Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Well, looks like the great Cease Fire of 2007 has lapsed. Great! We're all well rested, got our second winds, ready to fight the good fight once again.
so - CHARGE!
I think I read on Witchy's comments recently someone mentioned the fact that the "yaypornies" aren't listening. they never listen. that's the whole problem. they don't listen.
well, here - let's listen. let's listen and respond.
Here's a comment from a commenter on a recent thread at IBTP:
I hate that they pursue orgasm by degrading and harming fellow human beings.
A good phrase to translate “pro-porn”:
“pro - pursuit of orgasm by degrading and harming fellow human beings “
wow, y'all. really? is that really the sum total of what it means to be pro-porn? That's what it reduces to? well, yeah, that's awful. I'm not at all comfortable with degrading and harming fellow human beings.
BUT - if no fellow human beings were degraded or harmed in the pursuit of my orgasm, then what I'm using to pursue it is NOT porn? so I'm in the clear?
OR if fellow human beings were degraded or harmed, but I'm not pursuing orgasm, I'm still okay?
I guess it depends largely on one's definition of "degrade" and "harm". and maybe even "orgasm". and no, I'm not merely playing semantics games. definitions are important.
I know some folks who become aroused when looking at pictures of objects. not people. no fellow human beings involved at all, yet intense arousal happens, lust is inspired, orgasms occur - you know, normally object fetishists don't get no respect, but in this case maybe they've got it figured out - sexual thrills without the human cost. who's the freak NOW?
and I can see the eyes rolling, hear the impatient sighs - "you KNOW that's not what we MEAN! We mean PORN. ASSFUCKING. BLOODY BLOWJOBS. etc. ad naus."
I tell you this - sitting for my FAMILY PICTURE with my abusive exhusband was exponentially more degrading and harmful to me than any bloody blowjob assfuck session.
which is not to say that the bloody blowjob assfuck session is everybody's cup of tea. I get that. But I have to admit that I've had some very satisfying, very intense sexual experiences that were a bit beyond the pale, and did not leave me feeling "harmed" or "degraded."
Sitting next to the man who wanted to KILL ME, and smiling like it was nothing, pretending we were Mr. and Mrs. America - yeah, that was a thousand times more humiliating.
So, yeah, we're listening. and responding. but lots of us feel like y'all don't care.
so - CHARGE!
I think I read on Witchy's comments recently someone mentioned the fact that the "yaypornies" aren't listening. they never listen. that's the whole problem. they don't listen.
well, here - let's listen. let's listen and respond.
Here's a comment from a commenter on a recent thread at IBTP:
I hate that they pursue orgasm by degrading and harming fellow human beings.
A good phrase to translate “pro-porn”:
“pro - pursuit of orgasm by degrading and harming fellow human beings “
wow, y'all. really? is that really the sum total of what it means to be pro-porn? That's what it reduces to? well, yeah, that's awful. I'm not at all comfortable with degrading and harming fellow human beings.
BUT - if no fellow human beings were degraded or harmed in the pursuit of my orgasm, then what I'm using to pursue it is NOT porn? so I'm in the clear?
OR if fellow human beings were degraded or harmed, but I'm not pursuing orgasm, I'm still okay?
I guess it depends largely on one's definition of "degrade" and "harm". and maybe even "orgasm". and no, I'm not merely playing semantics games. definitions are important.
I know some folks who become aroused when looking at pictures of objects. not people. no fellow human beings involved at all, yet intense arousal happens, lust is inspired, orgasms occur - you know, normally object fetishists don't get no respect, but in this case maybe they've got it figured out - sexual thrills without the human cost. who's the freak NOW?
and I can see the eyes rolling, hear the impatient sighs - "you KNOW that's not what we MEAN! We mean PORN. ASSFUCKING. BLOODY BLOWJOBS. etc. ad naus."
I tell you this - sitting for my FAMILY PICTURE with my abusive exhusband was exponentially more degrading and harmful to me than any bloody blowjob assfuck session.
which is not to say that the bloody blowjob assfuck session is everybody's cup of tea. I get that. But I have to admit that I've had some very satisfying, very intense sexual experiences that were a bit beyond the pale, and did not leave me feeling "harmed" or "degraded."
Sitting next to the man who wanted to KILL ME, and smiling like it was nothing, pretending we were Mr. and Mrs. America - yeah, that was a thousand times more humiliating.
So, yeah, we're listening. and responding. but lots of us feel like y'all don't care.
# posted by antiprincess @ 6:58 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
excellent. thanks.
see, I really want people to know I'm listening, and want to discuss.
I hope it does not sound like I'm not listening.
see, I really want people to know I'm listening, and want to discuss.
I hope it does not sound like I'm not listening.
I'm not. Well, I'm listening to -you.- I'm listening to people who haven't been complete and utter fucking asses. W-W is right, though, if that was her: her, I'm through listening to. Ever.
but, as always, I speak solely for myself. AP, I admire your optimism, true, but I'm out of this one unless you need my flamethrower.
but, as always, I speak solely for myself. AP, I admire your optimism, true, but I'm out of this one unless you need my flamethrower.
oh, and: I also don't listen to anyone who stands by and does nothing while someone threatens to "out" a friend, much less condones or does it. One of "ours" got fed up and offered to return the favor: most of us told her that we did not approve and please stand down. Have y'all done the same for Stormthingie? No? Bye. It's beyond "porn," that. Way, way beyond.
AP *Why* can't you just STOP THINKING so much! All this reason and logic...it's most unfeminine. And with a baby on the way, too. Tsk.
I wonder what it means when the person I'm supposedly degrading and harming, has more orgasms than I do in a sex session?
As a man who's trying to be good and pro-feminist, am I supposed to use my patriarchal privilege to explain to her that her pleasure is the wrong sort, or am I supposed to fill the "bad-guy" role anyway and let the anti-pornies beat some sense into her?
As a man who's trying to be good and pro-feminist, am I supposed to use my patriarchal privilege to explain to her that her pleasure is the wrong sort, or am I supposed to fill the "bad-guy" role anyway and let the anti-pornies beat some sense into her?
# posted by 
: 2:23 AM
: 2:23 AM
oh, rootie - I let little Wolfgang do all my thinking for me these days. He's already oppressing at a fifth-grade level!
I wonder what it means when the person I'm supposedly degrading and harming, has more orgasms than I do in a sex session?
well - on the one hand, orgasm is just a response to stimulus, dependent on many factors. so maybe quantity is not the right metric to use.
I mean, me - no matter how I'm "harmed" or "degraded", I'm good for one good solid earthquake of sexual pleasure, and that's about it. I can continue for a goodly while afterwards, but my body probably won't repeat that physiological process.
which is not to say that I'm not having a blast between my ears, if not particularly between my legs.
for me, it's quality as I've never been able to get anywhere with quantity.
the real clue - if something (anything at all) you do/did during sexual activity makes you feel all wrong and dirty inside - stop! you get to! or at the very least don't do it again! you get to do that too. you have that agency. do whatever needs to be done to ensure that you never ever have to feel that way again.
if you emerge from the sexual experience (regardless of what specifically you did) feeling emotionally fresh as a daisy and clean as a whistle - then carry on.
that's it.
well - on the one hand, orgasm is just a response to stimulus, dependent on many factors. so maybe quantity is not the right metric to use.
I mean, me - no matter how I'm "harmed" or "degraded", I'm good for one good solid earthquake of sexual pleasure, and that's about it. I can continue for a goodly while afterwards, but my body probably won't repeat that physiological process.
which is not to say that I'm not having a blast between my ears, if not particularly between my legs.
for me, it's quality as I've never been able to get anywhere with quantity.
the real clue - if something (anything at all) you do/did during sexual activity makes you feel all wrong and dirty inside - stop! you get to! or at the very least don't do it again! you get to do that too. you have that agency. do whatever needs to be done to ensure that you never ever have to feel that way again.
if you emerge from the sexual experience (regardless of what specifically you did) feeling emotionally fresh as a daisy and clean as a whistle - then carry on.
that's it.
Ok, and what about this: I have some photos of a fully dressed man...busy doing nonsexual stuff he was doing. And he knew I was taking the photos, and other people were, too (although probably not because they were aroused, at the time). And that was OK with him.
And I could look at them all the damn day, because they are sexy as hell and arousing as anything I could ever imagine. So I absolutely am pursuing my orgasm.
But although he consented to the photography, he is unaware of my intentions for the photos (which I have not published or shared, aside from pointing one out to a friend to say IS HE NOT HOT? To which she responded, "eh, I guess it's what YOU like.").
So, I guess, he is not harmed or degraded, right? He didn't have to do a thing he wasn't already doing, right? He was actually probably flattered that I wanted his picture, right? No harm, no foul? Can I go stare now? Is it porn? Is it eeeeevil?
And as a woman, can I oppress him? Because I'm the one driving this train...
And I could look at them all the damn day, because they are sexy as hell and arousing as anything I could ever imagine. So I absolutely am pursuing my orgasm.
But although he consented to the photography, he is unaware of my intentions for the photos (which I have not published or shared, aside from pointing one out to a friend to say IS HE NOT HOT? To which she responded, "eh, I guess it's what YOU like.").
So, I guess, he is not harmed or degraded, right? He didn't have to do a thing he wasn't already doing, right? He was actually probably flattered that I wanted his picture, right? No harm, no foul? Can I go stare now? Is it porn? Is it eeeeevil?
And as a woman, can I oppress him? Because I'm the one driving this train...
And as a woman, can I oppress him? Because I'm the one driving this train...
well, yes, because your male-identified sexually-assertive attitude oppresses the whole world, including men, but mostly it doesn't matter because of all the women you're also oppressing.
OR
well, no, because your male-identified sexually-aggressive attitude is a result of, directly stems from, your own oppression, so you are actually helping him oppress you.
either way, you're doomed, and dooming us all. ;)
well, yes, because your male-identified sexually-assertive attitude oppresses the whole world, including men, but mostly it doesn't matter because of all the women you're also oppressing.
OR
well, no, because your male-identified sexually-aggressive attitude is a result of, directly stems from, your own oppression, so you are actually helping him oppress you.
either way, you're doomed, and dooming us all. ;)
Does this mean I'm oppressed by Indiana Jones in that picture where he's all sweaty and grubby and kinda frowny with AH! Be still me heart! that HAT and a ripped up shirt with those muscles and the little scar under his lip? So that's what that feeling's called.
yes, poor dear rootie, because the feelings you name "arousal" are actually the oppression of your Systers made physically manifest. because you are poisoned by the patriarchy.
Post a Comment
<< Home
