Comment from RenegadeEvolution
Time: July 21, 2008, 3:55 am

and what kills me is how common all this shit is.

Comment from Pop Feminist
Time: July 21, 2008, 4:53 am

hell. yes. omg I love you.

Comment from Mr. Tyzik
Time: July 21, 2008, 6:50 am

I think you’re right about it not being cool for purist feminists to make fun of women that don’t fit their standards. And I read Ren and agree completely that many rad fems love to strip adult women they disagree with of agency. It’s not that you can disagree, no, you’re apparently not even capable of rational thought.

So, all I can say, is that as a man who considers himself an equity feminist, it’s not cool either to see various feminists just ruthlessly bash men. Over at ibtp in the post you’re talking in at the moment, they explicitly call men the enemy.

We’re not going to get anywhere in this world that way.

As a man who feels that I have been the victim of bias against men in the courtroom, and one that severed the dearest relationship possible in my life, and severed it in an ex-parte order that I was never told about, or allowed to argue until 14 days AFTER it had occurred,

I would love to calmly explain what happened, and how I felt to various feminist “leaders.”

But instead, I am mocked and told I had it coming, or mocked and called a liar (or rapist or pedophile or wife beater), or dismissed and told that the reality is so bad for women, that any injustice against me is what “men” have coming.

We’re not going to get anywhere this way.

So all I can ask, is that when you observe how uncool it is for certain rad fem women to mock other women, please just note that it is uncool for *people* to mock other *people* and not attribute rationality, or agency, or good will to them, and to call them whiners, or whatever.

I’m not saying you have, and I am probably just working through some things at the moment.

Best wishes,

Comment from FeministGal
Time: July 21, 2008, 12:28 pm

Sarah: WORD!
I’m working on a post about all this myself… it’s been a few months comin but everytime i attempt to work on it i get so fucking pissed off that i start dropping f-bombs all over the computer screen… so i “save draft” and hope to come back to it later, when i don’t get so angry as i write it… i should just get on with it though, because frankly, you are so very right, about all of this, and i’m pissed off too, b/c the fact that i’m stereotypically hot is not something i should be forced to feel bad, guitly, or shameful about. Because i like to be sexual doesn’t mean i’m any less of a feminist than anyone working for the same goals. Because i voted for Obama doesn’t mean i voted against the women’s movement. Fuck that.

Comment from RenegadeEvolution
Time: July 21, 2008, 2:58 pm

these people…apparently, my nose is now a feminist issue.

Comment from Sarah
Time: July 21, 2008, 3:52 pm

@Ren

WHAAAATTTTT? How the fuck….I don’t even want to know. These women are fucked up.

Comment from Shaking my head
Time: July 21, 2008, 4:00 pm

Hustler? Are you kidding me?

Seems from this post like you derive a lot of your identity from your conformance to patriarchal expectations. And if you talk about it in public, you are necessarily inviting people to “judge” you.

I say this as another white, pretty girl. Who shaves her legs and has sex with men.

I won’t be reading your blog again.

Comment from Rie
Time: July 21, 2008, 4:11 pm

Just heard this song for the first time today, and thought of you:

people talk about my image
like i come in two dimensions
like lipstick is a sign of my declining mind
like what i happen to be wearing the day
that someone takes my picture
is my new statement for all of womankind

i wish they could see us now
in leather bras and rubber shorts
like some ridiculous team uniform
for some ridiculous new sport
quick someone call the girl police
and file a report

Comment from Sarah
Time: July 21, 2008, 4:51 pm

Shaking my head, doesn’t make you any less of a judgmental asshole because you say that you shave your legs and have sex with men too.

Don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. Where I’m sure you’re wearing panties that in no way conform to anything patriarchal.

Larry Flynt has done more for free speech in this country than almost anyone I can think of. I’d much rather give him my money than anyone who wants to tell me how I derive my satisfaction.

I love giving blow jobs, too.

Comment from Trin
Time: July 21, 2008, 4:53 pm

“Don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. Where I’m sure you’re wearing panties that in no way conform to anything patriarchal.”

This makes me want “Tool Of The Patriarchy” briefs to pack under even more than I already did.

Comment from Purtek
Time: July 21, 2008, 6:25 pm

Shaking my head, seems from your comment that you know absolutely nothing about how Sarah J identifies herself and where her self-confidence comes from, and frankly, that you lack basic reading comprehension skills.

Sarah J - I embrace and laud your Hustler-clad ass.

Comment from belledame222
Time: July 21, 2008, 6:48 pm

“Tool Of The Patriarchy” briefs>

WIN.

I want those, now, too. I’ll wear ‘em with spike heels and glitter lipstick, dammit.

Comment from Dw3t-Hthr
Time: July 21, 2008, 9:33 pm

I’m always entertained by, “Well, I won’t be reading you any more.”

I can’t help but wonder why anyone would think the presence or absence of J. Random Plonker’s eyes on one’s text was something to be vastly concerned about ….

I mean, I’m sure “Shaking my head” thinks she’s the shit and all, but what’s another anonymous fingerwagger, more or less?

Comment from DaisyDeadhead
Time: July 21, 2008, 9:51 pm

Nice ink, I’d like to see the whole thing!

Comment from Natalia
Time: July 21, 2008, 10:07 pm

///I won’t be reading your blog again.//

Thank Cthulhu for small favours, eh?

Comment from feministgal
Time: July 21, 2008, 11:29 pm

can we get those made? seriously? i would definitely buy a pair. and take semi-naked pictures in them…

Comment from RenegadeEvolution
Time: July 21, 2008, 11:56 pm

heh, I can make tool of the patriarchy THONGS and boxers and on my cafe press site, shall I do it, fellow evol sellouts? Babydoll shirts too!

Shaking my head- that whole free speech thing? Yep, Flynt. Nah, he’s not my hero, but hey, my choice is hang out with Flynt (and his lawyer, who has the 1st amendment tattooed on his arm) or, oh, Gail Dines and Robert Jensen? Flynt wins, shit, I’d even pick up the check.

Oh, and gee, I shave everything and even fuck men on film for money…and that has what all to do with shit? None of us sparkly not feminists or whatever have EVER busted on a woman for her looks/style of dress so on, yet, we take shit for that all the time. That’s the problem, see?

Comment from jess
Time: July 22, 2008, 1:29 am

I don’t think anyone would deliberately suggest that your or anyone else’s appearance is to blame for crimes against women (apart from, maybe, chauvenists). Of course, appearances and crimes against women are inextricably connected as long as it’s normal for society to judge women on those terms. If women are calling you unworthy based on your underpants, you’re right, that’s pretty nasty, and not at all in the spirit of feminism. But we are just humans. Honestly, if I see a woman trussed up like a bratz doll with playboy branding dripping from her body then I am going to think that she’s probably not very bright, even though I know that as a feminist, and as someone who is rational and humanist, I shouldn’t. And people who identify with feminism and then see you’ve posted a picture of your knickers on your blog, might think you’re naive and annoying. Because the feminist theory, and the practise of actually being human and being flawed and judgy and colluding in patriarchal bullshit, are two different things. And yes in feminist circles there are ingroup/outgroup tactics - insinuating that someone is stupid because they don’t do x or understand y is rife as it is with any group. But nobody in that entry or comments was blaming the dancers - commenters were just saying that it’s incredibly rookie to think that performing sexualized acts for money is feminist because you are rich enough to choose whether or not to do it.
Nobody is suggesting that women have no agency or power within patriarchy, but rather that it is rather limited, especially compared to that of men of equivalent class status.
As for your friend who feels picked on by feminism, tell him to join the line. My boyfriend similarly believes that feminists are predominantly man-haters who want women to have more power over men; even a female friend said to me ‘the trouble with feminist blogs is that they try to make women higher than men’ - which is a steaming pile of bullshit, firstly because I happen to know that she’s never read a feminist blog in her life, and secondly because it’s the same old anti-feminist argument which gets trotted out time and time again. It smacks of the cries of ‘reverse racism’ - “I get picked on because I’m white/male”, “blacks/women want to control the country” etc. What has feminism ever done to disadvantage your male friend? Forced him to compete for his career on his merits, rather than his gender? A list of the percieved injustices perpetrated by feminists would be actually really interesting to read. For example my boyf thinks that feminism has contributed to the phenomenon of women binge drinking, and relatedly committing larrikinism and violent crime.
Anyway, I don’t know what my point is, really, but I thought I’d better contribute because apart from Headshaker, nobody from Team Bitchy Feminist was here to represent.

Comment from bint alshamsa
Time: July 22, 2008, 2:13 am

I just wanted to voice my support for this post. I’ve been trying to write a post for the longest about how hurtful it can be to see women rag on those who are thin, claiming that they are just looking for male approval. It’s downright disgusting. I’m one of those underweight women and I don’t look like I do in order to make anyone happy. I’m not thin because I diet or because I want to look like a supermodel. I’m thin because that’s the way my body insists on being. I’ve got a effed up GI-tract and that’s why I’m skinny. So, ya’ know, the last thing I need is some asshole telling me that if I put a picture of myself on my blog, I’m doing it because I want men’s approval.

Comment from drakyn
Time: July 22, 2008, 2:25 am

Ren, I would definitely want a pair of boxers. Dunno about a thong though… Never worn one.
Are they more comfy than briefs? And would it come in black?–I don’t think I could pull of the magenta this guy is rocking (last pic)
I’m a bad sex-pozz, all my undies are plain, boring boxers or briefs. No sparkles or anything.

Comment from RenegadeEvolution
Time: July 22, 2008, 3:27 am

Jess-

Gee, I get attacked outright for my appearance by feminists fairly often. Along with having my reality utterly dismissed and getting threatened. It’s a real joy. And you thinking a woman dressing a certain way makes her not very bright? That’s ALL on you. And need I remind anyone that empowering and feminist are not, nor need they be, the same thing?

I find it real damn funny that for so long feminism encouraged women to be okay with their bodies, comfortable with them, and unafraid to talk about sex and sexuality, but when they do, suddenly they are arrogant, duped, and stupid for it.

And sure, no one has unlimited choices, but there is a line with that some people just really shouldn’t cross, and they do constantly. Telling a woman when she has or has not been raped for instance? Regardless of her own words on it? A good example, and sure enough, it happens.

Comment from Trin
Time: July 22, 2008, 4:11 am

I want those, now, too. I’ll wear ‘em with spike heels and glitter lipstick, dammit.

I wish I could remember who sold ‘em. Can’t, now.

Comment from belledame222
Time: July 22, 2008, 6:24 am

Jess: okay, on which note, then, do you understand why some of us read shit like Twisty’s and conclude that she’s your basic misogynist troll trussed up like a supposed radfem?

also, see, part of the whole point of feminism is to try to evolve a bit beyond the kneejerk crap. I mean, again, neither RE nor anyone else I read goes, ’snerk, so and so never shaves her legs, she must just be desperate for a man,” or whatever the fuck it’s supposed to be. Call other people out for ragging on Dworkin’s appearance or whatnot. Is it too much to fucking ask that the “grim feminists” (hey, something’s gotta be the antithesis of ‘fun’) return the favor?

Comment from belledame222
Time: July 22, 2008, 6:30 am

“commenters were just saying that it’s incredibly rookie to think that performing sexualized acts for money is feminist because you are rich enough to choose whether or not to do it.”

except for this particular “argument” has been going on for months if not years or even decades, and actual people (who are largely ignored, sneered at and then misrepresented, viddy ginmar going off about RE) who “perform sexualized acts for money” have been saying till they’re blue in the face that

a) they don’t actually say that it’s ipso facto feminist to be a sex worker any more than anything else;

b) most of them do -not- have money, which is precisely why they took up the gig; and by the way, you know Twisty’s not exactly starving, right?

c) you understand that slut-shaming is -also- part of a nutritious patriarchal breakfast, neh? and that a lot of us have shall we say -unexamined- holdovers and might want to consider checking out the beam in our own radical eyeballs before grilling a particular group of women for their own “sexualized” motes?

Comment from Sarah
Time: July 22, 2008, 7:26 am

Oh, how did I know that someone was going to ever-so-coolly tell me how “naive” I am?

See, Jess, I appreciate that you’re trying to engage here, because there were hundreds of other people who stopped in from Twisty’s today who didn’t.

But you know, if you supposedly “know” that you shouldn’t judge women for how they look, here’s an idea: don’t do it. Don’t come here and do it to me.

I’m not “naive” about posting a picture of my ass in panties with a porn brand on them on my blog. I did it because it would get this kind of reaction from people like you. I’m just surprised I haven’t had to mod a comment calling me a slut yet, honestly.

I used to pass judgments on people all the time. The way I broke myself of it? I started saying “That person’s AWESOME” instead of “weird/trashy/whatever” judgment I was about to pass. It made me stop and think, yeah, that person is awesome.

And that’s the kind of sentiment I want floating ’round my feminism. I don’t want to hear anyone getting told that they’re “annoying” because of how they choose to dress, shave or not shave, or if they happen to like dancing around with little to no clothing on.

You can call me what you want to, because it ain’t going to hurt my feelings.

Why am I still awake? Anyone want to tell me?

Comment from queen emily
Time: July 22, 2008, 7:50 am

Zomg you have sex with men?! Epic fail. I only have sex with Catherine MacKinnon.

Comment from Mikeb302000
Time: July 22, 2008, 12:30 pm

I love reading Twisty’s take on things. The other day though, she asked me not to comment any more because that’s reserved for “fully-formed radical feminists.” That hurt, but it’s her blog. Yet, in spite of the fact that I disagree with her about some of you other feminists being deluded into thinking you have agency when you really don’t, and of course I can’t accept that extreme nonsense about hating men, I think she has some good ideas about the patriarchy.

Comment from FeministGal
Time: July 22, 2008, 1:48 pm

belle, re: “grim feminists”
let’s be careful with this, wouldn’t want it to turn into a whole “vanilla-sex” debacle… haha

Trackback from bastard.logic
Time: July 22, 2008, 1:50 pm

Things That Aren’t Cool…

by matttbastard
Today’s example: Slanderously appropriating catastrophic events in someone’s life just to rig some Mean Girls redux game of “See? I told you those women are walking the razor’s edge!”
Great–you’…

Comment from lankydancer
Time: July 22, 2008, 5:28 pm

Hi Sarah! Count me in with the legions who think this post is awesome, “Hustler” undies and all. I love your comment about retraining yourself to stop judging other people negatively. I still occasionally get caught in those knee-jerk reactions, and making myself see what makes them awesome/interesting really does help.

And thanks for mentioning the “thin” thing. Like Bint, I couldn’t be curvy (or anything but very thin) if I tried, and it does fucking hurt to have people tell me I’m deliberately hurting myself because of the way I’ve always looked and can’t do a damn thing to change.

Bint–I’d love to see that post.

Comment from belledame222
Time: July 22, 2008, 7:52 pm

QE: dish! what’s she like?! is she really “not not a woman?” cause that was HAWT, you know.

Mike: like what, exactly? /mildly curious and asking for once

Comment from Not a Whisper
Time: July 22, 2008, 8:08 pm

Hiya, yeah, another one here from IBTP, and a bit of a Twisty fangirl, so I’ll… try not to rub you the wrong way.

But I’m wondering which aspect of Twisty’s post you take as judging women for appearances? There’s definitely some victim-blaming going on in the comments thread, and yes, some judgment of women which I’m not cool with, but it seems to me her basic critique is very sound and very much patriarchy-blaming rather than woman-blaming. There’re also plenty of very nuanced comments there about… recognising that we all conform to gendered expectations sometimes because it’s easier or more materially rewarding, while railing against the existence and pervasiveness of said expectations to begin with. I can understand, in theory, separating the fact of “the historical origins of the practices of displaying or hiring out women’s bodies for sexual use were women’s subjugation” from the present practices, but I don’t see that distance between the past and the present that makes doing that safe yet.

I guess, I’m just… well, I read you and RenEv and a few other of the “sex poz” blogs, pretty regularly actually, and while I don’t like some of the more over-the-top radfem criticisms of you, I find your non-responsiveness to the critiques of the social significance of how sex work and “raunch culture” are portrayed surprising. Do you really not think women face a lot of pressure to be sexually available and conform to male fantasies that have nothing to do with our own sexuality? And that the public celebration of a romanticised version of sex work feeds into that? I mean, I feel judged and overlooked in my total person, every single day, for not being “hot”, and to me the various lines I hear from men which are basically along the lines of “Pornography doesn’t degrade women, it just raises the standard against which they are judged”, all show how the pervasive portrayal of women as objects for sexual consumption feeds into that. I can’t really understand how women putting so much effort into making sure that we all look like pictures of conventional attractiveness or sexual willingness can but make life that much harder for people who want to opt out of it and still be seen as full social beings to be reckoned with. Of course, you don’t have to give a shit about me personally, but I care about all the people who go through what I go through - invisibility because I’m not “fit for purpose”, not being taken seriously because I’m not hot (not that I’d be taken seriously except as a useful tool even if I were hot, as I found when I tried conforming). And I guess that’s why the radfem critiques resonate with me.

I know this comment probably sounds to you like a great big dose of missing the point, but I just wonder how exactly you view this idea? Do you really think inescapable, unending, ubiquitous public celebrations of “hotness” have no impact at all on how people like me are treated? Do you have another suggestion for what needs to be addressed, other than the traditional practices and activities relating to women being judged in terms of our sexual usefulness (dolling up, titillating men in displays of conventional “hotness”, servicing men sexually), in order for women not to be continually judged in terms of our sexual usefulness? Or do you just think, sure, she might have the short end of the stick and be judged for her appearances in part because of the paradigm I’m participating in, but so what? What is it exactly? I haven’t really been able to work out from my “sex poz” blog lurking what’s at work here.

Comment from Sarah
Time: July 22, 2008, 8:31 pm

Hey there. Thanks for engaging. Really.

I actually have quite a few criticisms of raunch culture. Mostly they come from a sort of Marxist angle–that our sexuality is commodified and sold back to us in a very specific light, and that’s problematic, yes. I’ve written a bit about this, and actually was just saying yesterday that it might be time to dig out Das Kapital and write the big ol’ critique of porn and sex work as WORK rather than as social signification.

Like I said, I’ve been all over the map in terms of physical attractiveness, and I do absolutely think that there’s a beauty premium and that people get treated differently because of how they look. And that is a problem.

But I see the mind-body dichotomy as a problem, too.

The female was always associated with the body in that little binary there. And the body was BAD. So a lot of the feminism that I relate to is about reclaiming the body as good. As a source of joy and pleasure for the woman herself. (If you REALLY want to get geeky, I’d be happy to send you a copy of a paper I wrote for a film theory class that explains some of that.)

My biggest problem with Twisty is that she makes bold declarations that something is unfeminist or that it’s rape culture. If you read my post on feminism and heterosexuality, well, that’s something that bothers me greatly. In all my thoughts on female desire, I’ve never been quite able to break with the fact that I am a straight girl. I like men. I fantasize about men. I do actually enjoy heterosexual sex, even giving blowjobs and being shoved around some. It’s my desire, and as the quote I posted above says, my desires don’t revolve around what I’m repudiating.

So to me, to call things that genuinely turn me on ‘rape’ is insulting. It’s denying my agency, and while Twisty likes to tell us all that we don’t have any agency because of patriarchy, well, I’ve got to live this life and so until the Revolution comes and we overthrow the patriarchy/capitalism, I’ve got to find ways to make myself happy. So do we all.

Twisty said “The idea that women’s public sexuality can so precisely mirror traditional male fantasy while simultaneously existing in a kind of pro-woman, I-do-it-for-myself alternate universe is the cornerstone of funfeminist “thought.””

Unfortunately, my sexuality DOES mirror traditional male fantasy quite often. And it’s not because I haven’t examined enough or tried other options, or opted out altogether for a couple of years. So I DO have to find a way to reconcile those two facts.

And as I mentioned in several of the posts above and over the past few months, I had an ex who rather than wanting me to participate in wild sex or wear ‘porny’ clothes, wanted me to wear conservative clothes, was freaked out by my actual sexual desire, and basically wanted me to conform to the same ideals that I see vaunted over at Twisty’s–don’t dress sexy, don’t express your sexual desires, don’t be active sexually (not to be confused with sexually active) etc. So if I’d done that, I’d be pleasing a man. And he liked to use my feminism as a way to get me to behave the way he thought–if you’re a feminist, he’d say, why do you need men to look at you?

And so yes, at this point I would say that my freedom now to wear what I damn well want is a feminist act. My freedom to fuck how I damn well want is a feminist act. And those things don’t oppress anyone, because I’m not trying to force anyone else’s desires into the same box as I live in.

It strikes me sometimes as a reversal of the Kantian categorical imperative (I’m sorry if I’m sounding like one of those overeducated middle-class wonks that were getting ragged on over there, but once again, that’s who I am and I can’t fight it). People get angry because of the way I or Ren or Caroline looks or acts or talks, because they confuse our advocacy for our right to do that with advocacy that the rest of the world behave that way. I am not trying to impose my lifestyle on anyone else, and all I ask is that they don’t do it to me.

As far as burlesque goes, well, I just transcribed an interview with Margaret Cho the other day, and she was talking about how bellydance and burlesque actually helped her get over her body issues because she would go to bellydance events and see older women, bigger women, young women, skinny women, all of them dancing and shaking it and having a great time and being beautiful. The same thing with a lot of the neo-burlesque movements–there are plenty of them that revolve around non-porny ideals of beauty, and women find a lot of acceptance there.

Yes, to some degree it’s still performing for the gaze. But I’ve argued before and will again (because I looooove feminist film theory) that the gaze is not necessarily masculine.

Again, thanks for actually engaging. If you have any other questions I’m totally up for answering them.

Comment from Not a Whisper
Time: July 22, 2008, 9:16 pm

I have to chew over this before I have anything to really say in response, but my gut instinct is that we are reacting to different kinds of pressure (and maybe have had different kinds of privilege?), and thus identify different threats to freedom. I am happily heterosexual and do not find Twisty’s judgments on the matter threatening, for instance, just quaint. I can’t really get beyond this mental point at the moment, so I’ll go off and, well, chew. But thanks for your reply.

Comment from Sarah
Time: July 22, 2008, 9:20 pm

Remember, too, Twisty wasn’t the only reason I wrote this original post here. And when people that you actually like and care about get slagged off BY NAME over and over again all over the ‘nets, you tend to react a little more harshly than just writing someone’s views off as ‘quaint.’

Which is, exactly as you said, different kinds of privilege and different pressures.

Comment from Renee
Time: July 22, 2008, 9:43 pm

This is why I say that we have to take feminism back from these women. They don’t represent anything that I understand as feminism despite the media claiming that they are the voice of feminism. This is just as much my movement as it is theirs. My vagina gives me the right to construct a feminism that is fluid, and inclusive. I refuse to give it up to them so they can all just kiss my black ass.

Comment from Trin
Time: July 23, 2008, 4:13 am

Not A Whisper, I am headed to bed right now, but I will say this:

I don’t engage with criticisms of “raunch culture” because while I agree with some of them (for example, that very young girls wearing the Playboy bunny strikes me as a… bizarre and creepy cultural wrong turn), I think the whole Big Issue around it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think as long as people are indignant about it, whether that’s feminist indignation or the generation gap or both, it will just become more and more appealing to people who do, in fact, want attention and either

are so desperate they’ll do what a Joe Francis wants

or

are so naive they don’t really understand that there are ways to get attention that are more fulfilling — including sexualized attention, in my opinion. I’m a big exhibitionist myself, honestly, and I think that the boom in places where that *can* be expressed healthily is *wonderful*, despite also not liking the, well, Francis-y types who take advantage of the people who really could use safer and more positive spaces to indulge exhibitionism if they really want them.

I think that the heaps of attention and worry poured on what young conventionally attractive women are doing and how duped they are or aren’t can’t possibly be healthy. I am more inclined to see it as an age-old, and deeply patriarchal, moral panic about which women are “sluts” and are too proud of it (or even too *honest* about it — whether one is unabashedly sexual or quite retiring, *everyone’s* sexual choices have fallout somewhere along the line, so treating “too-loud” young women’s sadder or more infuriating stories as The Truth About The Sluts really skeeves me out) and which women are, through their steadfastness, above all this foofaraw.

It’s so old news to me, and so uninteresting. I don’t engage much because it’s… *eyeroll* shouldn’t that sort of thing have gotten old in 1864?

Comment from Trin
Time: July 23, 2008, 4:18 am

Also, the rampant transphobia in Ariel Levy’s book taints the term “raunch culture” so deeply for me I can’t read the phrase without mild distaste anyway.

And then there’s, well, that I’m a masculine female myself, and while I’m not part of those trans-intersecting-with-dyke communities, it IS rather upsetting to me to see someone writing about sexual desire or personal expression like mine as an exaggerated, immature aping of macho young men.

Comment from belledame222
Time: July 23, 2008, 5:09 am

notawhisper: yeah, we probably do have different experiences of pressure/priv and so on. I never felt pressured to be “pornified.” I did feel that I wasn’t really allowed to be sexual at all; and yeah to a lot of what Sarah and trin are saying as well.

and I mean, I -do- take what you’re saying as–I think media has some role in shaping public perceptions, sure, and as -one- form of media, I don’t think hardcore porn is exempt, no, that’s correct. But, I also don’t think it’s ipso facto so much worse than say Cosmo, which is a lot more prevalent and if anything actually has -more- unobtainable body standards.

and yeah, I guess in general, I am sorry, but I don’t have -tons- of sympathy for straight women who (I have seen examples of this) yell at Renegade because she makes their relationships with their men harder (and I just plain don’t exist, I guess). I might have more if, you know, I felt the favor was returned more often?

But I mean, this is a good chunk of my beef with Twisty, I mean besides her easy use of terms like “sexbot” and (once in so many words) “you’re making us look bad” and so on and so forth:

for all that she’s this self professed spinster aunt and I guess lesbian, well, yeah, you’re right, I think a lot of straight women -are- comfortable there, because, well, she kind of writes as though she were this ummm…spinster aunt. Sexless and crotchety-lovable and -safe.-

Which she may well be, herself, but goddam if it doesn’t drive me batshit when f’r instance she throws out a rather nasty troll about blowjobs, and besides the gratuitous nastiness and slut-baiting of the whole thing, there are these comments to the effect of, well of COURSE she finds it disgusting; she’s a lesbian, after all! Shouldn’t straight women have their turn being bashed?

and I’m like: jesus fuck, NO. First of all, it’s precisely because I’m hypersensitized to “ew icky, you do/want to do THAT in bed? you make me sick” that I wouldn’t wish it on anyone else, I think it’s vile, and I don’t understand why any queer woman would turn around and perpetuate such a thing.

and secondly: as I said elsewhere recently, jesus christ, who CARES what straight people do or don’t get off on? Write about how excellent muffdiving is, then, why don’tcha? Or is that not RADICAL enough, or…?

I mean, I did at the time try to start a “fisting is the key to toppling the corporate/military-industrial complex” meme, but it didn’t get very far, alas.

Mostly, at this point, she just bores the living tits off of me. It’s the same goddam song over and over and over and over; and if it’s news for someone that yeah, actually, high heels can kind of hurt and not everyone likes giving head and -you don’t need to wear them/do that if you don’t want to, ever- well, that’s fab; but some of us kind of already got that memo and would like to know what ELSE is necessary for this here “Revolution.” Much less what it’s supposed to actually consist of. Because right now it feels a lot like junior high with some quasi-feminist jargon sprinkled on to make it sound more justifiable.

Comment from belledame222
Time: July 23, 2008, 5:19 am

sorry, so to get back to your question:

I don’t engage in criticisms of “raunch culture” because I don’t know or much care about it, such as “it” may actually be. I DO worry about the combination of hypersexualization of media + really bad sex ed and encroaching right wing conservatism, I think both together is quite fucked up. and I think Joe Francis is a piece of shit and have written about it, but that’s not because he’s “raunchy,” it’s because he’s a predator who takes advantage of drunk young women and desperately needs the shit kicked out of him.

but as for the whole ARiel Levy thing–meh. Wasn’t impressed. She skips a whole lot in her history, for one thing.

also, and I admittedly say this as probably as much of a patrician as Twisty is in my own Ashkenazim way, nonetheless: I see a fair amount of classism in the “raunch” critique, among other things. Like, “pornification” is worse now than it ever was because before, we -knew- who was and wasn’t “trashy,” and now EVERY woman is being encouraged to look/act like that and how will we ever know the difference?

This to me is often far too hopelessly enmeshed with the much more legitimate concerns about -women and girls not feeling like they have the right to say ‘no,’ or anything that actually comes from INSIDE them and not from outside pressure.

And yes, I can see the argument that boundaries wise, on an individual level, one’s need to define “no,” or safety, is more basic than the need to say “yes” or “this is what turns me on” or “I want you.” But -none- of that is a luxury, goddamit.

and I think that people who say, implicitly or explicitly (between Twisty and her commenters you get both) that no, it’s STILL not relevant what -you- want, you -don’t- know your own mind, you need someone else to tell you, are harmful, even if they are nominally replacing “the Patriarchy” with something supposedly less “empowerful.”

AND by the way I still hate her cutesy wootsiness.

Comment from belledame222
Time: July 23, 2008, 5:37 am

as fas as the “romaticized” public view of sex work, Ren (among others) can and has talked about that much more to the point than I; but the gist would be, what’s “romaticized” is at least as much the masturbatory tearjerker of the fallen woman either rescued or, more likely, become a body in a dumpster than the “happy hooker.” And if you don’t buy that, look at the legal situation. It’s a bit–to me–like saying that “lipstick lesbians” or “lesbian chic” in the media means that, I dunno, there’s pressure on straight women to become lesbians on account of it’s so glamorous and rewarded by the Powers That Be, now?

I dunno, man. I think media critique is all well and good, but sometimes–Twisty, some others–I get the impression they really might want to turn off the TV and actually go talk to some actual people a little more often. and, you know, listen to what they have to say.

Comment from Not a Whisper
Time: July 23, 2008, 11:33 am

Thanks for your responses. Sarah, I take your point about the post being about a lot of things. I was moved to comment after the IBTP thread, of course, so my head was full of Twisty.

Trin, I don’t think the “raunch culture” critique (sorry, you’ve said you don’t like the term, but I can’t really think of a better one) is a self-fulfilling prophecy so much as a response to an actual issue. It seems to me that there is a genuine phenomenon of girls and women (at an ever younger age) being pressured to doll up and present themselves for male approval in ways that they don’t really find enjoyable outside of the attention they get - which is sincere enjoyment, I’m not saying it isn’t, and I’m not saying people who want it are bad people, just that it’s a self-destroying route to happiness since it involves power imbalances and dependence. And from my experience, looking at my peers, and my younger self, that phenomenon is not primarily about rebelling against interfering old fogeys, whether of the moralistic or feminist persuasions. It was about fitting in. It was about being even the slightest bit worthy of social attention. And it was damaging, for me. So maybe it’s 1864 for you, but it’s still relevant to me - not as a means of sorting out bad women from good women (I mean, who cares?), but as a means of understanding why I behaved in such a stupid manner in pursuit of illusory promises of fulfillment and esteem.

And Sarah, I think the same applies… I understand your basic point about everyone being free to do what they want, but I guess again we’re coming from differs. I’m sorry about your ex, he sounds like a real jerk-off; and I also see how in the specific context of you-and-him your act of being more “porny” would be feminist. But I think you-and-him inhabit another context of you-and-him-and-elsewhere, which is where it gets tricky, because obviously “elsewhere” also differs from person to person. In my experience, in my “elsewheres” over the course of my life, I would reliably expect others to see such a person as your ex as a jerk-off; whereas if faced with someone who wanted me to be more “porny”, I have a greater expectation that I would be understood as frigid or judgmental or selfish for not complying. For a long time I understood myself that way, which was horrible. So I see those who push that line as a bigger threat.

But all this is me-me-me talk, I guess the question on a macro level is which strand is really dominant socially? Which is also a stupid question because obviously it’s different strands in different contexts. Maybe we’re all talking past each other… ships in the night and all that.

Comment from Sarah
Time: July 23, 2008, 11:54 am

Yeah, I too read Female Chauvinist Pigs and thought, “gee, if she’d read some Marx and some more theory this could’ve been a good book.” And I think underneath it all she did have good intentions, but yeah, fail.

And you just have to look at how Ren was treated in that thread at Twisty’s–which, shit, wasn’t even about sex work, it was about neo-burlesque, which is not usually a way women make a living and has as much of a female audience as a male–to see why sex workers may NOT want to talk about their negative experiences. Because anything that they say can and will be used against them, not to mention twisted around on them. Ren had mentioned getting her nose broken years ago on her livejournal and someone managed to bring it up over there? Yeah, that was the point when all this went way beyond the pale.

I think Belle is right on when she points out the classist nature of anti “raunch” critiques, too. A lot of these arguments remind me of the ones my best friend, who is a stripper, used to hear from her boyfriends and most especially, her boyfriends’ parents. And what was that line someone over at Twisty’s used again? “when guys approve, it’s a great guage[sic] of whether or not something is feminist at all”? Because when feminism starts agreeing with right-wing assholes, well, that’s a pretty good gauge to ME that it’s not pro-woman and certainly not liberatory any more.

I just read an excellent essay by Linda Williams, and am totally planning on picking up a couple more of her books, including this anthology, which has an essay in it on the “white trashing of porn” that I’d love to read before I get into this further.

To some degree, I believe that one cannot define “no” without defining “yes.” Most of us, queer, straight, asexual, have some clear lines in our heads about things in bed we just won’t do. That kind of thing can be fluid and can change in a heartbeat–sometimes things just feel right that you wouldn’t have done before. But being given permission to make decisions for your own pleasure, something women are not given by and large by our society, pornified as it may be, is very important to knowing when to say no. Being aware that sex isn’t something you endure to keep your man happy, but it’s something you do to make yourself happy, knowing that it’s not the path to ‘get him to love you’ but that if you do care about each other it can be one of the best experiences of your life…yeah. I see that as “empowering” women to know when it’s not right, when it’s not OK, when they don’t feel good doing something. Giving them permission to try something and to decide for themselves whether or not they like it is important because they have the informed choice to say yes or no.

Comment from Not a Whisper
Time: July 23, 2008, 12:04 pm

To some degree, I believe that one cannot define “no” without defining “yes.” Most of us, queer, straight, asexual, have some clear lines in our heads about things in bed we just won’t do. That kind of thing can be fluid and can change in a heartbeat–sometimes things just feel right that you wouldn’t have done before. But being given permission to make decisions for your own pleasure, something women are not given by and large by our society, pornified as it may be, is very important to knowing when to say no. Being aware that sex isn’t something you endure to keep your man happy, but it’s something you do to make yourself happy, knowing that it’s not the path to ‘get him to love you’ but that if you do care about each other it can be one of the best experiences of your life…yeah. I see that as “empowering” women to know when it’s not right, when it’s not OK, when they don’t feel good doing something. Giving them permission to try something and to decide for themselves whether or not they like it is important because they have the informed choice to say yes or no.

I wholeheartedly agree. But most public representations of “sex” have nothing to do with this, for me. I think I have come to explore sex and know myself better sexually through real interactions with real people, in an individualised, idiosyncratic way - not through the “porny” images of popular culture, and in particular through the persistent equation of a visual image of a woman’s body with sex. It might work for some people, but it seems like too much of a coincidence to suggest it would work for most people when it’s also what’s being aggressively marketed. For me, it was a scam; and I don’t really think I’m alone in this.

Comment from Sarah
Time: July 23, 2008, 12:27 pm

No, I really don’t think we’re talking past each other! And I’m really glad you keep coming back to discuss.

On the thread I created out of this comment above, someone else commented and we’ve started to talk about GGW and those other things that I do see as problematic. And most public representations of sex have nothing to do with me, either. Billboards, GGW, sanitized movie sex…yeah, nope. It absolutely gets learned and negotiated in the context of relationships.

I think you’re right that in the context of me and my ex, my choice to dress how I want to now is feminist (obviously I think that ) and I think that by acknowledging that you open up the avenue that a lot of people wouldn’t allow for–that feminism can be about context. Like I said on the thread about sex acts being unfeminist I think the sex act that is unfeminist is one that you don’t enjoy doing.

That’ll be different for everyone.

See, it’s funny, because when I complained about my ex asking me to dress more conservatively, my female friends told me it wasn’t much to complain about.

And I agree with what Belle said above, that Cosmo and such are probably far more damaging to women’s perception of themselves as properly sexual than porn, because Cosmo is consumed by far, far more women. I don’t run across porn in my everyday life, and I make it a point to read blogs by sex workers.

I’d also like to throw out there that porn is not monolithic. I’ve seen lots of different types of videos, everything from the high-end to the homemade and stuff that made me cringe because yeah, the women in it did not look anything but miserable, and stuff that made me laugh because it was just ridiculous. And a few things that were actually hot.

It’s kind of like horror movies. I am disgusted by films like Hostel and Saw, which I just see as torture porn, but I don’t propose to ban all horror movies, or all movies.

The best thing we can do for women whether it’s in sex work or outside of it is to educate them properly about sex and sexuality, and that doesn’t involve blaming or shaming or telling them they’re wrong and bad and hurting other women for the things they do in their private lives. If we can do that with their sexuality, next thing you know, I’m going to be oppressing some woman because I’ve got big (natural) breasts. Another woman’s going to be oppressing me because she’s thin. Hell, that’s already what some of these comments can sound like–the ones over at the BUST blog that I linked to in particular. No woman’s body or sexual choice oppress me. Capitalist use of one particular image (a certain type of woman’s body) to signify sex oppresses me.

I just don’t think we’re going to change that without reclaiming sex for ourselves. We’re not going to make it go away by shoving sex into the shadows, or giving it all the ’significance of a sneeze’ as I think Twisty said once upon a time.

Comment from GallingGalla
Time: July 23, 2008, 5:04 pm

Trans perspective: I dress the way I do partly because I enjoy it, and partly for my own damned safety.

r.e. enjoyment, I fully acknowledge that what I enjoy wearing is influenced by the media / advertising and that said media / advertising is dominated by men’s viewpoints. But I still have a right to make these choices for myself, and I think its really unfair to tear women down because they happen to make these choices that aren’t totally against the “Pat”. And as Sarah has pointed out, the “Pat” isn’t just about “pornification”, it’s about taking away women’s right to make their own decisions. It doesn’t matter what you wear, you’ll be violating some aspects of patriarchy and consonant with others. I mean, the “frumpy non-low-rise jeans, loose t-shirt, and Doc Marten’s” look satisfies the requirements of a lot of patriarchal fuckwads — so which aspect of patriarchy — kyriarchy, really, there’s more than just sexism involved here — will you choose to satisfy or not satisfy? B/c you *cannot* escape that fact that no matter how you present, how you think, who you have sex with and how you do it, *will* satisfy the requirements / desires / fantasies / delusions of some kyriarchist somewhere.

And really, for myself, I’m queer and very much indifferent to men’s sexual reactions, but if some man (or woman, for that matter) looks at my butt-hugging jeans and goes home and wanks off? I really don’t care. He might be satisfying his patriarchally-driven fantasies of me, but since he isn’t trying to own me, I don’t care. But if he leers (turn-the-head-as-i-walk-by kind) or catcalls, then he’s trying to own me and that I don’t like. And I also detest that women’s sexuality is co-opted and appropriated by capitalism to sell shit.

Regarding safety, other people often gender me as either male or trans. The single act of getting my eyebrows waxed (and yes, that hurts like HELL when I get it done) greatly increases the chances of other people gendering me as female. Maybe that’s “reifying gender”, but dammit, I’d really like to use the fucking bathroom in peace without having to choose between getting beat up in the men’s bathroom or arrested in the women’s bathroom, so yes, I will wax my eyebrows, and I don’t give a fuck whether the Twistylutionaries (and, Not a Whisper, I’m not directing that word at you) think I’m pornulating myself or not, I need to be safe and will do what I need to in order to achieve that.

Comment from Trin
Time: July 23, 2008, 8:55 pm

“It seems to me that there is a genuine phenomenon of girls and women (at an ever younger age) being pressured to doll up and present themselves for male approval in ways that they don’t really find enjoyable outside of the attention they get - which is sincere enjoyment, I’m not saying it isn’t, and I’m not saying people who want it are bad people, just that it’s a self-destroying route to happiness since it involves power imbalances and dependence. And from my experience, looking at my peers, and my younger self, that phenomenon is not primarily about rebelling against interfering old fogeys, whether of the moralistic or feminist persuasions. It was about fitting in. It was about being even the slightest bit worthy of social attention. And it was damaging, for me.”

Thanks for sharing this, Sarah. For me, the only time I ever heard “you’re desperate for attention” it had absolutely nothing to do with why I was really doing something, and everything to do with people wanting to write off that thing I was doing as illegitimate, stupid, or a problem. (Also, generally it was a label people threw around whenever they didn’t want to accept that something might be wrong — for example, even if cutters flat out *said* “I have a problem” they were “doing it for attention” or “doing it because it’s the next teen thing,” etc. Personally, I see a LOT of parallels between that and people who are NOT young rolling their eyes at “raunchy” “college girls.”)

So… yeah. What you were doing was surely not good for you from the way you describe it. And I have known a tiny number of young women whose flirtatious ways didn’t really seem to me to bring them much but a bad reputation and people’s scorn… so yeah, I’m sure some people are doing this sort of thing for the wrong reasons.

But even the people I knew who did it weren’t talking gleefully about the empowerfulizingness of their new clothes (they tended to dress like any other geek) or joining sexxxxay clubs or cliques or burlesque troupes so much as they were… hanging all over individual guys who weren’t into them as people (or, in the case of one woman I knew, were pretty obviously misogynists. I could never figure that out.) So I don’t think of this as raunch or glamour, so much as… friends of mine interacting in ways that didn’t seem consistent with what they really wanted.

So it’s hard for me to think even of the women that I think were flirtatious or promiscuous for the wrong reasons as impacted by culture. It seemed much more likely to me to have to do with their personal lives and histories, the details of which I don’t feel I should relate here.

Comment from Trin
Time: July 23, 2008, 9:02 pm

“I think I have come to explore sex and know myself better sexually through real interactions with real people, in an individualised, idiosyncratic way - not through the “porny” images of popular culture, and in particular through the persistent equation of a visual image of a woman’s body with sex.”

NAW, for whatever it’s worth, for me, those real interactions with real people have included using pornography with them. I don’t mean this to say you’re wrong or bad for not liking porn, or to say porn resonates with me perfectly (fuck, I’m too butch to look like anyone in porn, except in some small subsets of non-mainstream dyke porn, but even that is often more full of feminine women of various sorts anyway), but just to say that for me personally, that dichotomy feels a little false.

Comment from Sarah
Time: July 23, 2008, 9:13 pm

That first one wasn’t me, actually, it was NAW as well. For me, yeah, the unhealthiest sexual interactions I’ve both had and known were in the context of heterosexual, supposedly committed relationships.

As far as a visual of a woman’s body equating sex, yeah, well, I like to look at pretty boys, so I imagine they like to look at pretty girls. I even like to look at pretty girls, though it’s not so much sexual for me. Whereas, men? Mmm, yeah, gotta say I like the visuals.

Comment from GreenEyedLilo
Time: July 24, 2008, 1:20 am

Fabulous from the first paragraph to your Hustler underpants!

I identify as a feminist despite the idiocy you’re writing against.

Comment from Trin
Time: July 24, 2008, 6:10 am

“That first one wasn’t me, actually, it was NAW as well. For me, yeah, the unhealthiest sexual interactions I’ve both had and known were in the context of heterosexual, supposedly committed relationships.”

Okay… for me, by far the weirdest and most uncomfortable dynamics happened when I dated a woman. Which was really weird and isolating, because there’s a whole body of OMG THEORY!!eleventytwo that says men are trained to relate with women in harmful ways and women aren’t. So when you’re with a woman and it’s worse, you start to wonder if you’re crazy. Or I did, anyway.

Comment from Sarah
Time: July 24, 2008, 10:18 am

Totally.

Idealizing lesbian relationships is something so many of us do–how many times have we heard straight women (I know I’ve done it) joke that they’re going to switch to women. Man, I can just look at my friendships to note that women do at least as much harm to one another as men do to women, emotionally. Maybe the physical abuse and rape statistics are different, but women fuck other women up emotionally all the time.

like the shit that was going on in that thread at IBTP, f’rinstance.

Comment from Trin
Time: July 24, 2008, 8:17 pm

But the thing is, even if those statistics are different, it makes me really uncomfortable the way that gets used to say that only certain kinds of relationship are “the problem.” Which is why, y’know, I’m starting to like that fad going around of talking about “the kyriarchy” rather than “the patriarchy”…

Comment from SunflowerP
Time: July 25, 2008, 5:31 am

“I think the sex act that is unfeminist is one that you don’t enjoy doing. That’ll be different for everyone.” Word! You say many sound and savvy and thought-provoking things, but that’s especially brilliant. (Except, dammit, that it shouldn’t be brilliant, it ought to be glaringly obvious.)

Sunflower

Comment from DaisyDeadhead
Time: July 25, 2008, 1:57 pm

QE: dish! what’s she like?! is she really “not not a woman?” cause that was HAWT, you know.

Okay, Emily and Belle made me spew my coffee.