for those who insist on liking Dan Savage

[eohiken]

What exactly is meant by "this culture"?

WHICH culture?

If this is a critique of a specific culture, then are we saying that the phenomenon is culture-specific? Does it not exist in other cultures?

Also, is it not hypocritical to advocate strongly for women in one culture (eg. saying that the mere suggestion by a partner to try certain activities is oppressive) while failing to respond or even silencing other women who dare to criticize misogyny in THEIR cultures?

Specifically North American culture, but by extention most of the world. So called western culture is by far the most equitable for women, that's not to say we've reached equality. We still have sexism, there's just often more other places.

Who says anyone is failing to respond or silence women in other cultures? Pointing out sexism in some areas does not dismiss sexism in others. That's a strange assertion.

[Constance Vigilance]

Really, do whatever you like in bed, get your rocks off five ways til Tuesday, but don't pretend it futhers the cause of gender equality.

Once again, zero acknowledgement that some women do not have sex with men but with other women. And really, you're going to police other women's sex lives if they aren't sufficiently 'feminist'? This sort of nonsense is why my automatic reaction to the word “radfem†is to brace myself for some privileged, blinkered bullshit.

Like I said, hypothetically speaking, I have no ethical problem with the act of trading sex for cash. Our current culture is just too poisoned for it to be made safe at this time.

So in the real world we exist in right now, women who are working as sex workers should…? I mean, I'm hoping you don't mean to imply you don't give a shit, but you're not doing much to counteract that impression.

valsa:

Oh Jesus Christ on a cracker, you went there, didn't you? What about the poor menz?! The rate at which men are victims of DV compared to women is negligible. And men have about a zillion more options for getting out then women do. I have zero sympathy.

See, there is a nuanced way to point out that the issue of men who are subjected to DV (or rape) is frequently used to silence discussion of the overwhelming number of women who are subjected to it, and that DV and rape are mostly gendered acts that are often tacitly or explicitly supported by the patriarchy*. And then there is that. “Zero sympathy†for an abuse victim because he's male is...well, it's something. I am trying so hard not to No True Feminist, because clearly that is Deelaem's feminist position. But it is inexplicable to me.

*LGBT DV/rape is also important, but not relevant here.

Edited to add and clarify.

[Rosa]

I found deelaem's contrast of "her radical feminist views" and those with "moderate feminist views" (i.e. everyone else) pretty ridiculous, because I am about as immoderately feminist as they come. I just don't agree with her on this issue. That does not make her More Feminist Than Me. Indeed, I would argue that my respect and concern for women who choose to be sex workers (gasp! traitors!!) makes me More Feminist Than Her, if we want to play that pointless game. But I don't, because what is the point?

Edited for riffles and word choice.

Ditto. Also her attitude toward mothers, and any woman who doesn't instantly tow her line. And also, I generally choose not to play the game - it's not useful and if she wants to be an Official Internet Feminist, that's fine with me, it doesn't affect my political practice or my life.

[CanadianHippie]

So if I sign up to work for a company, the fact I need the paycheck means I've actually been taken advantage of and am not able to consent to work there?

Yes, but only if you're a woman. :roll: Since apparently the fact that we make choices in the real world instead of a vacuum means that we are incapable of knowing ourselves and what we want. Over the past 100 years, this reasoning has been used to explain why woman can't really choose to get married, or why women can't really choose to be stay at home mothers, and thus the radical feminists need to make those choices for them. It pisses me off because it's the same old "women can't" bullshit the patriarchy has been spouting for centuries with a brand new "feminist" face.

[eohiken]

Once again, zero acknowledgement that some women do not have sex with men but with other women. And really, you're going to police other women's sex lives if they aren't sufficiently 'feminist'? This sort of nonsense is why my automatic reaction to the word “radfem†is to brace myself for some privileged, blinkered bullshit.

On the subject of the delicacies of women performing certain sex acts with men, I'm supposed footnote with every other type of sex?

FTR, I'm talking about men requesting BJs and anal from women, not backrubs or foot tickling. Acts that are currently very stigmatized in our culture. Perhaps it doesn't always have to be a manifestation of rape culture, male privilege and female compliance, this is for all of us in our own relationships to decide. It's not policing when it's an idea to think about. It's about being cognizant of our own decisions.

So in the real world we exist in right now, women who are working as sex workers should…? I mean, I'm hoping you don't mean to imply you don't give a shit, but you're not doing much to counteract that impression.

Don't get me wrong, I give lots of shits.

[fakepigtails73]

I rather wish for total decriminalisation of prostitution instead of total legalisation...

In places like Nevada where it's legal some women were denied extra unemployment insurance because they refused to take a job at a local Bunny Ranch. Legalisation means that the sex worker's body sort of belongs to the state; decriminalisation would let these women work how they wish, but they could pay taxes on earnings and go to the police if battered by a John.

The way it's done in Sweden is not helpful because johns, fearful of being caught by the cops, bring the sex workers to places in industrial zones or out of city limits; then they can abuse them because no one will hear their screams.

I dunno what to do re: pimps though. I wish they didn't exist (not talking about Madams in brothels or owners of escort services here).

[nimerha]

FTR, I'm talking about men requesting BJs and anal from women, not backrubs or foot tickling. Acts that are currently very stigmatized in our culture. Perhaps it doesn't always have to be a manifestation of rape culture, male privilege and female compliance, this is for all of us in our own relationships to decide. It's not policing when it's an idea to think about. It's about being cognizant of our own decisions.

Perhaps? Um... ya think?

[valsa]

Are blowjobs stigmatized?

Granted, I've been out of the sex loop for a while, but I don't remember them being stigmatized in my neck of the woods.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Specifically North American culture, but by extention most of the world. So called western culture is by far the most equitable for women, that's not to say we've reached equality. We still have sexism, there's just often more other places.

Who says anyone is failing to respond or silence women in other cultures? Pointing out sexism in some areas does not dismiss sexism in others. That's a strange assertion.

I'm not saying that YOU are necessarily silencing women from other cultures, but I have certainly seen it happen.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji have both spoken about how they were dismissed by the very liberals from whom they had expected support, when they dared to be critical of their cultures and religion.

Tarek Fatah of the Canadian Muslim Congress gets trashed by the Toronto Star (Canada's largest newspaper) for daring to argue for the role of secularism and against religious practices which he considers to be oppressive to women.

There are legitimate concerns about whether efforts to accommodate various communities dilutes the legal protections available to women. Allowing different religious or cultural communities to run their own child protection agencies (we have Catholic Children's Aid, Jewish Family and Child Services, Native Family and Child Services) has many advantages, but if the community is too close knit, or workers are too slow to report problems, or too anxious to urge families to stay together even when it is not safe to do so, you can have real problems. It's also not always going to be appropriate to use counselling services from a woman's own cultural/religious background. In New York, there are concerns that an Orthodox Jewish agency may not have always followed mandatory reporting requirements properly. Alternative dispute resolution is great in theory, but will the rights and safety needs of women be properly safeguarded if the courts will divert matters to a Sharia tribunal or Native sentencing circle? Muslim and Native women who have spoken out have at times been branded as traitors to their communities.

[emmiedahl]

FTR, I'm talking about men requesting BJs and anal from women, not backrubs or foot tickling. Acts that are currently very stigmatized in our culture. Perhaps it doesn't always have to be a manifestation of rape culture, male privilege and female compliance, this is for all of us in our own relationships to decide. It's not policing when it's an idea to think about. It's about being cognizant of our own decisions.

Is there something wrong with requesting these from a monogamous sex partner? If you are in a committed relationship and respectful of the other person's answer?

I don't understand how my husband is oppressing me by requesting one of these, just like a female is not oppressing her husband by asking for oral sex and a gay man is not oppressing his partner by having anal sex. Last time I checked, very few sex acts are stigmatized in mainstream circles, and oral/anal are not two of them. I personally don't really enjoy either, so they are not a part of our typical repertoire. And my husband is completely cool with that.

[eohiken]

last I heard 'cocksucker' was still a comment insult.

2xx1xy1JD, it's a difficult thing this intersectionality. Feminists are so often blamed for barging through with passionate conviction of women's oppression everywhere without (enough) cultural sensitivity, at the same time they are accused of not taking care of work 'at home'. Seems no matter who you talk to, feminism is being wasted on all the wrong things. It's consisdered very insensitive for feminists to critique other cultures then their own, so it's really up to women within their own communities, coming from outside and taking charge is a huge faux pas. And then a person of privilege (be it white cis or het) offering support to those women within more marginalized groups is a tricky thing to balance.

[emmiedahl]

I think cocksucker is an insult because it implies one is gay. Like 'faggot'. I have only heard it used among men.

[valsa]

Emmiedahl is correct, it's used among men to insult each other because, as a man, sucking dick makes you gay.

I've never heard it applied to a woman, let alone as a negative.

[eohiken]

Is there something wrong with requesting these from a monogamous sex partner? If you are in a committed relationship and respectful of the other person's answer?

I don't understand how my husband is oppressing me by requesting one of these, just like a female is not oppressing her husband by asking for oral sex and a gay man is not oppressing his partner by having anal sex. Last time I checked, very few sex acts are stigmatized in mainstream circles, and oral/anal are not two of them. I personally don't really enjoy either, so they are not a part of our typical repertoire. And my husband is completely cool with that.

It's about the power imbalance and the direction of the request. Sexism, like racism, doesn't work uphill. A man requesting oral from a woman is different from a woman requesting oral from a man. It's about privilege and cultural gender expectations. I'm not saying it happens every time that sexual requests are tinged with sexism and privilege, just that it does happen more than most would admit. It's awfully convenient that modern (cis het) women's sexual expression mirrors exactly pornified expectations, what with the make-up and heals and waxing and push-up bras and the ever increasing list of sexual acts, yeah? Has nothing to do with complicity with the kyriarchy, of course not! It's all about individual women making individual decisions to be accomodating to blatant (cis het) male fantasy, because they choose to, natch. [/sarcasm]

[eohiken]

and being a gay man is bad because it's an emasculating act, feminizing men and all.

[valsa]

and being a gay man is bad because it's an emasculating act, feminizing men and all.

Wow, you're really stretching things.

By your logic dresses, giggling, childbirth, and makeup are all stigmatized in our culture because a man would be seen as feminine for wearing/doing any of them.

[meda]

It's about the power imbalance and the direction of the request. Sexism, like racism, doesn't work uphill. A man requesting oral from a woman is different from a woman requesting oral from a man. It's about privilege and cultural gender expectations. I'm not saying it happens every time that sexual requests are tinged with sexism and privilege, just that it does happen more than most would admit. It's awfully convenient that modern (cis het) women's sexual expression mirrors exactly pornified expectations, what with the make-up and heals and waxing and push-up bras and the ever increasing list of sexual acts, yeah? Has nothing to do with complicity with the kyriarchy, of course not! It's all about individual women making individual decisions to be accomodating to blatant (cis het) male fantasy, because they choose to, natch. [/sarcasm]

An ever increasing list of sex acts is a problem? Really? I would think that's a positive thing, and I would thank the LBGTQ community for that before I blame straight porn. Shouldn't we celebrate the fact that there is an ever increasing list of destigmatized activity to enjoy? I personally feel more degraded by the opinions of people like yourself, who seem to think that only sex I should enjoy with a man is vanilla and missionary with lots of cuddles and hearts and flowers. How is the assertion that a woman in a straight relationship that is not ecconomically, spiritually and physically abusive could only possibly enjoy certain things because she has been brainwashed by the patriarchy any less dismissive of a woman's sexual autonomy than the assertion made by many religious fundies that a "good" woman stays pure for her husband? Both positions are a complete dissmissal of a woman's agency.

I have experienced reduced agency to choose sex because of the physical violence of a partner. It was an unequivical wrong that should be condemned. To equate that sort of lack of agency to the angst that an ecconomically privleged straight woman who is not in an abusive relationship may or may not feel because her partner asks for a bj is offensive. The woman is free to say no. Her partner is free to accept her answer and stay in the relationship, or leave the relationship. The same way a woman in this case can choose to leave a relationship that is not sexually satisfying. Sexual agency in this case means that a woman can choose to engage or not in acts with her male partner. It does not mean that the woman can demand complete control of her male partner's sexual prefrences.

[valsa]

An ever increasing list of sex acts is a problem? Really? I would think that's a positive thing, and I would thank the LBGTQ community for that before I blame straight porn.

You're welcome :twisted:

[emmiedahl]

It's about the power imbalance and the direction of the request. Sexism, like racism, doesn't work uphill. A man requesting oral from a woman is different from a woman requesting oral from a man. It's about privilege and cultural gender expectations. I'm not saying it happens every time that sexual requests are tinged with sexism and privilege, just that it does happen more than most would admit. It's awfully convenient that modern (cis het) women's sexual expression mirrors exactly pornified expectations, what with the make-up and heals and waxing and push-up bras and the ever increasing list of sexual acts, yeah? Has nothing to do with complicity with the kyriarchy, of course not! It's all about individual women making individual decisions to be accomodating to blatant (cis het) male fantasy, because they choose to, natch. [/sarcasm]

I don't see how a heterosexual couple discussing things that they would enjoy and asking their sex partner if they are interested is somehow anti-feminist. There are a few things I would enjoy that my husband is uncomfortable with, and vice versa. If anything, he is more willing to put aside his own reservations in bed. I am sorry if I oppress everyone by engaging in the slightest of kink. Are you going to tell me now that my vibrator is a tool of the patriarchy? :roll:

I think the balance of power between men and women in general is skewed, but it is *not* skewed in my relationship, nor in any good relationship. I have to leave a very flawed society outside the bedroom door and deal with my own partner as a non-oppressor. My husband does not oppress or abuse me, period, end of story, therefore he is well within the realm of feminist masculinity to tell me he enjoys blow jobs and is that something I would also enjoy?

[2xx1xy1JD]

An ever increasing list of sex acts is a problem? Really? I would think that's a positive thing, and I would thank the LBGTQ community for that before I blame straight porn. Shouldn't we celebrate the fact that there is an ever increasing list of destigmatized activity to enjoy? I personally feel more degraded by the opinions of people like yourself, who seem to think that only sex I should enjoy with a man is vanilla and missionary with lots of cuddles and hearts and flowers. How is the assertion that a woman in a straight relationship that is not ecconomically, spiritually and physically abusive could only possibly enjoy certain things because she has been brainwashed by the patriarchy any less dismissive of a woman's sexual autonomy than the assertion made by many religious fundies that a "good" woman stays pure for her husband? Both positions are a complete dissmissal of a woman's agency.

I have experienced reduced agency to choose sex because of the physical violence of a partner. It was an unequivical wrong that should be condemned. To equate that sort of lack of agency to the angst that an ecconomically privleged straight woman who is not in an abusive relationship may or may not feel because her partner asks for a bj is offensive. The woman is free to say no. Her partner is free to accept her answer and stay in the relationship, or leave the relationship. The same way a woman in this case can choose to leave a relationship that is not sexually satisfying. Sexual agency in this case means that a woman can choose to engage or not in acts with her male partner. It does not mean that the woman can demand complete control of her male partner's sexual prefrences.

Ditto.

By all means, make sure that all women and girls know that they have the power to say no, the power to choose whether or not to be in an intimate relationship, the power to choose their sexual partner and the power to leave the relationship.

At that point, what an adult woman does in bed in her own business.

Merely asking for a sexual act from a partner is in no way, shape or form wrong. Threatening or coercing are wrong. Keeping women artificially dependent on men is wrong, and so is telling women that they have a duty to please their men and ignore their own wants and needs. Merely asking, though, is part of a little process known as communication, and it's essential in any good, non-abusive relationship.

[Alecto]

I think the balance of power between men and women in general is skewed, but it is *not* skewed in my relationship, nor in any good relationship. I have to leave a very flawed society outside the bedroom door and deal with my own partner as a non-oppressor. My husband does not oppress or abuse me, period, end of story, therefore he is well within the realm of feminist masculinity to tell me he enjoys blow jobs and is that something I would also enjoy?

My partner is probably more educated on privilege than I am. We have a very equal relationship, and he is secure in knowing in a few years, I will have far more economic power than he will have. What we do in our bedroom is our own damn business. I don't take kindly to folks trying to treat me like I am too dumb to know what I am doing.

[BlackHawk]

It's about the power imbalance and the direction of the request. Sexism, like racism, doesn't work uphill. A man requesting oral from a woman is different from a woman requesting oral from a man. It's about privilege and cultural gender expectations. I'm not saying it happens every time that sexual requests are tinged with sexism and privilege, just that it does happen more than most would admit. It's awfully convenient that modern (cis het) women's sexual expression mirrors exactly pornified expectations, what with the make-up and heals and waxing and push-up bras and the ever increasing list of sexual acts, yeah? Has nothing to do with complicity with the kyriarchy, of course not! It's all about individual women making individual decisions to be accomodating to blatant (cis het) male fantasy, because they choose to, natch. [/sarcasm]

So I'm learning about feminism as it correlates to FJ.. and I have a couple questions.

I understand you only included cis-hetero issues here but I just wanna clarify some things. You stated "A man requesting oral from a woman is different from a woman requesting oral from a man". So in a bed room, if a man asks a committed, loving partner to give him oral he is wrong, a product of the patriarchy, and a horrible for trying to put his privilege on his partner. But if a woman asks a man to give her oral, she is okay and a true feminist? If a woman chooses, of her own free will, to wear heals or a pushup bra, she is a product of the patriarchy. Even if she makes these decisions on her own, of her own free will, she is not intelligent enough because all she knows is doing things for men... even if she doesn't believe she is.

I'm having a hard time understanding how this is a thing that favors women... if this is the feminist view point. I'm sure some witty retort will come up that my half irish/half native american gay male privilege is clouding my view as I'm a product of the patriarchy... but I don't see how a group can totally dismiss people in it's own group saying they aren't doing it right by doing things different from how they would do it... And yes, it's as confusing to me as that sentence is to you.

I'm not snarking... I'm trying to learn. Deelaem, bless her heart, annoys the fuck out of me, so I'm hoping a few feminists can help me understand how the above is true.

(I do wanna say before being jumped on, obvious there are different types of feminists, and feminism means something different to everyone. I fully support women's rights, so by some that makes me a feminist. There is a reason I specified feminism as it relates to FJ, not the world. And there are many types of feminists that post on these boards.)

[Witsec1]

Wow, you're really stretching things.

By your logic dresses, giggling, childbirth, and makeup are all stigmatized in our culture because a man would be seen as feminine for wearing/doing any of them.

Yes, but they are stigmatized - in a complex way. Pregnant women are infantilized, dressing and acting in a stereotypical way are seen as incompatible with holding power. Look at what's his name gay fashion critic called Hillary Clinton "uncomfortable with her gender" (!!!) for wearing pantsuits. And absolutely the stigma of gayness is that it pushes "maleness" down into the muck of "femaleness" The Bible injunction against homosexuality is against "lying with a man as you would a woman" or some such wording. In ancient Greece, adult males who continued to enjoy being penetrated by other males were stigmatized, but the other partner was not stigmatized.

This thread has turned out to be a much more interesting discussion than whether Dan Savage is a dick. I don't know much about him, but enough to put him in the category of Dr. Laura, et. al. where pretty much their whole business model is making outrageous judgmental statements and basking in the publicity. Dan Savage is more often on "my" side compared to the others, but it's still the same toxic model. I try not to pay too much attention.

[nimerha]

Yes, but they are stigmatized - in a complex way. Pregnant women are infantilized, dressing and acting in a stereotypical way are seen as incompatible with holding power. Look at what's his name gay fashion critic called Hillary Clinton "uncomfortable with her gender" (!!!) for wearing pantsuits. And absolutely the stigma of gayness is that it pushes "maleness" down into the muck of "femaleness" The Bible injunction against homosexuality is against "lying with a man as you would a woman" or some such wording. In ancient Greece, adult males who continued to enjoy being penetrated by other males were stigmatized, but the other partner was not stigmatized.

(huh, who wants to slap said fashion critic on behalf of the queers??)

I'd also add that a large part of the gay stigma - and possibly the main problem many (straight) men seem to have with gay men is that suddenly there is a potential sexual aggressor looking at them, attracted to them without them wanting or consenting to it (women don't count, of course), and they don't know how to handle it. Otherwise, I don't believe that another group of men removing themselves from sexual competition and voluntarily giving up the position of power might would inspire such hate and violence.

The fact that men had, historically, said position of power, and women were viewed as weaker because they were physically weaker in more than one way is unquestionable and perfectly logical. I'm only interested in the history of inequality to the point where examining is a tool of deconstructing and changing the situation, though, as we live in a society where all genders and gender expressions should be equal, were we not carrying this historical baggage. As far as my personal and intimate life go, I believe in behaving as if that was, already, the case.

[CanadianHippie]

So I'm learning about feminism as it correlates to FJ.. and I have a couple questions.

I understand you only included cis-hetero issues here but I just wanna clarify some things. You stated "A man requesting oral from a woman is different from a woman requesting oral from a man". So in a bed room, if a man asks a committed, loving partner to give him oral he is wrong, a product of the patriarchy, and a horrible for trying to put his privilege on his partner. But if a woman asks a man to give her oral, she is okay and a true feminist? If a woman chooses, of her own free will, to wear heals or a pushup bra, she is a product of the patriarchy. Even if she makes these decisions on her own, of her own free will, she is not intelligent enough because all she knows is doing things for men... even if she doesn't believe she is.

I'm having a hard time understanding how this is a thing that favors women... if this is the feminist view point. I'm sure some witty retort will come up that my half irish/half native american gay male privilege is clouding my view as I'm a product of the patriarchy... but I don't see how a group can totally dismiss people in it's own group saying they aren't doing it right by doing things different from how they would do it... And yes, it's as confusing to me as that sentence is to you.

I'm not snarking... I'm trying to learn. Deelaem, bless her heart, annoys the fuck out of me, so I'm hoping a few feminists can help me understand how the above is true.

(I do wanna say before being jumped on, obvious there are different types of feminists, and feminism means something different to everyone. I fully support women's rights, so by some that makes me a feminist. There is a reason I specified feminism as it relates to FJ, not the world. And there are many types of feminists that post on these boards.)

It's only true in the-world-according-to-a-specific-type-of-feminist. Most feminists don't believe that. Most feminists follow along with what 2xx1xy1JD said here: particularly what is in bold.

Merely asking for a sexual act from a partner is in no way, shape or form wrong. Threatening or coercing are wrong. Keeping women artificially dependent on men is wrong, and so is telling women that they have a duty to please their men and ignore their own wants and needs. Merely asking, though, is part of a little process known as communication, and it's essential in any good, non-abusive relationship.

But then again, this is just my view of things as a Deelaem-proclaimed sexist.