties-consensual sex of all sorts exists, and sometimes people film it, and I have no problem with that. is that the same as defending rapists? no.

  26. AliceRubberFeet. June 28, 2009 at 12:58 AM #

    AP – “if the interview was heartwrenching, it probably wasn’t a situation of “kink” worth defending. I’m not going to be baited into defending the actions of abusive monsters.”

    It was created to serve a “kink” of certain men, that is why it is a popular genre of pornography. Made by men and for men to satisfy their oh-so-innocent sounding “kink” and unfortunately it spills out into real life.

    Stop defending woman hatred.

    Look AP, no one is trying to take your “kink” or woman-hating practices away from you. Just cut it out with the pretending that it’s not misogyny. So you get off on hatred of women…so what? You are not the first and unfortunately nor will you be the last. Just get on with it, but stop trying to shame us, who recognise it for what it is to STFU. It is not all about YOU and your sexual preferences, surely you can see that?

    • RenegadeEvolution June 28, 2009 at 3:49 AM #

      Who is shaming who here? I don’t see AP slinging names and accusations. And nah, it ain’t all about anyone’s sexual practices…or what other people might think of them. “You get off on hatred of women”? Gee, that is not a loaded statement in the least…and unless you are in AP’s bedroom, how do you know what she gets off on??

  27. Polly Styrene June 28, 2009 at 6:43 AM #

    do you assume that all folks who are into kink are also from the non-shat-upon classes?

    Nope, because that wasn’t what I said. I note that has been excusing Michael Jackson because he was a victim of abuse himself (NB I am in no way saying that consensual BDSM is in any way equivalent to child abuse).

    I’m saying that power and domination are bad things no matter who is practising them or why they’re doing it. And that a sexual motive doesn’t make a bad thing good.

    • antiprincess June 28, 2009 at 5:09 PM #

      thanks for the clarification.

      I think that power (and I suppose “domination”, in its most widely construed sense) is neutral. it’s what’s done with it that is good or bad.

      for more on this, see the book Amazon Odyssey by Ti-Grace Atkinson.

  28. James June 28, 2009 at 9:46 PM #

    As far as I can tell that shibboleth acts first & foremost as paltry cover for the basest of ad hominems. There are, of course, ways in which I benefit from the present system; just as there are ways in which you benefit. I’ve given it thought, certainly, but insisting upon introspection seems of a secondary importance to me next to stressing absence of innateness of any difference.

    I don’t like that particular buzz phrase at all, although some of the framework behind it has merit. It seems unnecessarily divisive, & the attachment which many feminists have for it most detrimental to any advancement towards progress.

    For an example of this: the immediate response to this could easily be “Well of course, this response demonstrates male prejudice!” Which of course, would not be a response to any points I raised, but me as a person…

  29. Finisterre July 2, 2009 at 7:12 PM #

    antiprincess said:

    “I think that power (and I suppose “domination”, in its most widely construed sense) is neutral. it’s what’s done with it that is good or bad.”

    Really? So if you know, for instance, that someone has the power of life or death over you (but hasn’t chosen to use it yet), or even just the power to stop you leaving your house any time you choose (but hasn’t chosen to use it yet), you would feel neutral about that situation?

    The more power one person has, the less freedom others have. Even if it’s only theoretical, I can’t see that it’s neutral.

    • antiprincess July 4, 2009 at 11:51 AM #

      I’ve been in that situation. but it wasn’t the power that was the problem. it was the person who claimed that power over me.

  30. Finisterre July 4, 2009 at 2:57 PM #

    antiprincess wrote:

    “I’ve been in that situation. but it wasn’t the power that was the problem. it was the person who claimed that power over me.”

    Er, yeah, but you can’t really separate the two, can you? So power might be neutral in a theoretical sense, but it’s a fairly meaningless abstract point because in practice, and certainly in the situations we’re talking about, power doesn’t exist independently of a person to claim or wield it.

    And when someone has power over you, your relationship changes even if they don’t use it. Hence the old cliché about power corrupting people.

  31. Polly Styrene July 5, 2009 at 8:54 AM #

    There are, of course, ways in which I benefit from the present system; just as there are ways in which you benefit.

    Really? As in women are paid more than men, women are raped less than men, that sort of thing?

    Or just *women can wear pretty dresses*, that sort of thing?

    The problem I have is the*sexism hurts men too* argument James. Because while it’s undoubtedly true that the gender binary restricts males in some ways, it also gives them huge advantages which more than cancel that out. I mean nobody is really going to buy *but racism hurts white people too* are they? And for a very good reason. Though believe it or not I have seen that very argument made before now.

    http://www.anti-racismonline.org/html%20pages/Helpful%20Perspectives%201.html

    The reason why men should oppose misogyny, hopefully, is that some of them believe in social justice.

  32. virginia July 7, 2009 at 5:47 PM #

    Greetings,

    Your writing is superior, Nine and it is inspiring to find committed individuals.

    I will assert that the problem lies with Madison Ave and Wall St. This is not a criticism of either but is meant to point out that we have adopted sex as business and packaging and extended profit where it should not be extended, and packaging where it should not be extended: We package cereal, we package products. We are NOT PRODUCTS.

    Madison and Wall are concerned with packaging for profit and this is comprehensive and is our western culture. Pornography is the derivative of the two and consists of convincing the populace that the material act is the abstract drive. It is important to differentiate and substantiate the difference.

    The first egregious error is to combine everything with Madison and Wall, meaning to slap a for sale sign on anything and everything. Free speech is one thing, selling and packaging people as products is another? In doing this we murder Eros. When we murder Eros we have only the material act without the abstract. The human body is: a vehicle, an instrument, an advanced machine that it’s owners have barely begun to decipher, it is parts vivisected and it is a whole, it is separate but it is united, and it is the material venue, the paint and brushes the instrument fantastic. The artists however, the musician, the muse, is the mind-soul abstract that has use of the vehicle. What the individual creates is indeed unique and what is created with a lover is a unique creation that can never be repeated again… this is great…

    However, when you cannot differentiate between the vehicle and the driver, when you appropriate Madison and Wall and when you reduce the sex act to a set of simple clichés, a well worn script, a set of responses, you have butchered Eros and you have limited the fantastic gift of erotic unbound ecstasy that has been with us throughout the ages.

    I am an older woman and I have lived in places that were lost in time even when I was young. Of course there was political travail and problems with what could be considered the ‘patriarchy’ which can be clearly reduced to the subset of: fear, ignorance, greed and the internal ping pong match between shame and arrogance.

    But these places where untouched by ‘media’ and there were no such discussions between lovers and true love. This was a time before labels.

    There were no sex communities, there were no dominant and submissive people sexually and lovers wrote their own script and I can tell you that this was a far greater, far more changeling and UNIQUE, procreative extraordinary sublime achievement and lovers had to be daring, bold, courageous, adventures, had to think and harmonize, became the point and counterpoint the energy and the inertia, because sex affords the luxury of much procreation, not just physical children, and sex is abstract which turns biology into physics so humans can partake in unknown worlds. There is plenty of historical evidence for abstract advanced erotica, and hence Eros.

    Civilized lovers have always known this and there are many cultures where erotic married philosophy achieving galactic orgasm, but the plebeians reduced the sublime to the material and this is like wearing your shoe in your nose: not productive.

    The labels were political and not sexual and the labels are still political and not sexual and a label makes the personal political

    Civilized lovers which are great lovers new better and used their bodies for pleasure indemnified of shame and reveled in erotic birthright.

    The masses embraced ignorance and bigotry because they could not accept the philosophy – could not comprehend the advanced philosophy of erotic and focused on the material, became convinced that god was in everyone’s underwear, and then science was in everyone’s underwear and Darwin was in everyone’s underwear. Evolution was in everyone’s underwear. Our acts dictated by genitalia. Really now!

    It is the labels that are shocking and the insistence on the material focus of the sex act and the focus on the organs, the fetish of body parts, the gross material reverence is risible.

    The instrument is not the music, even though there is no materialization of music without instrument. Imagine if there were just instruments and no music! This I believe is what we have now and why there is a debate. It is not the act, and not the desire, and not the urge, but the interpretation, which has been delivered and co-opted in imitation of Madison and Wall that is the problem.

    So the body is the instrument, it has a physical response a biological response, which varies from person to person and has some commonality.

    Let’s consider the ‘shame’ ‘ humiliation’ ‘degradation’ that is experienced. Shame, humiliation= process; and biological function – reaction and vector reiteration that created energetic pathways. Sex devotions are energetic acts, material creating energy that are superhighways to a greater reality. To be clear – some like getting spanked, cum on their face, leashed, etc and etc, on and on because it is a biological vector and it is a process of corralling energy, making energy geometric, shaping space gravitational push and pull, and it is physics – it is about energy and motion, so energy is being contained and constrained and creates a set – a function, and this process does NOT define the differences between men and women because a process is not an identity and it is interchangeable, it is a function and can be found in many other forms.

    We have created altars to function, but should be worshiping at the altar of the abstract higher order which is the entire point, the entire purpose of our sexuality!!!!!

    Being merely a function ( one of many that can be used in innumerable ways by the individual) it is not the supreme, which is paramount, abstract. And some group minds or propaganda cadres do not differentiate this and even worse, there are those that go so far as to say it is the ‘feminine nature,’ the gender difference, are guilty of gross ignorance and mass stupidity that was indeed part of the ‘patriarch’ whose goal was to inveigle humans so they could easily be controlled for profit, and whose goal was also to kill Eros.

    The ‘patriarchy’ stole Eros and made the function the fact, dissected it from the sexual sublime and used it as an instrument of mass oppression fooling those who mistook their physical response for the religious experience.
    The energetic of sex was stolen from sex and used to make wooden puppets of people – I can’t think of a better description of evil. What elegant propaganda!!

    Why do we have this drive, which in some is insurmountable? Is it just a bad itch as many repressed cultures have insisted? No. We are driven sexually and it is a gift because we can get to higher ground, we can transmogrify!!!! It is better than peyote and it can’t be achieved in other ways, we SHARE with others on paths to Elysium. The drive is wonderful and not shameful BUT IT IS NOT GENITAL, NOT MATERIAL. The physical is the vehicle; the soul is the passenger on the great journey. IT IS PRIVATE, PERSONAL, AND SHOULD NOT BE FOR SALE!!!!!
    Getting stuck in gross material thrills is tempting but there should be a philosophy which reins omnipotent in a civilized world – and that would be to acknowledge that one is dallying in the material world of matter for the time. And does not wish to be a pioneer, an explorer of the individual zenith of Eros for some reason or other.

    That ‘matter’ in sex is for followers who need a script, making both ‘slave’ and ‘master’ slaves in total. This is what happens when the pyramid of desire is not brought into awareness. One must be aware that one is ‘enjoying the cum’ and any and all exotic drives etc.. etc.. ‘ because it is relative to the constant which it the pinnacle and the goal, not the gross matter of the act itself.

    It is a fact that 99 plus percent of reality is useable to the naked eye!! The accessories we use are a molecular soup, just like the coffee table is used to place your food; it is useful but not relevant to the coffee, or to anything but itself as a molecular object. The accessories used in the material sex act including the body are tools to arrive at the sublime which is different in each and every individual and each and every pair, ands cannot be repeated and can be a ticket to nirvana for those who see fit.

    The populace has been sold a package, killed Eros and is stranded in gross matter and cannot see the difference between their cum, their corset, their whip, the coffee table and the vector biological response which has become just another of the many western addictions that have nothing to do with the sublime.

    Eros, needs no words. Eros cannot have words; Eros is the place without words, above words beyond words and beyond images. Images are supposed to reflect the ART of Eros. What we find with lovers is not the words and is at best translated into poetry, must be abstracted in order to be translated but cannot be defined.

    Many are stuck in matter and enjoy the experience so intensely that they cannot perceive that it is the beginning of the seismic adventure and not the end. So they remain in ‘ slave’ modes and define existence in that fashion which is also the fashion that the sexless ‘patriarchy’ defined women, because they were afraid of creative reproduction of any kind and when the PR consists of gross matter using words, slave master etc. and gross images, it is idolatry then it is inaccurate AND dangerous politically.

    The act is not to be condemned but the interpretation and the act made public and translated publicly is false because it lacks the total reality. It is stupid supreme to focus on the accessory, the soup of molecules and not the summit, the paramour, the vitality.

    Incarceration of the spirit by the self or by another has no sexual attributes, even if it is pleasant, it is abusive to the self, and has nothing to do with sex. When sex is purely material and the focus is on incarceration, and then one is indeed incarcerated. I see many that seem incarcerated by their coffee tables (molecular brick-a-brack) because they cannot differentiate. It is abuse because of the delusion.

    When the focus is on transmogrification, then it is sexual sublime. It is the apogee that makes the difference. There are no labels at the apogee.

    Why is there no talk of the sexual summit? People fear the summits, men fear them and women fear them and prefer to be reduced to ‘master, slave’ and wear sticker – labels, and then become insecure and insist that they must have others wear them and form communities for what is private, individual, only for lovers..

    Do you think the great inventor, explorers, those that delivered genius were focused on what they wore, what the title was? Do you really think they focused on the tools? No. Impossible, you cannot invent if you focus on the tools, it is Zen, you learn the tools and then move on, you don’t keep fingering the tools; this is the path of the idiot.

    We are containers of the material and sublime. There is such a concept as inside and outside. We are also part of the laws of physics. Just because we are ignorant of them does not mean that we can evade them and the laws are not about dominant and submissive, these are Madison avenue. it is not about the cunt and penis, these are mechanisms, escalators – the escalator is not the final destination – it is the escalator.

    What is inside should not be for sale, is private, creative, reverent and we do not sit in the middle of the street and masturbate for a reason.

    We are animals, mammals, but we have the ADDED ability to abstract sexually and this has been all but forgotten. What I can tell you about my personal Eros is one of splicing my DNA with my lover, of becoming primal, predator and prey as one in the same, of the billion Boolean conversions of the personal power, of the great dance which required superlative awareness, and a prescience, the understanding of time, my inhalations of life, time, living, dying mortality and immortality – that I ate and drank of the manna that formed me in spirit and none of it would be described by my genitalia or by carnal geometries that delivered me to such places.

    Alas, it is a material world. We are not yet civilized.

  33. Christina July 9, 2009 at 8:46 PM #

    Nine Deuce, you are courageous for naming porn what it is, misogyny, and speaking bluntly about this controversial topic with a radical feminist perspective in mind. Thank you for defending the feminist ideal and doing your part to strive for it.

    It seems to me that many sex positive feminists intend to promote not a radical change in old patriarchal ways of thinking/being, but acceptance of those ways and even more, women’s participation and leadership within that old system. This leaves the feminist concept and movement without any real meaning or strength. I agree with the good intent of sex positive feminism that women (and men) ought to be liberated to enjoy healthy sex lives. However, I diverge from traditional sex positive feminists in my analysis as to how women and men are to achieve this. I believe that it comes from a critical evaluation of what the old patriarchal system has impressed upon us regarding our sexuality. Considering that the sex industry, prostitution, even sex within the domestic home has been androcentric for the majority of human history, it is time for a radical evaluation and change rather than merely applauding that at some point feminism allowed women to say “I like sex, too.” I heard someone say once that women’s sexual liberation meant for many women the freedom to finally say “no.” Something to consider, especially looking at the fact that body image, sexual assault and abuse are still an epidemic across the globe…

    I’m with you Nine Deuce. I want a new system built on genuine respect, empowerment and valuing of women, not just a life time pass to participate in the boy’s club. Keep it up. You do have supporters!

  34. christina beastly December 3, 2009 at 1:53 PM #

    ND, you are amazing. I wrote a longer comment that immediately vanished, so this is the second try. Here goes. Thank you for putting your voice out there and for opening up your blog to some fucking incredibly genius and incredibly important discussions. If only I knew folks who could think like this in my real life, I wouldn’t cry with joy when I happen upon such brilliant online conversations. See, I’d already begun to believe that I was a terrible feminist for being anti-porn, like I’d ruined the party for the swingin’ “sex positives” with my mean, shaming, radical self. Um, no?

    Questioning something, suspecting there’s more than meets the eye, in no way should insult others to such a degree that they won’t hear your arguments or consider their own motivations. Like, deeply consider your motivations; how much of you is in them? Something I always wonder about is: internalized patriarchal values. You know? “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” and that sort of thing. I don’t think that accepting a no-win scenario by switching teams sounds liberating or am I doing this shit wrong? Bukkake, rape fantasies, Girls Gone Wild — eh, so if you’re real into those things, they help to dismantle the forces behind them? Say what?!

    Anyway, this is my new favorite place. Everyone’s so unusually… civil. And thoughtful.

    • Nine Deuce December 3, 2009 at 5:21 PM #

      Thanks! It’s funny, I normally think these discussions get a little too nasty, but it’s good to hear that people are getting something out of them. I get pressure sometimes from others, and I sometimes think it would be easier, to only allow radical feminist comments, but I think the discussion is worthwhile and I’m glad people can do it here.

  35. Mike February 10, 2010 at 7:39 PM #

    I’m sorry but semen is the sexiest substance around. I think a girl with semen on her lips/chin is way sexier than a girl professionally done up with makeup. I’m primarily attracted to a woman’s face, physically, and semen on her face is just icing on the cake if you know what I mean.

    I don’t find my own semen disgusting or degrading, I’ll eat it myself…

    Not every girl is into that but if a girl isn’t into playing with bodily fluids as much as me, then we’re not really sexually compatible.

    • Nine Deuce February 10, 2010 at 7:44 PM #

      Yeah, why though? We aren’t talking about semen being a degrading substance inherently, we’re talking about why people in this culture think it’s exciting to ejaculate on someone’s face. Address the point, please.

  36. Mike February 10, 2010 at 8:20 PM #

    It appeals to my visual, tactile, and taste senses. It appeals to the same senses in women.

    What could be more erotic than playing with the result of an orgasm?

    It’s every bit as erotic as seeing nipples or labia to see semen.

    The face is the most noticeable part on the body, and as gravity pulls it down the face you’re provided with an animated visual display. Ejaculating on a stomach isn’t quite the same – it just kind of blends in as it dries up.

    For me sex is about orgasms, not vaginal intercourse.

    • Nine Deuce February 10, 2010 at 8:22 PM #

      So you’re trying to claim that there’s no intent to degrade?

  37. Mike February 10, 2010 at 8:24 PM #

    Ooh, I forgot the most important part. I’m inherently anti-procreation, pro-sterility. The thought of pregnancy disgusts me and turns me off. So, the further you get the semen away from the vagina, the more attractive it makes the person wearing it look.

    I guess facials are a turn on in a similar way to seeing hickies on someone’s neck; it implies that they’re sexually active and proud.

  38. James February 10, 2010 at 8:47 PM #

    Ah, so it’s misanthropy which inspires the kink, rather than misogyny. Well that’s alright then.

  39. Dennis February 10, 2010 at 10:07 PM #

    It’s not misanthropy to believe the world is overpopulated and it’s immoral to conceive when there are so many orphans and foster kids waiting to be adopted.

  40. James February 10, 2010 at 10:15 PM #

    Neo-Malthusianism is most definetely misanthropic nonsense.

  41. Valerie M February 11, 2010 at 1:33 PM #

    If it weren’t for misogyny the world wouldn’t be overpopulated in the first place.

  42. Corey March 6, 2010 at 5:43 AM #

    ND, when I finally got down to Mike’s comments (well first James’ but he seems to have stepped on some toes and was cast aside as merely part of the problem) I was overjoyed that someone finally was getting into the arena of questions I have. But it’s been a month and I don’t see a response from anyone so…

    First! Let me stop right here and say: I have seen bukkake porn. The intent seems to be to degrade (my Japanese is non-existant). I am not intending to, and hope that no one will think I have tried to, defend degradation of people through this act or any other. I will not even get into the metanarrative of whether or not someone can enjoy something without it being a sublimation or traitorous act.
    That said: I am a sexual being, I do enjoy pornography (I won’t give in to my desire to dress it up as “erotica” to make it sound nicer) but if I cannot see faces then I shut it off – sometimes even so then. There’s no point. I have seen “vanilla” (M-F, missionary) porn that focuses only on the genitals, breasts, arms of the “people” involved. I find this degrading to both parties. This is why: It is reductionary – people are more than just erogenous zones and impressive biceps.
    I will concede, readily and with no subterfuge, that in our current culture the damage of any example of misogyny is far worse than misandry. If I am 10′ down a hole and someone drops a small rock on my face it will hurt, a lot. But if I am 60′ down a hole that same rock will probably kill me.
    All of this is just to point out that yes – intent matters. Degradation and domination can come into anything. Bukkake seems to be one of those things. But it needn’t be the only reason to do it.

    I will begin with an analogue (NSFW – explicit): [edited - no porn links on the 'chine, dude] (For now please focus on the “lotion” part – I am not an encyclopaedia and I just chose the first thing Google threw to me so I apologize that I couldn’t find “Excellent Lotion Average Body Shape 3″)
    In reference to James’ comment about “making a mess” This is an example of what is called “lotion fetish”. Apparently you can even buy plastic jugs of this stuff. Even the men in this movie are covered in the lotion. In much the same way that I think men and women (disclaimer: my opinions as a bisexual may not match those of other “typical” – if such a thing exists – males) look especially hot with water dripping down their faces when they first break the surface of a pool I – and enough of a consumer base to warrant making a relatively large budget (lighting, CG, camerawork, etc) film – find the lotion look to be attractive.

    I introduce now the fact that I have found cumshots attractive – bukkake rarely, because the actor usually looks horrified – if the actor appears to honestly be into it.
    I enjoy it, if it is enjoyed (responsibly discussed beforehand). I enjoy taking a shot too. I am also one of those men whom Bean thankfully pointed out enjoys giving “mustache rides”. Sorry, I always think of SuperTroopers when sitting comes up, had to throw it in there.
    I’ve read interviews with actors – male & female – who say that they don’t enjoy filming bukkake scenes, it’s annoying, it’s impersonal, it’s whatever. The women don’t like it, the “soup men” don’t like it – it’s just how they make a buck. Personally I find it annoying that with the exception of a niche market shoots always finish on the girl or the bottom.
    I do take issue with the idea that an act can be universally misogynist just because it usually is. I will say “usually” in good faith here – it seems folks who know have already come to that conclusion. But I think that what is shown to us by “Excellent Lotion” (Or women in SportsIllustrated or men in the A&F summer catalogue) is that people think people are sexier when covered in fluids.

    IF this is a true statement: “many people find people sexier when coated in fluids” (and please no one pull a physics professor on me right now, I know air is a fluid) then we have at least 1 opposing reason for the existence of the market beyond “men like to exercise power over others” and the sublimation of that idea.
    To expand beyond my sex: At least one of my girlfriend’s has enjoyed the way I look with my face drippy, and other female friends have raised the point (a small sample size, but I don’t sit around discussing intimacies with everyone on the street) so I don’t think it’s an exclusively male interest (fluid-based facial sheen). I have also seen lesbian films where women take it on the face and films where men take it on the face (from women, natch). This is a small part of the market, admittedly, but it’s larger – probably – than the market share for people having sex in custard. I also have a problem with some of the things my OS does, but I’m not likely to make (or record in this case) my own, so I have to go with what is available.

    Operating under the not-wholly-unsupported premise that “many people find people sexier when coated in fluids” we have what was asked of James (and which I felt he answered, though not directly enough I assume – which is why I’m taking such care, in making mention of people having sex in custard): an alternative source for bukkake to misogyny.
    AGAIN: This does not mean that most or damn-near all bukkake is not done as an exercise in denigration – I am simply responding to your point, ND, that the onus was upon us to provide an alternative by providing an alternative.

    Therefore if SOME bukkake (or cumshots, or blowjobs in reference to Truth’s 10/21 statement: “I’m shaming the MEN who think it’s amusing to get their glue-like bodily fluids in my hair, eyes, or mouth.”) are the result of something besides denigration I do not think one can say “all bukkake are misogynist”.
    I happen to enjoy glue-like fluids in my mouth, by the way. As to why it’s amusing to have glue-like fluids in another person’s mouth: I think you’re thinking a step too far, which is to say, one step past “orgasms feel good”.

    Now we should probably examine what would cause someone to think – scratch that – desire ejaculating or “going” all over someone’s face, chest, stomach, etc.
    1) Let’s go out on a limb and assume that most people first experience orgasm by themselves. In men (and I would assume women as well, but we’ll stick with men as the common perpetrators/donators in a bukkake scene) that winds up with apparent, visceral evidence of orgasm. It doesn’t seem too far fetched that this is why people enjoy facials and permutations thereof. Provided Pavlov* wasn’t an idiot of course.
    2) Provided you’re “doing it right” sex will usually result in all parties involved getting pretty sweaty. Perhaps the urge to “make a mess” comes from here and simply manifests itself in a variety of ways – custard for some folks, cum for others.
    3) Other reasons: I don’t really have any other reasons, but a past girlfriend would, from cowgirl or my face occasionally jump off me and grind against my abs as she orgasmed. I don’t know why – I didn’t think about it too much because she was clearly enjoying herself and I was enjoying myself. Point being perhaps sexuality is just too complicated to always figure out.

    Perhaps it’s a combination of reasons (in differing amounts) in everyone. I don’t know. This is just my example of how bukkake might not be SOLELY an example of misogyny. If you take issue with my logic please point it out I would honestly like to know where I’ve broken down along the way so I can fix it and arrive at a more accurate conclusion.

    Also I have noticed that there are at least two strands going on here: The sex-pos people SEEM to be objecting to the fact that someone is trying to limit what can be sexy and expanding “bukkake” into “anything that isn’t missionary sex for procreative purposes”. The rad-fems SEEM to be focusing solely on bukkake and not noticing that the sex-pos are not defending “bukkake” per se, but rather the right of people to enjoy what they enjoy without being told that they’ve been brainwashed/sublimated.

    In response to something James said: I don’t think it’s possible for men to be feminists because we are not female. We can be all for equality, etc, and if you were to draw it up on Venn diagrams they could overlap nigh-perfectly, but less DNA on 23 means we can be egalitarians at best and never get to the 6th letter. We do not have the experiential pre-reqs.

    Lastly: If Ren is still around perhaps she can confirm this but the interview I read (years ago, in college) said that the “soup men” made a pittance compared to the women. Not that the women made a whole lot either, but it seems to be an unsubstantiated rumor that female “talent” makes more than male talent in the industry.

    *There are probably others who’ve done similar experiments, but my occasional perusal of “PopPsy” does not make me an expert on the subject.

    An aside: I would have written “people like to exercise power over others” earlier but comments like that get you labeled “MRA” (which I had to wiki, mind you) after which no one can be bothered to even look at you. I pray that no one labels me an MRA for bringing up, however briefly, the effects of porn on male self-image (something men are well-qualified to address) and for daring to tread into the women’s part of the sandbox.

    • Nine Deuce March 6, 2010 at 6:38 PM #

      There’s a difference between being attracted by people covered in water and people covered in slime, and one that’s likely conditioned. All that site made me think of was Ghostbusters.

  43. James March 6, 2010 at 10:09 AM #

    “In response to something James said: I don’t think it’s possible for men to be feminists because we are not female. We can be all for equality, etc, and if you were to draw it up on Venn diagrams they could overlap nigh-perfectly, but less DNA on 23 means we can be egalitarians at best and never get to the 6th letter. We do not have the experiential pre-reqs.”

    Yay, biological essentialism…

    Nice title, though. Tame by Japanese standards, but that’s probably for the best.

  44. corey March 6, 2010 at 11:37 PM #

    ND: Likely, you say, but not definitively. I think that the lack of an ability to say “definitely” is good reason to examine it as – in some cases – a sexual fetish beyond the denigration fetish. I would say that thinking people covered in water is likely conditioned – I don’t know that I would think it were as attractive without Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig and “Fast Times at Ridgemont High”.
    And, let us assume that it is conditioned – much as it is assumed that the attraction to the chest (male or female) is conditioned. Can it simply have been programmed into a generation or two to be “sexy” because one’s elders think it’s sexy, but without the underlying current of denigration? Serious question.
    I think that a person can be programmed to just think something is sexy, or disgusting, without an underlying “why”. I have asked and have yet to be given a why as to the enjoyment of certain rotten (and larvae-infested) cheeses are considered delicacy by parts of the French population. Perhaps it is a delicacy simply through repetition.

    Please note that I did give, as one of my potential reasons why, the fact that “slime” (male or female) is a sensible (to specify: “able to be sensed” not “sound and reasonable” I don’t think sexuality is often based on logical choices) proof of orgasm. And that it may be self-conditioning to eventually come to the conclusion that seeing it (or similar substances) is sexy. For some people. It is not too far a stretch from one’s own skin to another’s.

    I also did not say “all people” are attracted to people who are thusly made shiny, just that people (to specify again: “some people”) are attracted to it. It does nothing for you, I’m not going to second-guess you – solipsism and all that – but it clearly does enough for enough people that it is being sold on an English-speaking site. Were my Russian better I might look it up in Cyrillic, just to see – or French, were that the case.

    My argument, again, is not that ALL people (or indeed even a percentage approaching a majority of people) enjoy such activities – I could have linked to a picture of people having sex in chocolate pudding (there are pages of hits for it according to Google) and have made the same point. I chose the “lotion” fetish because it is closer to the point at hand.

    I really did try to put my logic process down here along with as many of my questions as I felt were immediately connected – I would appreciate a more thorough answer.

    If you do not feel that it is your need to hand-hold me down the path to sexual magnanimity I respect that and will hie myself to another opposing mindset in hopes that they will feel like taking the time to break down the steps that lead them to exclude all bukkake from the realm of “mutually enjoyable sexual acts where one or both parties has not sublimated misogyny or is acting as a misogynist.”

    I am also unclear as to your stance on men who enjoy bukkake (receiving from other men). Are they simply into being denigrated themselves? I’m assuming (carefully) that you would not consider this misandry. What say you?

    James: That was partially tongue-in-cheek. I do think there is a level of feminism that men, even Ts such as Ms. Erin, cannot reach because of a lack of experience; but to say that men cannot be feminists entirely would be like saying rich white men cannot be abolitionists. One can, on sheer principle, cast off privilege one realizes to be unfair.

    And that’s partially why I bothered to read through and THINK (and, try at least, to self-examine) through this now 9-month conversation: realization usually requires new perspectives, and it’s often easier to borrow them from others rather than waiting for an “a-ha” moment.

  45. Muhammad November 22, 2010 at 4:48 AM #

    lol I never heard of “bukkake” until about a year ago (so when I was like 18) and I laughed when my friend told me lol…I wasn’t laughing as if to say “Hahah! Isn’t it funny when people get covered in cum!” it was more like “Haha! WTF? Why is there a genre for that? Why have they given it a name and everything?”…Haha I don’t get it, I don’t understand why that is supposed to be arousing, lol, I dunno :/

    Salaam :)

  46. Bastet December 22, 2013 at 10:19 PM #

    Women enjoying cum-shots? Yeah right! I’m sure they’d also enjoy being squirted in the face with salt water, ketchup, mustard, pretty much any and all liquids. Oooo organic (sarcasm). Male pleasing bs. Please degrade me, please. Bhaaaahaaahaaa…

  47. Jen March 9, 2014 at 8:07 AM #

    If anything I feel Bukkake is more degrading to the men. After I caught my boyfriend looking at girls getting cummed on by a group of guys it’s become my guilty pleasure to watch. But the men are just tools in the videos; they are merely there because they need to be for the sperm. The whole focus is on the girl she is the center of attention. In a strange way I feel these videos are empowering as the women control the men throughout these movies. Anyway just my h.o

    • Nine Deuce March 10, 2014 at 4:17 PM #

      That really is strange.

    • bluecat March 12, 2014 at 1:48 AM #

      You do understand that bukkake originated as a form of punishment for uppity wives, don’t you? And that porn producers have openly stated in interviews that bukkake’s sole purpose is the degradation of women…so misogybags have another tool in their arsenal for figuratively getting one over on teh beautiful bitchez who wouldn’t fuck them in high school.
      Your boyfriend is an ass. Stop concocting elaborate justifications in your head for his shitty behavior.

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 471 other followers