Humiliation or Affirmation?

This one is about to be about porn and sex. Tread carefully.

I'm liking this piece by Hugo Schwyzer right here.

Its a post on why it may be a bit presumptive to go straight to "he wants to degrade and humiliate her" as to the reason men want to give women facials (facial: ejaculating on your partner's face). A bit of background on the origins of the facial.

Glickman suggests that the AIDS crisis and the concern with safer sex was what made the facial popular. "Cum on me, not in me" was a popular sex educator slogan as far back as the late 1980s. Ejaculating on a woman's stomach, however, usually meant that the camera wouldn't let the audience see the actress' expression. But if the male actor came on her face, the viewer could see two things at once: evidence of male pleasure (symbolized by the ejaculation) and the equally important sign that a woman's reaction to that pleasure mattered. With sex now so dangerous — and HIV particularly likely to be spread through semen — facials were relatively "safe." But in the era of AIDS, they were also compelling visual evidence that a woman wasn't threatened by a man's semen. In that sense facials were, almost from the start, more about women's acceptance of men's bodies than about women's degradation.

I think this is a plausible explanation that could serve as an almost polar opposite of the "humiliation/degradation" view on facials.

I've talked about how many view male sexuality as dirty before. I wonder if the "humiliation/degradation" crowd are starting from the destructive premise that since male sexuality is dirty then giving a woman a facial is a way to "make her dirty". Just like with other sex acts the facial may be seen by such people as another way that a "pure woman" is made "dirty" by having sexual contact with men. Which may be why some people have a hard time with the idea that a woman may not care if a guy gives a facial and a really hard time with the idea that she may actually like it (there's a small anecdote in the article about a woman who experienced her first orgasm after getting a facial). But let's go a bit deeper.

It probably won't take much effort to realize that a lot of males think that their sexuality is dirty. They are sex hungry brutes that need to have sex with as many women as possible as fast as possible (its a sign that they're "real men" right?). So what if a male thought that the sight of a woman letting him ejaculate on her face and not freaking out about how "disgusting he is" was a form of acceptance? A sign that she wasn't repulsed by a part of him. Proof that she is okay with coming in contact with semen. Because let's face it (see what I did there) if a woman is letting you cum on her face then that probably means she trusts you if for no other reason than a lot of bad stuff can be transmitted through semen to skin contact.

And yes I said "letting him". This is contingent on consent. There is nothing wrong with a woman that doesn't want a guy to ejaculate on her face. She could have any number of reasons from having a traumatic experience, to she's allergic to it, to even the idea that she thinks its disgusting (and yes its entirely possible for her think semen is disgusting while not thinking the guy its coming from is disgusting) for not wanting it done but those are neither here nor there. Also more than likely a guy that's looking for affirmation, validation, and TRUST will be respectful enough to take a woman at her word when she says she doesn't want a facial.

That bit about trust will eliminate from this line of thought any guys that actually get off on doing it to her for their own pleasure whether she wants to or not and in their sick minds her not wanting it is a usually a bonus. They are in it for the lack of consent (notice that they don't even ask or do it anyway after she says no), humiliation (because there aren't many things that will generate humiliation more than having something done to you against your will), degradation (thinking that them doing it to you anyway is a sign that you are beneath them) and who knows what else. So bear this in mind.

In any case, humiliation and affirmation aren't incompatible reactions to the same act; a feeling of indignity when your partner ejaculates on your face isn't contingent on his intending to demean you.

In short the fact that you find facials to be disgusting doesn't automatically translate into "he wants to do it to humiliate me".

Personally I think that this could hold true for guys that want to ejaculate on a woman's face but don't want to do it to humiliate her, who are probably operating from the thought that if she is being humiliated (and I don't mean "she gets off on being treated that way but its consensual" I mean "she just had her boundaries violated in a serious way") then she's not going to want to be with him. What person wants to be with some that doesn't respect them?

Two things I want to add:
1. I'm not trying to pass this off as proof that no guy has ever wanted to give a woman a facial for sole purpose of humiliating her. Yes there are jerks out there like that.

2. Despite this being written in terms of man ejaculating on woman this could probably be applied to any (and I can't believe I'm about to say this) ejaculator/ejaculatee relationship. In fact I think the existence of facials in male/male porn challenges the assumptions that facials are about humiliating women, as the article notes. (unless you're one of those folks that traces everyone back to a hatred of women).

The only good touches for men are sexual?

Yes I am still in this world. Its just that while I was in the hospital with my dad last week it was all I had to continue my own blog. But don't worry he's good and now the show continues.

(Normally I keep my personal stuff at my place but I think this is just too big to presume that I'm the only guy that feels this way.)

I've been on a bit of a self diagnostic kick lately and have been reminded of another part of me that's probably a bit lacking.

Last week titfortat told me:

You can a have a Massage at our wellness clinic(on the house). It sounds like you could use one. :)

To which I responded with:

That's another one of my oddities. I don't do a whole lot of that human contact stuff. Its not that I have a phobia or anything that limits it it just doesn't happen.

Well I was going to revisit this later on but Ozy's touched on it a bit so now's as good a time as any.

Virginal men, especially if they don’t have romantic relationships, are often touch-starved. There is one acceptable way for men to get touched: sexually. Casual cuddles with friends are Not Allowed. Woo, homophobia!

For the most part growing up with the script of being a man shoved down our throats most of us were raised with some odd messages with regards to touch. When we're young touching is fine among family but even that has a shelf life (I'm betting I'm not the only one that kinda shied away from physical contact with even my parents as I hit my teen years). Once the teen years hit it seems that out of nowhere the only acceptable type of touching is in a romantic or sexual way. Well for those of us who are not touching or getting touched in those "appropriate" ways things can get pretty lonesome.

As I was telling titfortat in the comments of that post I've never had a massage before. Well it actually goes beyond laying on a table wrapped in a towel and getting rubbed down. In a short bit of thinking I can only count 2 times in my life that I've ever been touched in a massaging manner in a non professional setting. Hell the only time I hug people is when the other person reaches for me first.

But anyway when it comes to being a man and touching it just seems that that, like most other, line of emotional support is forbidden to us as a part of how we are conditioned to fulfill our role in The System. No we are supposed to rock hard stoic creatures in order to charge forth and do all that we can to make The System stronger (namely in the way of labor as external providers). Because really what kind of "real man" would look for emotional support when should be out there making some faceless power structure more money that it knows what to do with (well at least it knows not to actually include the people whose backs were broken for that profit).

Maybe that's the point of "allowing" us touching for sexual and romantic purposes. A little outlet so that we don't get totally touch-starved, as Ozy says. Well when tying the only "appropriate" touching to something like relationships and sex that leaves a lot of guys hanging. Guys who just don't feel like being in relationships. Guys who do have little to no success in relationships. Guys who aren't interested in relationships with women (because let's face it even among "appropriate" touching for guys gay guys still get pissed on in terms of displays of touching and affection). Guys who are soul crushingly shy when it comes to expressing desire for affection.

Come on I know I'm not the only thinking about touching and guys (okay some of us may be thinking about touching guys right now but that's cool too). Don't be scared to share.

A few questions about porn

Who doesn't like talking about sex and porn? I originally started asking these questions a few weeks ago.

1. Do you find that scene to be degrading to the person on the bottom, and by extension degrading to people of any demographics that person may be a part of? Why or why not?

2. Would you say that that man likes degrading women? And by extension would go as far as to say that since he is into that that would be a sign that he does not respect women in general? (This question is in regard to a specific porn scenario so go read the whole post to understand the context.)

3. Why are people so hung up and hell bent on trying to use someone's (especially men's) sexual proclivities as an indicator of their personality?

4. Would you like to share any childhood/pre-sexual experiences that they think influenced their adult predispositions? (Tip of the Fro to Easily Enthused on that one. Also there are some ground rules on this one. They apply over here too.)

Feel free to chime in either over here or back over at my place on these. I look forward to any input.

"Hookup culture" and judging women

A recent post by Jaclyn Friedman about how embracing a "slutty" lifestyle in the midst of searching for a monogamous relationship has been healing for her has sparked several debates in the blogosphere about "hookup culture" and young women's role in it.

Jaclyn's piece is a personal narrative about how, after a particularly rough breakup, she turns to casual sex to ease her loneliness while searching for that "perfect" monogamous relationship that she still hopes to have:

Last summer, I suffered the breakup of a relationship that I had thought would be permanent. Now, I’ve been through my share of break-ups, even of quite serious relationships, but nothing ever broke me like this one.

Since then, I’ve had sexual interactions of the orgasmic kind with 9 different people, none of which I was at any time in a committed relationship with.

I’m not telling you this to shock (though I am specifying the number because we all need to get over the whole “OMG! Be ashamed of your NUMBER! It’s either too big or too small!” thing). I’m telling you this because of something else that’s also true about me: I’d really like to be in a long-term, probably monogamous relationship. That’s right, folks, I’m a slut who craves a stable, loving, committed relationship. File me under “Lookin’ fer luv: ur doin it wrong.”

I agree with Jaclyn. Casual sex and a desire for a monogamous relationship are not mutually exclusive, and should stop being treated as such. Susan Walsh, who blogs about hook up culture and the dangers that this seeming cultural mandate poses for young women, responded to Jaclyn's post:

Thing is: Relationship science is hard science. Oxytocin is not some disinformation cooked up by the evil patriarchy. It’s a chemical that floods your body after sex, during breastfeeding, and through the early months of motherhood. Men also experience it, though its effect is tamped down somewhat by testosterone. The effects of sex hormones are bound to reside on a spectrum. Some women may produce less, which leads to less emotional attachment. Some men are suckers for oxytocin, and love spooning after sex. Anyone who regularly dismisses a large body of peer-reviewed academic studies in this area is as ridiculous as a member of the Flat Earth Society.

As for self-esteem, the answer to her question is yes. One may love, and pity, a person with low self-esteem. But a healthy, robust, falling in love experience with such a person is surely impossible. How can we fall in love with someone who is wearing a big virtual sandwich board that says “I’m a lemon! Damaged goods! Everything in this bin is 50 cents!”

I was with Walsh until the second paragraph. I'm not just sympathetic to the idea that we shouldn't discuss women's worth as though it is inherently tied to their sexuality; I'm adamantly opposed to it, and completely disgusted whenever I hear someone do it. That said, if you feel similarly, I recommend not reading the comments on her post. A few of the commenters there are maddeningly ignorant, judgmental, and mean simply for the sake of it. Not to mention unabashedly sexist.

It's disgusting to discuss a woman like this because it reduces a person to the status of a commodity that literally loses value after each "use." And while I don't believe it's okay to reduce any person to such a status, I find it particularly infuriating that this conversation is constantly centered around women's sexuality. We're the only ones being told we're not going to be "pure" enough for a man to love us, with all of our self-worth being tied into our preferred method of sexual expression.

And, while biological differences between most males and most females undeniably affect our behavior and other parts of who we are in significant ways, biology does not turn women into valueless things as a result of engaging in certain, or too many, sexual encounters. Oxytocin may be powerful, but it isn't a magical substance that literally turns us rotten after being used too many times, with the "wrong" people, or under the wrong circumstances.

Meanwhile, Friedman continues her piece explaining how she got to the point of the "healing" casual sexual encounters. She decided, after a series of failed dating attempts, that she'd try Craigslist Casual Encounters, and describes meeting someone who seems to be pretty dreamy:

And then B. responded. He was smart and charming. His picture looked cute. He seemed like a grown-up, and not like a psycho. He knew how to banter. He made a funny joke about punctuation. And, after a few emails were exchanged, he wanted to know if I’d like to meet him for a drink. That night. Then. And, to my great shock and terror and excitement, I found that I did. (What writer can resist a good punctuation joke?)
...
we spent a lovely hour chatting over a couple of glasses of wine, he used the phrase “male hegemony” critically in a sentence (entirely unprompted by me), and then he asked me if I wanted to go back to his place, which was nearby. And once again, to my shock and terror and excitement, I found that I did. Though not before asking him for his address, calling my roommate with it in front of him, and letting him know I had extensive self-defense training.

Reader, I fucked him. Three rounds worth that night. And it was awesome.

This sounds pretty fantastic. Everything worked out well, and they had a great time in the sack. But, as she shares with us, it didn't work out:

In other ways, too, sluthood isn’t always pretty, and I’m not always good at it. Whether from years of habit or something more intrinsic to my personality, my heart seems to want to attach, and after a couple months of playing together casually, and having long, rangey talks naked in bed together between rolls in the hay, it started to with B. Neither of us handled it particularly well. There were tears; there were accusations. But even that was an education: somehow, the conflict that erupted demonstrated so clearly the ways we wouldn’t work together in a more serious arrangement, leaving us free to pick up where we’d left off as lovers. A thread in a needle in a haystack, I suppose.

Friedman also shares that she's been sexually assaulted in the past, and that she is, historically, a "serial monogamist" who would find herself sleeping with someone one night, and waking up in a long-term relationship with them the next morning. She displays a great deal of vulnerability to her considerable readership when she describes the heartache she felt after a breakup, and during long periods of time spent without a romantic and/or sexual partner. While I agree with Walsh's overall assessment that Friedman's post gives a pretty clear picture of an emotionally fragile and vulnerable woman who lacks a healthy amount of self-confidence, I think the answer to this problem is somewhere in between Friedman's and Walsh's points of view. Amanda Marcotte interviewed Friedman about her blog post, which made the rounds amongst the feminist blogosphere quickly. In a concluding statement, Friedman says,

...there is an entirely other way to look at sex that I think more and more people are turning on to and understanding, which is that it really is just a collaborative performance between two or more people. And it doesn’t matter what your gender is. It doesn’t matter how many people are there. It doesn’t matter if it’s anonymous. What matters is: are you both having a good time?

I can get behind parts of this "other way" of looking at sex; it is certainly possible for both women and men to have casual or otherwise non-committed sexual experiences that are enjoyable for all parties and do not cause emotional conflict. But not as the only option. And while Friedman pays lip service to the idea that traditional views on sex and relationships can have value, she really seems to be painting a picture of what she wants to believe is the ideal for all human sexuality. And she, and many others in the "sex-positive" camp, are making it seem like this is the only way that we should strive to engage with each other sexually, that anything more than casual, nonchalant sex is passe or repressed. That's not the official stance of the movement, but it comes out sounding like it in popular culture, and that can be dangerous for a young woman to read, believe, and attempt if she isn't really going to enjoy a sex life of that nature.

It seems to me that the arguments forming over this idea that women can engage in casual sex, or "hook up culture," are missing the point. The point isn't that women are by nature incapable of enjoying or benefiting from casual sexual relationships. It's not that casual sexual relationships are always (or ever) healing or healthy. It's not that men all want sex and women all want (monogamous) relationships (with men).

What's really important, and what's been missing all along from this dialogue, is the importance of each person being completely sure, ready, and enthusiastic about the sexual encounter; it's about honesty and communication between partners, and ensuring that the people involved have the same goals. Of course a sexual relationship will end in heartache and pain for a woman if she's having sex in order to form a monogamous relationship with a person who isn't interested in the same thing. This isn't rocket science, and need not be debated so ferociously. And if it turns out that, after having done some soul-searching and getting to know oneself means that, ultimately, fewer women will be engaging in non-committed sexual relationships, then, so what? The goal shouldn't be to have as much sex as we think men are having, or in the same ways, or for the same reasons. We don't negate our goals for equality between genders or sexes by saying "no" to casual sex if we don't want to engage in it. The goal is to make sure that when we are having sex, we are doing so because it makes us happy, because we enjoy the experience, because it's something that we want. Walsh agrees with this in later comments on her post responding to Marcotte and Friedman's interview:

I do not have a negative view of sex without commitment – which is how I’ll define casual sex. In truth, I think it’s very, very difficult for women to get commitment first, and I don’t want to encourage women to embrace a strategy that will work 10% of the time. Although my discussing the sexual marketplace drives these women crazy, the truth is that there just aren’t many guys around who will commit without knowing that the hooking up is good. I also have sat around my kitchen table with girls who had positive, and sometimes hilarious, casual experiences. The ones that work best, IMO, are those where the woman has ZERO expectations for further contact, either because she doesn’t even know the guy, the geography is impossible, or she has no desire to interact with him on any other level.

That is the kind of casual sex I had in my own youth, and I never once felt badly about myself afterwards.

While I'd disagree with the broad generalizations of men's intentions that Walsh employs, I agree wholeheartedly that a casual sexual encounter between two (or more) people who have the same goals and the same desires is not doomed to end in heartbreak. I also believe, though, that there are many, many men who don't want casual hookups, and are more interested in committed relationships. In my experience, which I don't consider to be particularly unusual, the majority of men I have dated in the past and know now are only interested in committed relationships.

It's not about policing anyone's sexuality or expression; there is not an objective good or bad way to express sexuality. There is no universal sexual behavior or desire that we should all strive to achieve. It's about learning how to identify what you, as a person, want and need, and acting accordingly. We shouldn't be arguing about how, when, and with whom other women should be expressing their sexuality; this is pointless. We should be focusing on how to ensure that young women are equipped with the tools needed to make sound decisions about her own sexuality, for herself.

Gender and TV/Movie Violence

Hey people its Danny again. Its been a few weeks since my last post so let's get to it.

I'll warn you now this post mentions rape. Tread carefully.

Okay recently I've been milling over two posts by Pelle Billing about male disposability. Well one thing that I've noticed about male disposability is that it can and sometimes does lead to the belief that a man's life is worth less than a woman's and from there can lead to the impression that violence against woman is somehow worse than violence against a man.

Case in point I was watching an old western movie called "Five Savage Men". Basically five bandits rob a stagecoach that is carrying a load of gold. When they catch up to it the men are killed immediately and after resisting one of the two women was killed (one of the five bandits was actually on the coach meaning it was an inside job). The other woman was taken hostage. I noticed that as the men on the coach were killed I really didn't feel any concern for their fate. However when the one woman was killed I suddenly cared about the fact that they killed a woman.

After taking the other woman to their camp and after attempting to escape she was chased down and gang raped by the five bandits. Again I felt the expected concern for such a situation. Well like with the killing I began to wonder how I can see a crime be committed against a man and a woman but somehow think that the crime against the woman is somehow worse.

At first I was thinking that desensitization was the answer. On the whole when it comes to seeing murder on tv/movies I frankly I see men killed more often than women.* So maybe the reason I felt more when seeing a woman killed than a man was because I had just gotten used to seeing men killed left and right. Well that really doesn't fly because of two reasons. One even though they aren't killed quite as often as men there are still A LOT of women killed in movies and television. The second reason that thought fails me is that when looking at a crime in that happens to women more often than men I still feel more concern for the female victim.

Let's talk rape for a bit. After being taken to the bandit camp the second woman was gang raped. Now there is no question that when it comes to movies and tv the majority of rape victims are women. Now going by the thought of seeing it so often that it no longer strikes a cord it would stand to reason that seeing a woman raped on tv or in a movie would not illicit much of a response like my reaction to seeing men murdered. But that is not the case. Even comparing that rape scene to say the one in American History X it feels odd to react that way.

For the scene in "Five Savage Men" imagine a camera laying on the ground the five guys doing pushups with their faces going up and down into the camera. The scene ended with showing her unconscious and tied to the ground to five stakes (one on each wrist and ankle and one with her hair tied around it). In American History X two guys are holding him face first against the wall while the rapist penetrates him and you could see everything except the actual penetration itself (I mean as in the four men in this scene were actually naked and the rapist was at least forcefully grinding against his victim giving the allusion of sex). That scene ends with the victim lying on the ground crying with a pool of his blood washing down the drain (it happened in a prison shower). But even with the differing depictions I had more of a response to the scene of the woman being raped.

So I'm left wondering why whether the crime is more likely to happen to a man or woman I'm still inclined to have more of a response to the woman victim.

Any ideas?



* - No I am not trying to say/insinuate/imply or whatever that women are not killed that often in entertainment but frankly men are killed more often. If you look at most of your shows and movies that involve death you'll see it. In fact the movie that made me think of this is a western. I dare you try to say that women are killed more often that men in westerns.

So does that make me straight curious as well?

Hey folks this is Danny (aka sanguinedream) from Danny's Corner and I've been invited to become a contributor here and I just could not refuse.

Since Cacophonies seems to be up for a wide range of topics I'm gonna go left field for a bit and talk about sexuality for my introduction.

I'm sure you are more than likely familiar with the term "bi-curious" right? If not it refers to one is generally identifies as heterosexual or homosexual but has curiosities about romantic or sexual activities with people of the same (if you're heterosexual) or opposite (if you're homosexual) gender. So to be curious about romance or sex of the orientation opposite of what you identify with there is the implication that you have never done such things before. So what if you have no sexual or romantic experience?

I've called myself heterosexual for the vast majority of my life. Checking women out. Paying attention to women in porn (but not lesbian porn but that is another story for another day). Fantasizing about women. Par for the course for a heterosexual man (or homosexual woman) right? However about five years ago I opened up to thoughts about homosexuality. Checking men out. Paying attention to men in porn. Fantasizing about men. Par for the course for a homosexual men (or heterosexual woman) right?

Thing is I have no experience in either one.

So based on the fact that I have no experience in heterosexual or homosexual romance/sex does that mean that I'm in some weird limbo in which I'm straight curious and gay curious at the same time? Or can I just call it simply curious since without any experience I'm still at the starting point of discovering my sexuality? Just wondering.