Sunday, 21 June 2009

Things That Are Just Bizarre

And Obviously False, Vol. Whatevertheheck:

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

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

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

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

Uh, what? So... stuff comes out of his body... that is inherently tied to his sexual pleasure... and there is absolutely no way that he could possibly, in a world where porn doesn't exist, think it's hot to see a substance intimately connected with his pleasure and orgasm on his partner's skin?

Is this person kidding?

Or is it specifically the face she takes issue with? I don't see why that would be either, honestly, because, well, one way of having sex involves genitals and faces, and people often have that kind of sex unprotected. Ergo: at least potential messiness.

I'm not one to be excited specifically by messy faces myself, mine or others', but... does she have the same attitude toward a man (or a woman, for that matter) who enjoys having a female partner's wetness all over his face while or after giving head to her?

I do understand that there is a connection in the current culture between giving head to men and degradation. But the thing is, if she asserts that no one wants sexual fluids on their faces absent Patriarchy because it's inherently something no one would think of if they weren't Big Meanies, what does she think of cunnilingus, anyway?

It's this "never" stuff and this "things have only one unalterable meaning" stuff that simply baffles me. What?

That's it. It's not even anger any more. It's just complete bafflement.

Also, what is with the constant bringing up bukkake, anyway? I mean, sure, some people do it and more people watch films of it, but what exactly does that have to do with... anything at all? Bukkake has about as much relevance to me, for example, as scubadiving cats would.

56 comments:

geopunk said...

does she have the same attitude toward a man (or a woman, for that matter) who enjoys having a female partner's wetness all over his face while or after giving head to her?

This!

Aaaaand cue that ever-present and ever-obnoxious heteronormativity coming from the prudes...

geopunk said...

Also, scubadiving cats are vastly more relevant to me than bukkake. :P

I "love" the sort of argument that basically says "omg certain possibly degrading sex acts are sometimes depicted in some porn! this is entirely representative of ALL PORN EVER! no, really!"

*rolls eyes* 9__9

roykay said...

Bukkake doesn't do anything for me.

However, I sure do love having a woman sit on my face and just TAKE her sexual satisfaction aggressively. I love savoring her juices, which is the main reason I prefer them in my mouth rather than, say, on my cheek. (Though licking from cunt to ass and transfering the juices for deeper penetration of tongue and finger is also a great use.) Likewise I like sucking my fingers out of her cunt as well. If a partner wants this (and most seem to) I certainly feel "used", but I LIKE being used this way.

What is interesting is how this plays out relative to the eatly womens lib days. At that time, the big complaint was about men not eating pussy and projecting a sense that woman sexual organs - and especially her secretions - were "icky". I think it was in the "Hite Report" that I read of women complaining that when men DID eat pussy, they were excessively diligent about limiting their contact with women's juices - and this was seen as a disparagement of women.

So, what changed in the focus? Primarily a shift in what is called "Feminist" focus to basically some pre-adolescent view that basically "boy have cooties", in the essentialist movement. This let the politics (the organization of hatreds) of Feminism shift the model of sex from women loving their own sexuality to women hating men's sexuality - and increasing the focus on anything that validated that view.

By and large, that hasn't much taken in the general society, where women and men are too busy going for what they want. However, in academia such consciousnesses can find subsidy - especially in the Womens (now called Gender) Studies. Examination of meanings, whether those meanings exist or not, is that mainstay of the non-sciences. These meanings can't be falsified and thus have free rein.

Pharaoh Katt said...

So if bukkake is something that no one would think of without porn, how did it end up in porn in the first place?

electronic doll said...

For some reason, I have the image of this woman going not the face! not the face! with her partner trying desperately to aim his orgasm somewhere else, post blowjob...

My brain does that sometimes. OK. Serious point. Yes.

Is having semen on your face an anti-feminist act? I smirk as I type this, wondering whether having female come on your face would therefore be a feminist act and whether having custard on your face would be a circus act. Back to being serious.

It's the same old bloody point again, isn't it? Someone doesn't like such-and-such a sex act, they are a woman, they find it uncomfortabel (for whatever reason) therefore it is an anti-feminist act. As opposed to just a thing they don't like.

Because clearly, everything in the world is universal, and can be defined as either feminist or anti-feminist.

Sure, there are men who believe that seeing come on their partners face is hot. And women who think it is hot. There are some who find it hot *because* of ideas like humlitiation or degredation (cos, you know, kinky). Some just find it hot.

Whatever. The point is that hotness is not usually linked to political affiliation.

Trinity said...

"Whatever. The point is that hotness is not usually linked to political affiliation."

Blasphemer.

Trinity said...

"Aaaaand cue that ever-present and ever-obnoxious heteronormativity coming from the prudes..."

But will it be "Oh, that's DIFFERENT!" or will it be "Truly evolved women don't think so much about their Nigels licking them?"

I give each of those even odds.

Orlando C. said...

A slippery feature of the whole argument over there is that 9/2 and company apply a very reductive, anatomical, orgasm-count logic whenever it suits, but switch immediately to an abstract discussion of fantasy-semiotics when they're cornered. And back, and forth. And back.

SnowdropExplodes said...

"A slippery feature" - oh, no, you didn't just use that adjective in a thread about fellatio/cunnilingus/facials!? Please tell me that was a deliberate double entendre!

ANyway, that quoted passage: first up, "many men DO think..." and of course, as feminists, we are BOUND to accept the definitions of "many men" as True and Right and Just!

Squirting stuff on the face - how about, playing with garden hoses as children? Was that about "degrading" and "insulting"? What about champagne being sprayed on faces and clothes and everything? That's usually part of a victory celebration, and done by members of the winning team to each other (not to the losers, whom one might expect to be the target of any "degrading" or "insulting" behaviour by the winners).

"In your face!" probably most likely derived from confrontational postures - the term apparently originating in US sports. Association with semen quite improbable!

Finally: "scubadiving cats": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SN1VcgRrEM8

(incidentally, searching for ["scuba diving cat" porn] turns up about 1,500 results, but most seem to link to that first video, and the "porn" part is some unreated link or comment by the site owner.)

Bean said...

This is the sort of thing that makes you say, "durr."

I'm not one to be excited specifically by messy faces myself, mine or others', but... does she have the same attitude toward a man (or a woman, for that matter) who enjoys having a female partner's wetness all over his face while or after giving head to her?

I pointed out the similarity to her (and someone else might have as well, I'm only half-way through the comments), but my comment hasn't been posted yet. If ever. I'm oh-so-eagerly awaiting her response.

Also, I love how the fact that some women don't find it degrading doesn't change that it's inherently degrading anyway...but the fact that some of the men she knows find their semen disgusting supports this.


Blah, blah, blah, reason #371 why cunnilingus is okay, but fellatio is bad. BAD.

Orlando C. said...

Best of luck, Bean, but we've gone a million rounds on this and similar arguments. 9/2 basically argues that the force of the patriarchy to determine cultural symbolism is strong enough that it overwhelms gender reversals.

That is, an image of a man spanking a woman reinforces the patriarchy, but so does an image of a woman spanking a man....any image of "degradation" reinforces the existing power structure.

Bean said...

@Orlando:

Yeah, my money is riding on, "But that's different," personally.

Becky said...

As far as I can tell, sex wouldn't really exist without the Patriarchy, according to 9-2 and her ilk.
A smart person once said to me-"What you believe, you see".not believe what you see.
So for people out to find the evils of the patriarchy controlling our every thought, any attitude or posture that could conceivably be seen as having an imbalance of power must be degrading. Because that dratted Patriarchy has shaped our every thought and idea, and no-one but the bold few brave Rad-Fems can scrape away the muck and let the truth shine out for us!
Just like history is written by the winners, social theory is being written by the whiners-and they're sure that they have the TRUTH about sex.
Ain't it nice that we can ignore them in our bedrooms?
( I can see it now- all sex must take place in the presence of an approved monitor-she will let you know when you've done something incorrect)

sera said...

Trinity said: "does she have the same attitude toward a man (or a woman, for that matter) who enjoys having a female partner's wetness all over his face while or after giving head to her?"

That struck me as not the (only) right question. 9-2 writes, "If I did find a man who had never seen any porn at all, then what in Hell would make him wake up one morning and think “Gee, I’d like to come all over your FACE, Honey,” if not a desire to degrade me?"

The question, then, is not only whether a man would be willing to "submit" to having female juices smeared on him (back to that in a second). The question is whether a WOMAN ("who had never seen any porn at all"?) would wake up one morning and think, "Gee, I'd like to smear my juices all over my boyfriend's face". And, relatedly, whether she would think that was hot because it was degrading.

The urge to spit, spray, squirt, cum, bleed on, or otherwise lubricate a partner's body with your own bodily fluids is not in my view inherently degrading, and I think it's possible to conceive of it outside of porn. But I doubt that it would be as common a fantasy, at all, without porn. And I really don't know many women who think, "ooh, I want to spread my essences over his body." The fact that facials are constantly in (male-centered) porn is why they're in male fantasies. The fact that the equivalent act is not in female-centered porn (erotica, whatever) is why it's not in female fantasies.

THAT's what bothers me about this stuff--I don't get upset at the idea that something is degrading, per se, because, as I think someone said a post or five back, it's hard to know what degrading even means in the abstract, and even weirder for a kinky person who think humiliation is hot.

What bothers me in gender terms is when I see disparities in what people are performing in porn, or in society--I am not sure why the desires don't match up, and I find it troubling, although I'm not sure what to make of it.

sera said...

Whoops, went back and read the thread. Should have done that originally. My point got made in the very first comment, and apparently what's here was something Laurel said, not 9-2. Okay. N/m.

The hazards of cherry-picking what one reads about this stuff.

Erin said...

Yeah, Trinity, that doesn't make any sense to me, either. If a woman feels degraded by it than she shouldn't consent to it, and I know that even if I didn't feel degraded by it I'd refuse if my partner thought they were degrading me by doing it. But that's a very different thing than it being inherently degrading in some kind of quasi-objective way.

SunflowerP said...

"...my experience is that many men DO think their semen is an inherently icky, disgusting substance..."

::scratches head:: Where the heck do they find the men they cite in their examples, anyway? And why on earth are they on such apparently-intimate terms with men who are that dysfunctional? Or is it just that they define the word "many" very differently than I do? (On second thought, I suspect what they're defining differently here is "experience" - when a theory-saturated radfem says, "in my experience" she means, "this is what The Theory says men must be thinking, not that I've ever asked a man about it.")

Gratuitous wordgeek snark: Thanks to Sera's heads-up, I actually went there, just long enough to observe Nine "I'm the smartest person you'll ever meet" Deuce giving "concurrment" to Laurel's comment. 9D notes that she knows it's not a real word - but fer pity's sake, then, why not actually say "concurrence"? Or just say, "I concur"? Or if you think you're clever and witty and that the new word you just made up is pretty nifty, say, "I just made that up, isn't it nifty?" or let it stand without apologetics. (Oh, and, if you're gonna make new constructions, it's useful to know when/why final consonants are doubled when attaching a suffix, and when they are not. Doing so incorrectly detracts from their nift.)

And, Becky, you've given me a chronic Doobie Brothers earworm; I may never again observe a radfem trying to stuff reality into ill-fitting theory without hearing Michael McDonald croon, "What a fool believes, [s]he sees...." (That's a thank you, not a complaint.)

Sunflower

Anonymous said...

And is it an anti-feminist act for me to "make" my subby partner come in his own face? I asked this question on ND's blog, but of course didn't get past moderation.

It's hard to wrap one's mind around, feminist or kinky or neither, but some people out there kink hard on certain acts because they feel degraded—that's exactly the point. I think it takes the debate to a level too uncomfortable for ND and co. to go to ask how degradation in sex itself might not necessarily be anti-feminist. As far as I can tell there's no way to say "degrading sex acts are anti-feminist" without either creating a gender binary through which to view them or taking yourself to the level of "thought police." I would hope neither of those options are in line with ND's feminism.

-Rach
(thanks for writing this awesome blog, by the way—really inspiring!)

Anonymous said...

My question as well, anon. Where do those of us who like getting bukkaked specifically because it's degrading (maybe that's the wrong term, but for someone who kinks on humiliation or whatever) fit in?

Trinity said...

"::scratches head:: Where the heck do they find the men they cite in their examples, anyway? And why on earth are they on such apparently-intimate terms with men who are that dysfunctional?"

I strongly suspect it actually is their experience. I could be very wrong, but I think that what fuels this is their having had gross boyfriends. So it's "ah, of course, Such are Menz."

Or it's... in ND's case I know there's a post somewhere on her blog wherein she finds a DVD her boyfriend has and is so disgusted she destroys it, as it is clearly evident how awful merely possessing it is.

I think they're theorying from their squicks, myself. Or theorying from their Horrible Boyfriends.

Trinity said...

"I think it takes the debate to a level too uncomfortable for ND and co. to go to ask how degradation in sex itself might not necessarily be anti-feminist."

I think you and they work from a different definition of "degrading" there, though. You mean something like "an act that makes me feel small and used, in a way that excites me or gives me self-knowledge or pleasure or something else that I want," while they mean "something that literally dehumanizes me."

electronic doll said...

Quote Trinity - Where the heck do they find the men they cite in their examples, anyway?

I have two theories on this. One - they are perverts who are deliberately dating dickheads out of masochism. Two - they are making this shit up to illustrate points they have also made up.

Orlando C. said...

"I strongly suspect it actually is their experience."

I think I see a hint of something else, too, which I've just been blogging about. I think there's a general cultural meme that views all sex acts as a kind of checklist, and sexual fulfillment largely as a matter of checking all the boxes. Like the...uh..."purity tests" that used to get passed around in schools, back in the day at least.

And this notion completely scraps any idea of sexuality, or better, sexual individuality. Maybe you're not bi. Maybe BDSM squicks you out. Maybe threesomes confuse you. But there are still these damn boxes to check, in your mind, and maybe in your lover's mind, too.

I frequently get a sense that when anti-kink writers are talking about the cultural pressure they feel (Usul uses words like "persecution"), their mental image is not so much the skeezy ex-boyfriend, but an abstract internalized notion that they, too, should want to do what "the cool kids are doing."

Erin said...

I think you and they work from a different definition of "degrading" there, though. You mean something like "an act that makes me feel small and used, in a way that excites me or gives me self-knowledge or pleasure or something else that I want," while they mean "something that literally dehumanizes me."

That's the definition I was using above, and I definitely did not mean to step on on anyone's kink. Sorry about that, FWIW.

ggg_girl said...

Even facials are "degrading", some people (me) like feeling degraded occasionally during sex and there's nothing wrong with that. People create the experience they want during consensual sex and have a right to engage in any act they damn well please. Flowery, slow sex is not what everyone wants.

Anonymous said...

"I frequently get a sense that when anti-kink writers are talking about the cultural pressure they feel (Usul uses words like "persecution"), their mental image is not so much the skeezy ex-boyfriend, but an abstract internalized notion that they, too, should want to do what "the cool kids are doing.""

Quite interesting. I wonder if there's any way we can disarm this notion when talking to radfems and the like? I think if we could get past this block we could make some real progress.

Orlando C. said...

Well, the obvious solution is to hammer on the notion that kink is a set of sexualities rather than a set of cool activities for the universal to-do list.

But actually I think that would backfire, in complicated ways.

I have this big naive optimism about lots of people being real honest about their own experiences...

Trinity said...

"I frequently get a sense that when anti-kink writers are talking about the cultural pressure they feel (Usul uses words like "persecution"), their mental image is not so much the skeezy ex-boyfriend, but an abstract internalized notion that they, too, should want to do what "the cool kids are doing."

Y'know, I hadn't thought of this, but now that I see it I think you're absolutely right on with that. Often anti-SM and anti-porn feminists will say stuff like "well, I'm not COOL like those sex pozzie girls, but at least I'm RIGHT/not morally compromised like them!"

Which would also explain why they're so upset about the "pornified society." They're unhip. They're losing a popularity contest, or something.

While over here in Kinkville most of us are going "Popular? Wait, we're not popular! We could lose our jobs, our kids..."

"All you ever want is attention!"

If you're on to something here, and I think you are... They're fighting high school clique wars.

No wonder reason and argument have so little to do with it all.

(Or that they just plain Assert that reason and logic are theirs. It's a classic But I'm The Brainy One Here! retort to the popular kids. Never mind that this actual argument is Brain vs. Brain, which is part of why we get so irritated with the cutesy names hurled at us...)

Orlando C. said...

On re-reading, I wanna clarify something...I'm absolutely not saying that 9/2 and so forth are repressed kinksters. That would be presumptious, and also, I will presume to say, wrong.

I'm saying that they when they consider a particular act-o-kink, part of their reaction might be a sense of pressure that they ought to be doing that weird shit, for reasons other than their own desire.

And I guess I am willing to ask if we aren't contributing to that meme, in some ways.

Anonymous said...

Trinity—I appreciate the distinction between different meanings of "degrading." But I still think ND would say degrading is degrading is degrading no matter how you slice it, and that her definition encompasses mine...

-Rach

sera said...

Orlando . . .

Like everyone else, I think that's quite insightful. I didn't read it as you saying radfems were sexually repressed. I agree with Trinity, though; it's like a high school thing with the cheerleaders v. the nerds--or perhaps another Madonna/whore thing? Feminine virtue=not buying into degrading sexuality. (If that's the case it's going to be really very hard to combat.)

About the degrading thing, I agree. Even though I see Trinity's distinction, I think the response would be that the very fact that someone wants to be degraded (in the used, made to feel small sense) is degrading in the dehumanizing sense--either to her individually or to women as a class by some mysterious mechanism of pollution and infection.

Wugh.

Trinity said...

"Even though I see Trinity's distinction, I think the response would be that the very fact that someone wants to be degraded (in the used, made to feel small sense) is degrading in the dehumanizing sense--either to her individually or to women as a class by some mysterious mechanism of pollution and infection."

Oh, I'm sure they'd say that, but that doesn't make it any less stupid.

It's just like the "How can anyone be masochistic? The definition of pain means you can't like it!" silliness.

Nothing's allowed to be complicated or mean more than one thing.

Trinity said...

"I'm saying that they when they consider a particular act-o-kink, part of their reaction might be a sense of pressure that they ought to be doing that weird shit, for reasons other than their own desire.

And I guess I am willing to ask if we aren't contributing to that meme, in some ways."

How would we be contributing to it?

"OMG that person over there thinks that icky thing is fun! Fuck, no matter what I do I'm still uncool!"

Be yourself, goddammit.

Orlando C. said...

Eh, but Trinity, there's a gray zone between being yourself and affirming who you are, and thoughtlessly jabbing at people's insecurities. I'm pretty sure that if you trawled through BDSM blogs looking for things to feel insecure about, you could find at least a few lines like "everyone ought to try _____."

Not saying we shouldn't use that kind of langauge, or even that we should plaster caveats all over the place. I just think it's part of the dynamic.

K said...

I thought about it & I thought about it & I thought about it some more...

and I still come back to the same simple conclusion when it comes to bukakke, facials, and related 'degrading' activities which may or may not be degrading to the person engaged in them:

It doesn't hurt.

It's that simple. There's a lot of very good discussion going on here & I feel like I'm dumbing it down for even mentioning this but,

External contact with ejaculate or other sexual fluid - doesn't hurt.

I can imagine that it would if you have an allergy, or if you wanted it to by incorporating it as part of some other BDSM related activity. But for me? That kind of sexual activity doesn't hurt.

How is doing something that involves absolutely zero sexual pain and yet still gets the job done still inherently degrading?

Not that feeling pain while doing something sexual always means degradation, either. I think there's a difference when you choose to do it that way.

Dw3t-Hthr said...

... I would be more likely to find random bodily fluid contact degrading than pain, personally; I can't think of anything degrading about pain at all.

Orlando C. said...

Uhmmm. So one thing that has been bothering me about the responses to this series of posts is that "we" haven't really tried to articulate why degradation might sometimes be an OK experience to engage.

I tried to do that here since 4.5 isn't letting me post anymore.

Hope it's OK to link?

Dw3t-Hthr said...

Left you a comment. Which I think illustrates the above discussion of "What the fuck does 'degrading' mean anyway?"

clnt2009 said...

I am new to your blog so I should'nt say much only I would like to say that....nice post!

shopping cart

hexy said...

I'm totally late to this one, but unless I missed it no one mentioned it.

I've noticed that "they" seem to be using "bukkake" as a synonym for "any act where semen ends up on the skin of someone who isn't the ejaculator", even though it's clearly not.

Ms. Pet said...

Hey there Trinity, long time, no contact. Wanted to let you in on a Feminist BDSM Consciousness Raising group me and my friend Nerdy violinist are starting on Fetlife. Here's the link.

http://fetlife.com/groups/9345

It's for all persons interested in learning about Feminist BDSM, it's past, it's present, history, principals how it differs from mainstream BDSM, how it's the same.

One doesn't have to be a Feminist to join or participate, one only has to be interested in Alternative perspectives of BDSM.

We are starting by posting essays and using as 'talking points," the book COMING TO POWER, which is one of the first, many consider it a bible, of Lesbian BDSM written in 1980. Don't know if you know it.

Anyways, it's a Consciousness Raising group, a virtual version of your 1970s consciousness raising group. The purpose, of course, to raise the conscious awareness amongst kinky women, of Feminist BDSM and how it can help them in their kink lives, etc. So it's open to all people, is NOT an academic group, but simply women talking about their lives, experiences, etc. in association with feminist writings on BDSM.

We could really use someone with your experience and knowlege on it, just to, you know, keep things smooth and give us the perspective of a woman who is continuously TODAY, fighting against Anti Sex forces.

And love if all your friends would come too!

verushka said...

I had a similar argument with my sister (a women's studies minor in college) about Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut." Leaving aside lurid portrayals of alternative lifestyles -- her thesis, to me, was that because all of the female characters in "Eyes Wide Shut" imagined, voluntarily engaged in, or were coerced into activities/actions considered "morally repugnant" by mainstream society, that the film was inherently misogynistic. The prostitute Tom Cruise's character almost has sex with; the grief-stricken, engaged, daughter of a dead patient who comes on to Tom Cruise; the young, barely pubescent girl played by Leelee Sobieski, who flirts with every man who comes to her father's costume shop; the heroin junkie/prostitute Sydney Pollack's wealthy, influential character screws (at his own Christmas party with his wife downstairs); the Christ-like female prostitute who "saves" Tom Cruise's character from whatever dire fate he would've suffered by "sacrificing" herself when he's discovered as an uninvited, party-crashing guest at the very exclusive masked sex ball;
and, of course, there's wife/mother Nicole Kidman's character, whose fantasized about adulterous sex with a military officer and abandoning her husband and child to run away with him.

My response to that was, um, yeah, because the male characters are such paragons of virtue in "Eyes Wide Shut," right? The father who pimps out his daughter (Leelee Sobieski); Sydney Pollack's wealthy, influential character who screws (at his own Christmas party with his wife downstairs) a heroin-using (and over-dosing, as it turns out) model-prostitute, and isn't actually concerned about her welfare, but only about whether or not her dying of an OD in his house at his xmas party will get him caught; the group of gay-bashing guys who assume Tom Cruise's character is gay and threaten and harass him; and, of course, the Tom Cruise husband/father, whose jealous response to merely hearing his wife's un-acted-on fantasy of adultery is to actually go out and pursue infidelity (though not actually commit it or act on any of the sexual opportunities he encounters).

These portrayals of "morally and ethically repugnant" men, I said to my sister, they what -- portray the men in such a positive light in comparison with the women? If female characters doing what mainstream society would label "morally and ethically repugnant" acts is what makes "Eyes Wide Shut" a misogynist film, then shouldn't the portrayal of men doing the same or more morally repugnant acts make "Eyes Wide Shut" a misandronist film, far darker an indictment of men than it is of women?

She had no logical argument or response to counter mine. In fact, at first she was speechless. It had clearly never occurred to her to examine the treatment of the male characters in the film.

I find this is what usually happens when one expands a very narrow, single-issue analysis of a film, play, or book into a broader analysis of human behavior and social dynamics. Do we all live under imposed and often internalized societal structures not of our own choosing? Yes. But when any dominant class, race, or gender (Stanley Kubrick was a white, heterosexual male) is caught portraying itself as controlling, coercing, manipulating, and non-consensually dominating another class/race/gender -- that tells you all you need to know about the dominant class/race/gender/values. Single-issue axe-grinders usually fail to see these nuances and then have no logical response when they're pointed out, because they have failed to consider all perspectives, and their narrow perspective limits their logical arguments when a real debate about what something "means" opens up.

spokewench said...

Hi,

This is not on the topic of the post but I couldn't find another way to contact the people who run the site.

Just to let you know that the "submissiveboi" blog you link to on the sidebar seems to be gone.

(Feel free to delete this comment after it's been noted. :) )

- Spokewench

thequestion said...

No new posts on pro-sm for almost 3 months :)

Will it be closing down soon?

Fingers crossed.....!

Petra said...

Fascinating discussion. I am sorry I missed it back in June when it was a busy topic.

On the subject of whether or not bukkake is truly degrading well, let's just say that ultimately it's in the eye of the beholder.

sports handicapping software said...

Wow great post very informative, all i can add is if you would like to read more on the subject, you should visit google and find relevent sources! hope it is helpful

sports handicapping software said...

Wow great post very informative, all i can add is if you would like to read more on the subject, you should visit google and find relevent sources! hope it is helpful

Anonymous said...

Especially in Cheapest Diablo 3 gold a lifestyle where sexual intercourse is usually regarded as to be filthy generally -- a necessity everyone has, yes, however any shameful one particular. In particular when is some sort of "pervert,In after which you are in best goofy and Cheap Diablo 3 goldcharming and at toughest some risk, since others inform the idea.

Anonymous said...

This is the best thing ever!! I live in FLorida where it is hot and humid....I have no air

conditioning in my car so I have to drive with the windows down...I have very curly, thick, and out of control hair...with all these elements it is hard to find something to make my hair stay straight. This

worked...I drove on the highway with my windows down in nice hot humid weather and it is still as perfect as when I straightened it 2 days ago!! Buy this product it is worth the money!!!

Seacanoeist Mark said...

I liked your article, I will share your article to everyone!!




WoW gold|Diablo 3 Gold|RS Gold|Cheap Diablo 3 Gold

china tours said...

This is the best thing ever!! I live in FLorida where it is hot and humid....I have no air ...You can learn more: China vacation packages | China tour operator

jake lee said...




Well done girls, I've runescape gold often wondered where all rs gold this newfangled blogging would get you buy runescape gold and there you Aion Kinah Kaufen are, large as wow gold life (well larger than postage stamp size anyway) on the front page of The Times. Congratulations on being cheap runescape gold their best blog for family cooking.

He was
hurt in the first GW2 Gold quarter of Tuesdays win over thee
Philadelphia 76ers.

China tours said...

What a beautiful dragonfly and what wonderful post!!I am a china tour lover,You can learn more: China tour operator | China tour packages | China city travel

Qiong Zhang said...

Hey there! This is our first stop by at your website!We are an Lumia 920 case amount of volunteers as well as starting

qiongzhang55 said...

Hey there! This is our first stop by at your website!We are an Iphone 5 case amount of volunteers as well as starting

Learn Chinese said...

Since our founding in 2002, Hanbridge Mandarin has provided thousands of learners with high-quality campus-based courses, online classes, and intensive cultural immersion programs. Utilizing?easy, fun and rewarding methods, we work hard to ensure our students can understand, use and ultimately master Mandarin communication skills.

More Chinese learning tags : Learn Chinese | learn Chinese online | learn mandarin