So this morning, I was thinking about the first-date I had on Saturday, and how it ended up with the woman I was dating (hereafter known as SNS, for "sweet newbie sub") inviting me back to her place for fucking.
I said "yes", but took some persuading, to the extent that observers might have thought I was playing "hard-to-get". The issue was simply one of money, in that I hadn't budgeted for travelling beyond London but only for getting home that same evening after we'd met and had a chance to experience each other's real-life personalities. It occurred to me even at the time that this behaviour, which ultimately asked SNS to put a price on my sexual company (though that wasn't my intention, her willingness to fund my return journey on Sunday was like that), was a mirror of the usual way in which a man is expected to pay for a date and the possibility of fucking the woman he's with.
Which in turn leads to the big question posed in the title: what if I had said (with fair justification, though obviously it wasn't a disaster that I didn't!) that I could not spend the night away because I had things that needed doing at home? In essence, what I if I had said "no" to sex? I don't intend to ask SNS that question directly, although I know she reads here and will doubtless see this post. I don't want to know her answer, for one thing, and for another, I have a certain amount of evidence already to go on to guess what she was thinking/would have thought.
But the thought remains that cultural and social construction of masculinity make it almost unthinkable that a guy would say no to sex when it's offered. In that sense, saying "no" must become coded as a huge rejection so that if a man has any interest in seeing her again, when a woman he's dating says "I want you to come back to mine and fuck me", he is taking a huge risk to turn it down. If she reads "rejection" then there's a strong chance of her not wanting to see him again.
Furthermore, because masculinity is performed, to say "no" for many men is unthinkable because of the loss of face with their peers (in most cases, there is no real risk, only a certain amount of ridicule to be endured, but even so there is a penalty that has to be paid).
So under normal social and cultural pressures, had I not felt ready to have sex with SNS, it would have been very hard to say no.
As it happens, SNS asked me the morning after, "You didn't feel I was going too fast for you?" which implies that she was nervous that I wouldn't feel ready yet (or possibly that I would think her a Slutty McSlut - but since we've been using that sort of language quite comfortably online already, that's not so likely) and might be pushed away by her assertiveness. She told me that she'd been planning to make her move for about an hour before she actually did, which points to the same fear of rejection, "is he ready?" I recognise this as a quandary felt by men (and in particular, from my personal experience) about how soon to ask a woman if she's interested in having sex with him, and again, that is the common social construction of this question: man worried about moving too quickly with a woman he's really interested in.
It just so happens that I was wondering how far I could push things on the first date to express the kink desire as well as romantic desire I felt for SNS. I suspect that the moment when I had put her in handcuffs in a secluded but public place was when she knew that I might well be up for going all the way, but that is for her to reveal, if she wishes. Both of us ended up pushing the boat out during our encounter, in a bid to find out how much interest the other really had and how far things might go. We both gambled, and both won.
This is a benefit, though, of being a feminist dating a feminist. And of having discussed in advance what things interested us both sexually and otherwise. We were freed to take that chance because the background of feminism served to mitigate against the cultural norms - she could bid for the sex she wanted because she knows that I would not think less of her for doing so. And when I expressed my doubts and she brushed them aside, her willingness to go so far in order to gain my consent demonstrated to me that her consent, her offer, were not plays based on the social construction of "I must win this man by any means necessary, even spreading my legs for him on a first date!" and instead were her genuine, "I wanna fuck! Let's go!!!" In turn, the plays that I made (like the handcuffs) were made based on knowing she had the tools to say "no" clearly, if she needed to, and on having discussed our interests in advance, openly and candidly.
Result? Two folks each wanting to fuck the other, and each getting what they want!
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
Monday, 27 September 2010
Returning to activity
That's sexual activity that I've returned to. A first date in London ended with being invited back to hers, where BDSM play and oral sex (fellatio, and more brutal facefucking) took place.
Being a gentleman, I will not reveal any further details of what went on, except to say that it was wonderful, silly, at times embarrassing. Just what you might expect from a first time together. Especially the first time in several years! And especially a first time that I never really expected to come on this first date. Fortunately, I did allow for the possibility, and bought condoms before heading to London for the date, not expecting to use them, but because I figured even if we didn't use them this time, we might well want to in the next few weeks.
The best bit in some ways was finding out just how many books and interests we had in common - this morning had one extended period of quoting Bill Bailey song lyrics at each other and giggling. There seemed to be quite a lot of giggling, laughing, chuckling and that sort of thing, which all-in-all, I think is a good thing.
She identifies as feminist, which I think is a must-have in any date, especially a date who wants BDSM sex (and since I am generally not going to be interested in dating someone who doesn't, that means any date at all!) I won't say any more about that because that's her story to tell, if she wishes. But the confidence it gives me that she'll be able to say that she doesn't want it is that much stronger.
So tonight, I have many happy memories from the last 36 hours or so!
Being a gentleman, I will not reveal any further details of what went on, except to say that it was wonderful, silly, at times embarrassing. Just what you might expect from a first time together. Especially the first time in several years! And especially a first time that I never really expected to come on this first date. Fortunately, I did allow for the possibility, and bought condoms before heading to London for the date, not expecting to use them, but because I figured even if we didn't use them this time, we might well want to in the next few weeks.
The best bit in some ways was finding out just how many books and interests we had in common - this morning had one extended period of quoting Bill Bailey song lyrics at each other and giggling. There seemed to be quite a lot of giggling, laughing, chuckling and that sort of thing, which all-in-all, I think is a good thing.
She identifies as feminist, which I think is a must-have in any date, especially a date who wants BDSM sex (and since I am generally not going to be interested in dating someone who doesn't, that means any date at all!) I won't say any more about that because that's her story to tell, if she wishes. But the confidence it gives me that she'll be able to say that she doesn't want it is that much stronger.
So tonight, I have many happy memories from the last 36 hours or so!
Thursday, 16 September 2010
Maymay needs help after being mugged
Sex-positive campaigner and KinkForAll developer Maymay reports that he was recently mugged, losing much electronic equipment in the process.
The above link is his appeal for help, either financial if people can afford it, or else getting information out to improve the chances of the stolen items being returned. Please do tweet, or repost, or whatever, to get this out as far as possible. As Maymay says, "Muggings rarely end with stolen goods returned to their owners, but the ones that do all have one thing in common: people are able to identify the goods quickly because word gets around."
The above link is his appeal for help, either financial if people can afford it, or else getting information out to improve the chances of the stolen items being returned. Please do tweet, or repost, or whatever, to get this out as far as possible. As Maymay says, "Muggings rarely end with stolen goods returned to their owners, but the ones that do all have one thing in common: people are able to identify the goods quickly because word gets around."
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
Sports reporting and the perils of men-only spaces
I like the NFL, but without doubt some of its players have their problems in understanding that the rules of civilised behaviour still apply to them.
A recent story was about some misogynistic comments and sexual harassment directed at a female sports reporter by some New York Jets players. Yahoo News today flashed up an article written by Doug Farrar that seems to cover most of the analysis that's needed of how coverage has developed. While he introduces some of the arguments that Inés Sainz maybe has made too much out of something fairly innocent, as far as I can tell, he goes on to point out why such arguments are really not acceptable.
For instance:
Which just needs the addition of, "and she (and everyone else) deserves the chance to do so." It also fails to make the point that "she was asking for it" is never an acceptable line to take, even if it were the case that someone used sex appeal to get ahead.
Another good point made by Mr Farrar was:
Which strikes me as being precisely the point, not just about locker rooms, but about every space where women might be existing.
A recent story was about some misogynistic comments and sexual harassment directed at a female sports reporter by some New York Jets players. Yahoo News today flashed up an article written by Doug Farrar that seems to cover most of the analysis that's needed of how coverage has developed. While he introduces some of the arguments that Inés Sainz maybe has made too much out of something fairly innocent, as far as I can tell, he goes on to point out why such arguments are really not acceptable.
For instance:
...there's an alarming undercurrent of "she was asking for it." Sure, it's entirely possible that without her looks, Sainz wouldn't get anywhere near a professional microphone. But it's also entirely possible that she might be able to "transcend" the stereotype that a pretty person (male or female) must debit points from their intelligence simply because he/she doesn't fit someone else's cultural, moral or ethical stereotype.
Which just needs the addition of, "and she (and everyone else) deserves the chance to do so." It also fails to make the point that "she was asking for it" is never an acceptable line to take, even if it were the case that someone used sex appeal to get ahead.
Another good point made by Mr Farrar was:
Sainz shouldn't have to meet Brennan's or anyone else's standards except for her own, her employer's and those of the teams she covers. If every female sports reporter hits the locker room in full Amish attire, we'll know they're serious. But why should they have to?
Which strikes me as being precisely the point, not just about locker rooms, but about every space where women might be existing.
M&S getting into bed with Hooters? (And please, no puns about "Bristols")
Today, The F-Word blog carries news that borderline sex-establishment restaurant chain Hooters are planning to open a new branch in Bristol, in premises sub-let from Marks & Spencer.
I am not in general opposed to such things as topless bars, strip clubs and so on, but I have a certain special dislike for the ethos of Hooters, which seems to sell deliberately the type of objectifying male-entitlement that causes so much harm. The very name of the business is redolent of dismissive, dehumanising reference to female sexuality and female bodies!
At the same time, would unemployed women be expected by the Jobcentre to apply for a job there? If the answer is "yes" then it could arguably be considered coerced sexual exploitation (because refusal to apply could result in a loss of social security benefits). If the answer is "no", then it would mean that national government, at least, acknowledges the sexual nature of the work (as they do with, for example, jobs at Ann Summers), even if the local government considers it to be "family-friendly". And if it is recognised as sex-related work, then we have the problem that in the current depressed economic climes, people are more desperate for work than they would otherwise be, meaning that for some, it will seem necessary to be subjected to the indignities of the Hooters brand and the treatment by customers that the presentation encourages (even if their words say otherwise), just in order to have a paying job. With the government intent upon putting the squeeze on the jobless as it is, how much more evidence of coercion do we need?
It seems to me that, at least by reputation, the Hooters brand represents a uniquely toxic and misogynistic environment that teaches and promotes a lack of respect for women's boundaries and bodily integrity. I have some issues about terms bandied about such as "rape culture", but inasmuch as that term has meaning, then it is brands like Hooters (and Nuts, and Zoo) that serve as bastions of that cultural imperative. The principle that it is natural for men to violate and disregard women's rights, and so they should not be criticised over much for doing so.
The advice in the comments on the F-Word post, on how to protest, is helpful; I have already emailed the Chairman of M&S to register my protest.
I am not in general opposed to such things as topless bars, strip clubs and so on, but I have a certain special dislike for the ethos of Hooters, which seems to sell deliberately the type of objectifying male-entitlement that causes so much harm. The very name of the business is redolent of dismissive, dehumanising reference to female sexuality and female bodies!
At the same time, would unemployed women be expected by the Jobcentre to apply for a job there? If the answer is "yes" then it could arguably be considered coerced sexual exploitation (because refusal to apply could result in a loss of social security benefits). If the answer is "no", then it would mean that national government, at least, acknowledges the sexual nature of the work (as they do with, for example, jobs at Ann Summers), even if the local government considers it to be "family-friendly". And if it is recognised as sex-related work, then we have the problem that in the current depressed economic climes, people are more desperate for work than they would otherwise be, meaning that for some, it will seem necessary to be subjected to the indignities of the Hooters brand and the treatment by customers that the presentation encourages (even if their words say otherwise), just in order to have a paying job. With the government intent upon putting the squeeze on the jobless as it is, how much more evidence of coercion do we need?
It seems to me that, at least by reputation, the Hooters brand represents a uniquely toxic and misogynistic environment that teaches and promotes a lack of respect for women's boundaries and bodily integrity. I have some issues about terms bandied about such as "rape culture", but inasmuch as that term has meaning, then it is brands like Hooters (and Nuts, and Zoo) that serve as bastions of that cultural imperative. The principle that it is natural for men to violate and disregard women's rights, and so they should not be criticised over much for doing so.
The advice in the comments on the F-Word post, on how to protest, is helpful; I have already emailed the Chairman of M&S to register my protest.
Friday, 10 September 2010
A walk on the forest
Today, because it was sunny and I truly honestly had nothing else better or more pressing to do, I decided to take myself off for a hike on the forest. This is just a short bus ride from my front door. With a little backpack, into which I put a warm top (just in case), a sausage roll, a bottle of water, a packet of crisps and some chocolate (just in case), I set forth:
From the bus stop, about 45 minutes of walking, down and up the hill in the previous photo, I got to this view, out across to the South Downs in the distance:
From afar, I saw two very precisely circular patches of much darker green than the surrounding areas. I decided that these were two fairy citadels (I know there's a "rational" explanation for what they "really" are, but I don't care what that is; they're fairy citadels and that's as good an explanation as I need). Because they were close together, I decided they must be bitter rivals, probably with a feud lasting generations. One of them was higher up the slope. The other had a tree in it. I realised that each was jealous of the other for these reasons (the one without a tree wanted a tree; the one that was lower down the slope wanted to be higher).
When I got closer, this is what the first one looked like, with the very pale grass surrounding the raised central structure:
The landscape is a working landscape, and the forest is used for open grazing of sheep and cattle. The forest is managed and maintained by a group called the conservators, and part of that management is the grazing. Scenes like this one (minus the metalled road surface) will have been a part of this landscape for many hundreds of years:
Drivers are expected to show caution!
Not much further on, I glanced back over my shoulder in the direction I'd come from, and saw this:
I decided I had better head back for home and shelter, which by now was about 90 minutes away on foot. As I started to head back, I felt the first few drops on my face.
Then, it started to rain:
As it happened, the rain didn't last very long, maybe half an hour to an hour, tops. I was able to finish my journey back to the bus stop in bright sunny weather, just like when I started my walk. By the time I got there, most of the dampness on my clothes was my own sweat (did I mention, HILLS!) and not the rain that had been falling.
In all, I spent just over 3 hours yomping across the contours of the forest, and boy, I was sore by the end, but it was definitely worth it, and it felt very good once the aches had eased out of my thighs and shoulders.
From the bus stop, about 45 minutes of walking, down and up the hill in the previous photo, I got to this view, out across to the South Downs in the distance:
From afar, I saw two very precisely circular patches of much darker green than the surrounding areas. I decided that these were two fairy citadels (I know there's a "rational" explanation for what they "really" are, but I don't care what that is; they're fairy citadels and that's as good an explanation as I need). Because they were close together, I decided they must be bitter rivals, probably with a feud lasting generations. One of them was higher up the slope. The other had a tree in it. I realised that each was jealous of the other for these reasons (the one without a tree wanted a tree; the one that was lower down the slope wanted to be higher).
When I got closer, this is what the first one looked like, with the very pale grass surrounding the raised central structure:
The landscape is a working landscape, and the forest is used for open grazing of sheep and cattle. The forest is managed and maintained by a group called the conservators, and part of that management is the grazing. Scenes like this one (minus the metalled road surface) will have been a part of this landscape for many hundreds of years:
Drivers are expected to show caution!Not much further on, I glanced back over my shoulder in the direction I'd come from, and saw this:
I decided I had better head back for home and shelter, which by now was about 90 minutes away on foot. As I started to head back, I felt the first few drops on my face.
Then, it started to rain:
As it happened, the rain didn't last very long, maybe half an hour to an hour, tops. I was able to finish my journey back to the bus stop in bright sunny weather, just like when I started my walk. By the time I got there, most of the dampness on my clothes was my own sweat (did I mention, HILLS!) and not the rain that had been falling.
In all, I spent just over 3 hours yomping across the contours of the forest, and boy, I was sore by the end, but it was definitely worth it, and it felt very good once the aches had eased out of my thighs and shoulders.
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
Some things that are Not Okay about porn
Trigger warnings for rape, paedophilia, sexual harassment.
BradMillersHero @ "Nobody" has reported on the disturbing adverts that appear on the popular free porn sharing website Pornhub (link probably illegal in the UK due to images potentially prohibited by anti child porn laws - that's how disturbing the stuff under discussion is). On the link from Feministe's "Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday", BMH writes, "I’m no prude, but porn culture sickens and scares me." Normally when I see "I'm no prude, but..." I think of "I'm not a racist but..." However, here I am inclined to agree with some of what BMH has to say.
First up, some declarations of interest. I am a porn-using man, and I have occasionally downloaded videos from Pornhub. I have even downloaded videos of a type criticised directly by BMH in the piece linked above (more on that in a minute). I am into BDSM and related kinks.
BMH reports that some of the ads displayed by Pornhub are for "barely legal" fetish websites, which are sites that advertise as displaying porn featuring women (girls) who are 18 years old (that is, only just legal to appear in pornographic materials, hence "barely legal"). However, they might claim to be just-turned-18; as BMH points out, the visual age-signifiers in the girls' faces and presentation project the impression of being barely pubescent. That is, some of them look as though they are as young as 12 or 13.
Now, I am in favour of lowering the age of consent to 13, and not shaming young people out of exploring their sexuality (although I would want some protections about coercion due to age and authority - but this isn't the place where I want to discuss the details of my position on that). However, I do think that economic exploitation of young people's sexuality is a big problem and Not Okay. I also think that there is something deeply troubling about the fetish for youth. I've seen the magazine Barely Legal (the girls do at least look 18 on the cover!) on the top shelf in newsagents, and never really got the appeal of it then. But more importantly, what troubles me is the implication that girls are sexually desirable because they are young. "Young" here signifying in particular, not sexually mature in a physical/physiological sense (i.e. not completed puberty yet). There is a link to the also highly troubling matter of the virgin fetish, with its Patriarchal implications of ownership, but that can be taken at any age; this seems to be specifically about wanting youthfulness, in the sense just outlined.
Now, another statement of interest here. One of my kinks is for "adult schoolgirl" scenarios, particularly in the context of corporal punishment scenes. That's because I'm into BDSM, and I seem to be hardwired that way. But the emphasis is on "adult" here: although they may be dressed up (and sometimes hair and makeup) to play the role of "schoolgirl", the apparent age is not the thing (they usually look to my eyes anyway like adults playing a role - I click away from anything that looks too much like real teens). What that kink is about is the power-relationship roleplay (teacher has power - and cane! - student not so much). It's basically a game being played.
So the next question is, is this paedophilia, as BMH describes it? Ultimately, I think the answer is "yes", although I think there is an element of "if all social norms were suspended" - my guess is that the people who watch these "18 but pretending to be 12" stuff are people who have a sense of social boundaries, but if you put them in a situation where society wasn't watching, I would be scared. (Reasoning on the grounds that the people who don't have the social boundaries would either go out and do it for real, or else make/watch porn using actual children, not adults pretending to be.) Now, I have met women in their mid to late twenties who look just like some of the women in the examples at BMH's post, and in person it was pretty clear how old they were. But that doesn't change the overall effect and reason why those performers appear to have been selected, and it certainly doesn't change the fact that they are advertised as exemplifying youth (website names like "18 & Abused" and "Babysitter Pass" prove that). And once you've said "young is, by definition, desirable", then how do you draw the line to say "that's too young"?
One final remark on this section: I am actually opposed to the UK law that makes the images criticised by BMH illegal (that is, in UK law, it's enough if the image could be taken by a reasonable person as depicting a girl under the age of 18 - I'll need to shred my browser cache after logging off today). However, "legal" doesn't equate to "ethical" (or even "acceptable" - I find the BNP unacceptable but I still don't think we can ban political parties like that), and certainly I would like to see the world change to make such things no longer viable as businesses.
The other type of advert that BMH highlights is for rape porn. Now, a huge part of my BDSM kink is related to inducing extreme emotion, and in terms of my sadism that means things like pain, fear, humiliation and distress. In real life, these are only fun with a consenting partner - someone who kinks on experiencing those emotions (in a safe/risk-aware and consensual scenario). In fantasy, however, it leads to some very dark stuff. Such as, fantasies of rape. In BDSM there are whole fetishes of "forced sex roleplay" (pretending it's rape when it isn't) and consensual non-consent (I discussed consensual non-consent at my NSFW blog And You Thought I Was Sweet?).
So, in short, I have in the past downloaded porn depicting rape fantasy (I wouldn't dare have kept any after 26th Jan 2009, of course!). Because it deals with fantasy, and because I avoid/delete anything that looks like it might be real, I do not feel conflicted between this and my feminist ideals (remember - in real life, I want there to be enthusiastic, informed consent involved, even if that's a meta-consent of consensual non-consent, or a consent to the roleplay).
I do, however, feel very disturbed by some of the sites that carry it, and I definitely feel that it is wrong that rape porn sites should be advertised on vanilla/normal porn websites. As BMH writes:
Some of the pages I have seen which carry rape fantasy porn make these ideas explicit.
I don't have a problem with fantasies involving forced sex and other things that are totally Not Okay in real life. I do have a problem when those things, or at least the porn that includes them, are marketed as though it is normal and okay and not a problem.
Which leads me to a further set of adverts that I have seen, that BMH hasn't mentioned.
The site advertised appears to be called "Public Violations - LOL:P".
I've seen two adverts for the site. For those with strong stomachs for this sort of thing, this link will show you the .gif of one of them.
A description for those who didn't follow the link:
A girl or young woman (my best guess is late teens/early twenties) is standing at a bus stop, wearing a pink hooded top and pink shorts. A man dressed in black and wearing shades appears from behind a bench, pulls down her shorts revealing her knickers, and disappears down the street.
The second advert is similar. A woman in a tight top is waiting to cross a street. A man (similarly attired to the man in the first one) hurries up, tugs the front of her top down, revealing her breasts, and scarpers.
I'm sure my readers don't need me to point this out, but those are sexual assaults. And the presentation and name of the site suggest that these are not things by which we should be horrified - apparently, all us masculine man with penises and who watch porn should find this sort of assault funny. (Right up until someone does it to our girlfriend or sister, at which point we should go out and Defend Her Honour, because it's okay as long as it happens to someone we don't care about.) Seriously, I cannot think of a term of sufficient hatred to express what I feel about the company when I saw that ad appear. And the sickened sensation on realising that there must be a market for it if they're making it. People actually do think that behaviour is okay. (Also, seriously, with this evidence who can justify minimising street harassment in general?) And just in case anyone wants to point to my distinction between fantasy and reality, again - street harassment is a reality, folks, and there's plenty of evidence that there are enough people with enough disregard for women and enough lack of social boundaries, as to go out and actually do this shit for real (I'm only guessing that the women on LOL:P actually are actresses playing a role - if they're genuinely unsuspecting passers-by, then FFS why aren't the police arresting the producers and the guy(s) they paid to do this shit?) And, ultimately, the images appear to present it as actually happening to random passers-by, so I can't find a way to frame it in my mind as presenting a "fantasy" the way other porn is.
So, anyway. After all that, I think I can sum it up by saying that I like porn, even "extreme" porn, and I think in principle it can be okay - I even identify as "pro-porn"! However, I have a BIG problem with the culture surrounding the way it's presented. On that topic, I can only say, "I'm no prude, but porn culture sickens and scares me." Which is, of course, the phrase that originally I wanted to criticise. I shall also leave as the final word on the topic, the final words of BMH:
ETA: I think that these ads appearing on porn sites are not the cause, but rather the culture that makes such ads, and their association with mainstream porn, acceptable is also the reason why there is so much rape and street harassment in our culture.
BradMillersHero @ "Nobody" has reported on the disturbing adverts that appear on the popular free porn sharing website Pornhub (link probably illegal in the UK due to images potentially prohibited by anti child porn laws - that's how disturbing the stuff under discussion is). On the link from Feministe's "Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday", BMH writes, "I’m no prude, but porn culture sickens and scares me." Normally when I see "I'm no prude, but..." I think of "I'm not a racist but..." However, here I am inclined to agree with some of what BMH has to say.
First up, some declarations of interest. I am a porn-using man, and I have occasionally downloaded videos from Pornhub. I have even downloaded videos of a type criticised directly by BMH in the piece linked above (more on that in a minute). I am into BDSM and related kinks.
BMH reports that some of the ads displayed by Pornhub are for "barely legal" fetish websites, which are sites that advertise as displaying porn featuring women (girls) who are 18 years old (that is, only just legal to appear in pornographic materials, hence "barely legal"). However, they might claim to be just-turned-18; as BMH points out, the visual age-signifiers in the girls' faces and presentation project the impression of being barely pubescent. That is, some of them look as though they are as young as 12 or 13.
Now, I am in favour of lowering the age of consent to 13, and not shaming young people out of exploring their sexuality (although I would want some protections about coercion due to age and authority - but this isn't the place where I want to discuss the details of my position on that). However, I do think that economic exploitation of young people's sexuality is a big problem and Not Okay. I also think that there is something deeply troubling about the fetish for youth. I've seen the magazine Barely Legal (the girls do at least look 18 on the cover!) on the top shelf in newsagents, and never really got the appeal of it then. But more importantly, what troubles me is the implication that girls are sexually desirable because they are young. "Young" here signifying in particular, not sexually mature in a physical/physiological sense (i.e. not completed puberty yet). There is a link to the also highly troubling matter of the virgin fetish, with its Patriarchal implications of ownership, but that can be taken at any age; this seems to be specifically about wanting youthfulness, in the sense just outlined.
Now, another statement of interest here. One of my kinks is for "adult schoolgirl" scenarios, particularly in the context of corporal punishment scenes. That's because I'm into BDSM, and I seem to be hardwired that way. But the emphasis is on "adult" here: although they may be dressed up (and sometimes hair and makeup) to play the role of "schoolgirl", the apparent age is not the thing (they usually look to my eyes anyway like adults playing a role - I click away from anything that looks too much like real teens). What that kink is about is the power-relationship roleplay (teacher has power - and cane! - student not so much). It's basically a game being played.
So the next question is, is this paedophilia, as BMH describes it? Ultimately, I think the answer is "yes", although I think there is an element of "if all social norms were suspended" - my guess is that the people who watch these "18 but pretending to be 12" stuff are people who have a sense of social boundaries, but if you put them in a situation where society wasn't watching, I would be scared. (Reasoning on the grounds that the people who don't have the social boundaries would either go out and do it for real, or else make/watch porn using actual children, not adults pretending to be.) Now, I have met women in their mid to late twenties who look just like some of the women in the examples at BMH's post, and in person it was pretty clear how old they were. But that doesn't change the overall effect and reason why those performers appear to have been selected, and it certainly doesn't change the fact that they are advertised as exemplifying youth (website names like "18 & Abused" and "Babysitter Pass" prove that). And once you've said "young is, by definition, desirable", then how do you draw the line to say "that's too young"?
One final remark on this section: I am actually opposed to the UK law that makes the images criticised by BMH illegal (that is, in UK law, it's enough if the image could be taken by a reasonable person as depicting a girl under the age of 18 - I'll need to shred my browser cache after logging off today). However, "legal" doesn't equate to "ethical" (or even "acceptable" - I find the BNP unacceptable but I still don't think we can ban political parties like that), and certainly I would like to see the world change to make such things no longer viable as businesses.
The other type of advert that BMH highlights is for rape porn. Now, a huge part of my BDSM kink is related to inducing extreme emotion, and in terms of my sadism that means things like pain, fear, humiliation and distress. In real life, these are only fun with a consenting partner - someone who kinks on experiencing those emotions (in a safe/risk-aware and consensual scenario). In fantasy, however, it leads to some very dark stuff. Such as, fantasies of rape. In BDSM there are whole fetishes of "forced sex roleplay" (pretending it's rape when it isn't) and consensual non-consent (I discussed consensual non-consent at my NSFW blog And You Thought I Was Sweet?).
So, in short, I have in the past downloaded porn depicting rape fantasy (I wouldn't dare have kept any after 26th Jan 2009, of course!). Because it deals with fantasy, and because I avoid/delete anything that looks like it might be real, I do not feel conflicted between this and my feminist ideals (remember - in real life, I want there to be enthusiastic, informed consent involved, even if that's a meta-consent of consensual non-consent, or a consent to the roleplay).
I do, however, feel very disturbed by some of the sites that carry it, and I definitely feel that it is wrong that rape porn sites should be advertised on vanilla/normal porn websites. As BMH writes:
Here is where the important part about the PornHub website being so big comes in- this isn't a fetish website. It isn't an obscure website. It is one of the most popular porn websites. This is normal.Maybe it is our culture of extreme female suppression, humiliation, and torture that leads us to having rape porn on "normal" websites. And maybe it is our culture of radical female infantilization, fetishization, and trivialization that leads us to having pedophilic porn on "normal "websites.
Some of the pages I have seen which carry rape fantasy porn make these ideas explicit.
I don't have a problem with fantasies involving forced sex and other things that are totally Not Okay in real life. I do have a problem when those things, or at least the porn that includes them, are marketed as though it is normal and okay and not a problem.
Which leads me to a further set of adverts that I have seen, that BMH hasn't mentioned.
The site advertised appears to be called "Public Violations - LOL:P".
I've seen two adverts for the site. For those with strong stomachs for this sort of thing, this link will show you the .gif of one of them.
A description for those who didn't follow the link:
A girl or young woman (my best guess is late teens/early twenties) is standing at a bus stop, wearing a pink hooded top and pink shorts. A man dressed in black and wearing shades appears from behind a bench, pulls down her shorts revealing her knickers, and disappears down the street.
The second advert is similar. A woman in a tight top is waiting to cross a street. A man (similarly attired to the man in the first one) hurries up, tugs the front of her top down, revealing her breasts, and scarpers.
I'm sure my readers don't need me to point this out, but those are sexual assaults. And the presentation and name of the site suggest that these are not things by which we should be horrified - apparently, all us masculine man with penises and who watch porn should find this sort of assault funny. (Right up until someone does it to our girlfriend or sister, at which point we should go out and Defend Her Honour, because it's okay as long as it happens to someone we don't care about.) Seriously, I cannot think of a term of sufficient hatred to express what I feel about the company when I saw that ad appear. And the sickened sensation on realising that there must be a market for it if they're making it. People actually do think that behaviour is okay. (Also, seriously, with this evidence who can justify minimising street harassment in general?) And just in case anyone wants to point to my distinction between fantasy and reality, again - street harassment is a reality, folks, and there's plenty of evidence that there are enough people with enough disregard for women and enough lack of social boundaries, as to go out and actually do this shit for real (I'm only guessing that the women on LOL:P actually are actresses playing a role - if they're genuinely unsuspecting passers-by, then FFS why aren't the police arresting the producers and the guy(s) they paid to do this shit?) And, ultimately, the images appear to present it as actually happening to random passers-by, so I can't find a way to frame it in my mind as presenting a "fantasy" the way other porn is.
So, anyway. After all that, I think I can sum it up by saying that I like porn, even "extreme" porn, and I think in principle it can be okay - I even identify as "pro-porn"! However, I have a BIG problem with the culture surrounding the way it's presented. On that topic, I can only say, "I'm no prude, but porn culture sickens and scares me." Which is, of course, the phrase that originally I wanted to criticise. I shall also leave as the final word on the topic, the final words of BMH:
Maybe that is why we have so much rape in our culture. Maybe this is the reason why women are harassed so much on the street for existing.Its a fucked up world.
ETA: I think that these ads appearing on porn sites are not the cause, but rather the culture that makes such ads, and their association with mainstream porn, acceptable is also the reason why there is so much rape and street harassment in our culture.
Thursday, 2 September 2010
Great scientists are not always great philosophers
...Regardless of their reputation as thinkers.
In a story first carried by the Times (of London), and then picked up by lots of others (this link is to the Guardian version, it looks pretty much the same text as everyone else), Stephen Hawking, one of the most renowned theoretical physicists of our age, has launched a book in which he claims that M-theory (which is a generalised form of string theory) means that a Big Bang was inevitable, therefore, "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
Basically, this is nothing more than an extension of the old debate of First Cause, and Design, those ancient (and ultimately inconclusive) "proofs" that Thomas Aquinas developed to (try to) demonstrate the inevitability of God's existence (they don't work as proofs, as any good theologian, whether atheist or theist, fully knows).
Hawking is claiming M-theory as a self-existent First Cause in place of Aquinas' God as a First Cause, and this leads us right back to the beginning of the First Cause argument: after all, if M-theory is right, and if it follows inevitably that one or more universes would spontaneously emerge as a result of that, then the next question is simply, "what makes M-theory necessary?" Aquinas would have us believe that, if we ask that question for long enough, we come inevitably to God as the being that makes necessary all things subsequent to Him(Her/It/Them) in the sequence.
Richard P. Feynman, in "Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman", reports his father explaining to him when he was young that nobody knows why the laws of physics are the way they are. Physics is not in any place to investigate that question. For some people, of course, an answer to that question "why" is unnecessary, either because they are happy knowing that it does work that way or because they believe there is ultimately no such thing as "why" (especially when stated as "there is no grand Purpose"). For others, the answer is deemed unknowable. For still others, the answer is "God".
The news reports go on to add:
This, of course, is talking about the Anthropic principle (and indeed, Hawking's overall suggestion regarding string theory is discussed in that wikipedia article, indicating that it is far from being a new idea). For a long time, I have held that, from God's perspective, there is no reason for us to be carbon-based life forms at all, and no need for us to have any of the physical characteristics we have. All that is required is that we have intelligence and are endowed with souls such that we can have a relationship with God. My belief is that God probably has relationships with zillions of other species throughout the Universe, and has probably sent the Son (whom we know as "Jesus of Nazareth", or "the Christ") and the Holy Spirit into every one of those worlds in some form (the Qu'ran, of course, allows that "a warner [i.e. prophet] has been sent to all nations", which allows that God has sent His message to nations not on this planet at all, so Islam's holy book already implicitly acknowledges this idea). So why should the existence of other worlds like ours make it any more or less probable that there is a Designer, a God (or gods)?
My overall feeling is that this is, yet again, a scientist without much in the way of theological background or philosophical training proclaiming old theological arguments as though they were something completely new (according to William Crawley, blogging at the BBC, in the Times extract Hawking claims the entire discipline of philosophy is "dead", which, if true, would go to show that Hawking is not well-versed in the role of philosophy in science, even!)
Now, I'm not criticising Hawking for writing about his beliefs on the matter, and I'm not even criticising him for dabbling in these theological and philosophical debates either. Everyone is entitled to have their opinions and to express them. What does irritate me, however, is the way that the media has treated this as though it is some kind of huge deal or (forgive the expression) divine revelation. It is as though we are expected to believe that, because theoretical physics is very very complicated and depends on high-level maths that only the most educated and intelligent can understand, that a person who does understand theoretical physics must also understand every other field of knowledge, too, and therefore to have deeper and more valuable insight into it than the average person. But in fact, that average person (call her/him "Jean") also likely has a job that involves complicated processes, maybe has life skills that might be lacking in other people's lives (they seem unremarkable to Jean, but that is because they are always present in Jean's life). Maybe to other people, things Jean is able to do seem as far beyond their reach as the physicist's knowledge seems to Jean. I've just been watching an episode of "The Great British Bake-Off" - although this is evidently a display of a combination of applied chemistry and physics, I bet there aren't many physicists who would have the practical talent and acquired skill (from both education and empirical experience) to compete at a high level in baking, and there aren't many bakers who are world-class physicists or chemists (may have been once upon a time, of course).
Alright, so the Universe is big (like, really, really big!) and so (if He/She/It/They exist) is God, and there is an assumed link between the two, but just as there's an assumed (and demonstrable) link between baking and physics/chemistry, understanding of one does not make one an expert on both. So why the front page headlines for a world-class physicist making old-hat statements on theology?
Instead of Samuel Johnson's remark that it is "like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."[1] when a physicist pronounces on God it is as though people see that a dog knows very well how to run on four legs, and believe that therefore we should follow its example and manner when it walks on its hind legs! (Note again, that Richard Feynman was always worried when he attempted any field outside of physics that people would show an interest because of his fame as a scientist, not because he was any good at it - he wanted to avoid the phenomenon of "you are surprised to find it done at all" and so generally tried to hide behind a pseudonym.)
So all-in-all, I am not bothered by Stephen Hawking's views on whether or not God is "necessary" in the creation of existence - that's for him to hold, and to share as he wishes. What bothers me is the way the mainstream media make it out to be so important.
***
[1] The full quotation is one that I find very objectionable from a feminist and a Christian point of view: the thing that Samuel Johnson was "surprised to find done at all" was "a woman's preaching".
In a story first carried by the Times (of London), and then picked up by lots of others (this link is to the Guardian version, it looks pretty much the same text as everyone else), Stephen Hawking, one of the most renowned theoretical physicists of our age, has launched a book in which he claims that M-theory (which is a generalised form of string theory) means that a Big Bang was inevitable, therefore, "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
Basically, this is nothing more than an extension of the old debate of First Cause, and Design, those ancient (and ultimately inconclusive) "proofs" that Thomas Aquinas developed to (try to) demonstrate the inevitability of God's existence (they don't work as proofs, as any good theologian, whether atheist or theist, fully knows).
Hawking is claiming M-theory as a self-existent First Cause in place of Aquinas' God as a First Cause, and this leads us right back to the beginning of the First Cause argument: after all, if M-theory is right, and if it follows inevitably that one or more universes would spontaneously emerge as a result of that, then the next question is simply, "what makes M-theory necessary?" Aquinas would have us believe that, if we ask that question for long enough, we come inevitably to God as the being that makes necessary all things subsequent to Him(Her/It/Them) in the sequence.
Richard P. Feynman, in "Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman", reports his father explaining to him when he was young that nobody knows why the laws of physics are the way they are. Physics is not in any place to investigate that question. For some people, of course, an answer to that question "why" is unnecessary, either because they are happy knowing that it does work that way or because they believe there is ultimately no such thing as "why" (especially when stated as "there is no grand Purpose"). For others, the answer is deemed unknowable. For still others, the answer is "God".
The news reports go on to add:
Hawking says the first blow to Newton's belief that the universe could not have arisen from chaos was the observation in 1992 of a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun. "That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions – the single sun, the lucky combination of Earth-sun distance and solar mass – far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.
This, of course, is talking about the Anthropic principle (and indeed, Hawking's overall suggestion regarding string theory is discussed in that wikipedia article, indicating that it is far from being a new idea). For a long time, I have held that, from God's perspective, there is no reason for us to be carbon-based life forms at all, and no need for us to have any of the physical characteristics we have. All that is required is that we have intelligence and are endowed with souls such that we can have a relationship with God. My belief is that God probably has relationships with zillions of other species throughout the Universe, and has probably sent the Son (whom we know as "Jesus of Nazareth", or "the Christ") and the Holy Spirit into every one of those worlds in some form (the Qu'ran, of course, allows that "a warner [i.e. prophet] has been sent to all nations", which allows that God has sent His message to nations not on this planet at all, so Islam's holy book already implicitly acknowledges this idea). So why should the existence of other worlds like ours make it any more or less probable that there is a Designer, a God (or gods)?
My overall feeling is that this is, yet again, a scientist without much in the way of theological background or philosophical training proclaiming old theological arguments as though they were something completely new (according to William Crawley, blogging at the BBC, in the Times extract Hawking claims the entire discipline of philosophy is "dead", which, if true, would go to show that Hawking is not well-versed in the role of philosophy in science, even!)
Now, I'm not criticising Hawking for writing about his beliefs on the matter, and I'm not even criticising him for dabbling in these theological and philosophical debates either. Everyone is entitled to have their opinions and to express them. What does irritate me, however, is the way that the media has treated this as though it is some kind of huge deal or (forgive the expression) divine revelation. It is as though we are expected to believe that, because theoretical physics is very very complicated and depends on high-level maths that only the most educated and intelligent can understand, that a person who does understand theoretical physics must also understand every other field of knowledge, too, and therefore to have deeper and more valuable insight into it than the average person. But in fact, that average person (call her/him "Jean") also likely has a job that involves complicated processes, maybe has life skills that might be lacking in other people's lives (they seem unremarkable to Jean, but that is because they are always present in Jean's life). Maybe to other people, things Jean is able to do seem as far beyond their reach as the physicist's knowledge seems to Jean. I've just been watching an episode of "The Great British Bake-Off" - although this is evidently a display of a combination of applied chemistry and physics, I bet there aren't many physicists who would have the practical talent and acquired skill (from both education and empirical experience) to compete at a high level in baking, and there aren't many bakers who are world-class physicists or chemists (may have been once upon a time, of course).
Alright, so the Universe is big (like, really, really big!) and so (if He/She/It/They exist) is God, and there is an assumed link between the two, but just as there's an assumed (and demonstrable) link between baking and physics/chemistry, understanding of one does not make one an expert on both. So why the front page headlines for a world-class physicist making old-hat statements on theology?
Instead of Samuel Johnson's remark that it is "like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."[1] when a physicist pronounces on God it is as though people see that a dog knows very well how to run on four legs, and believe that therefore we should follow its example and manner when it walks on its hind legs! (Note again, that Richard Feynman was always worried when he attempted any field outside of physics that people would show an interest because of his fame as a scientist, not because he was any good at it - he wanted to avoid the phenomenon of "you are surprised to find it done at all" and so generally tried to hide behind a pseudonym.)
So all-in-all, I am not bothered by Stephen Hawking's views on whether or not God is "necessary" in the creation of existence - that's for him to hold, and to share as he wishes. What bothers me is the way the mainstream media make it out to be so important.
***
[1] The full quotation is one that I find very objectionable from a feminist and a Christian point of view: the thing that Samuel Johnson was "surprised to find done at all" was "a woman's preaching".
Recent search terms that led here
- ladyship blender review
- gillian tett married
- mystic miss wanganui
- men being femanistic
- how do you end cam sex?
- "turned her into a cyborg"
- he's not that into you ldr
- "you are all dating the same guy" "hey. i know that guy you're dating"
- what are the scholars beliefs in the book anthem
- what does ayn rand foreword mean in the book of anthem
- feminism gender conformity
- sex funkylele
- words used in beauty pageant
- how much for webcam sex
- carly whiteley slut
- "bowling for soup" newspaper
Some of these make a certain amount of sense. For instance, I seem to get a lot of hits from people searching for Ayn Rand's Anthem, because I wrote a review of it a while back. I hope they find my thoughts useful for whatever reason they were looking! Similarly, my write-up of what I learned as a customer, observing how webcam sex sites work and asking the performers about their work, gets a lot of hits, usually from people who probably don't care about the issues I raised there (the examples in the list are typical). It looks as though my series writing up "He's Just Not That Into You" is also going to be one that gets a lot of hits. "Miss Wanganui" was the piece I wrote about a story I picked up from Yahoo (although why "mystic", I have no idea); that one also explains the beauty pageant search term arriving here.
Others took some decoding to figure out what happened. For example, ["Bowling for Soup" newspaper] is because I wrote about a piece from a UK newspaper, and also wrote up a music meme on which one of my answers was a BfS song. [Gillian Tett married] is another common search term to get here. I never wrote about Ms Tett being married; I did write a review of her book about the credit derivatives crisis that caused the credit crunch, which included reference to Blythe Masters being married, and how she made a career despite the prejudice against her in the male-dominated world of finance. [ladyship blender review] is similar (although a very odd combination to appear in a search term!); the observant will note that in my "gender identity" box on the right, I identify as both a "gender blender" and as "her Ladyship", so those terms appear on every page. Given that some pages are book or music reviews, the rest is logical.
Others are really weird terms to search, but are pretty logical to arrive here - ["turned her into a cyborg"] makes sense to get here because I wrote a story about a woman who's a cyborg secret agent. [sex funkylele] is a very strange term, but I did use funky-lele in a post title, for my youtube video of me playing "I Will Survive" on the ukulele. "Sex" is in my tag list, so that makes perfect sense to get here (although I did wonder how many other pages there could be that match those terms! (turns out it's 48 - "funkylele" appears to be someone's on-screen name)).
Finally, there's just the jerks like the guy who searched for [carly whiteley slut] and left a
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)