Q: I'm not quite sure what you were arguing there is it that we shouldn't watch porn because other people are uneducated? Or porn shouldn't be produced? I'm not trying to mis-characterize, I just think I'm misunderstanding your position.
You say that a woman who fantasizes about rape "is more likely a sub fantasizing about complete domination", but I see no evidence to support that any more or less than men fantasizing about rape likely being dominants fantasizing about submission.
You also argue that the availability of porn that's deemed inappropriate by people that don't enjoy it demonstrates that it's what's desired by most men, and that it's the source of the pressure women feel to participate in elective cosmetic surgeries, but you don't really make that connection very well. What makes you think it's pornography and not the sudden scientific advances that are driving demand for cosmetic surgery?
Re: this post discussing porn.
The author was suggesting that porn itself isn’t a problem; it’s the lack of sexual discussion. She goes further to suggest that anti-porn feminists have misguided ideas, because they are simply sexually repressed and fail to understand the diversity of sexual desires. That’s a fairly condescending conclusion. I can agree that porn itself is not a problem, though I feel that statement is irrelevant. Porn does not exist in a vacuum, and any discussion of porn should account for the context in which porn is produced and consumed. The author seems to acknowledge this by identifying the context of poor education on sexuality as the problem. While that is certainly an issue, the context is much greater.
I agree with you on my statement about the way men and women each fantasize about rape. It could go either way, and I could have phrased it as such. Still, the author spends some time attacking anti-porn feminists’ objection to rape porn, saying we fail to understand that people fantasize about 100% consensual rape. My problem is that there is no such thing as 100% consensual rape. I have no doubt that both men and women fantasize about rape, and I have no problem when people act out their own mutually consensual desires. However, rape porn is selling the fantasy of non-consent. The sexualization of rape in our culture, increasingly evident in advertising and film, is discomforting, and I don’t think that discomfort should be blamed on sexual repression. Again, rape porn shouldn’t be presented as harmless fantasy while ignoring the context: 1 in 6 women are raped and then often blamed. Many women really just don’t want to be raped, and they might have very reasonable concerns when the abuse of women is promoted for profit. The fact that some women fantasize about rape doesn’t make rape as public entertainment any more acceptable.
I wasn’t arguing that porn leads to elective cosmetic surgery, which might be why the connection didn’t seem to be made well. But just because there hasn’t been much research in this area doesn’t mean we should just go about happily consuming porn without considering the possibility of some pretty negative consequences. I honestly don’t know the facts, but I highly, highly doubt that many women undergo dangerous and expensive procedures simply because they are available. The demand for breast augmentation, for example, has risen while costs have also risen. I think it’s fair to consider that many women may undergo all sorts of physical augmentation because of pressure to conform to societal beauty standards. And producers aren’t stupid; whatever is mainstream is generally what is most desired. While porn only represents one form of imposed beauty standards, it may be the one that women feel the most pressure to compete with, since it’s the one that many men use for sexual gratification.
Basically, I felt that the author’s message was confusing. She made a sound but invalid argument. I agree with the premise: porn itself isn’t a problem, society is. Okay, but the conclusion doesn’t follow: so let’s criticize anti-porn feminism and make/watch more porn? Instead, porn should only become acceptable once society is fixed. When sexism isn’t so pervasive, when rape and abuse aren’t promoted in everyday media, when victims aren’t blamed, when conventionally beautiful women aren’t considered incompetent, when less than conventionally beautiful women aren’t considered worthless, and when the value of women in society isn’t evaluated based mainly on their suitability as sexual partners. I fully do not understand any pro-porn stance arguing that the solution to some of these problems might be more porn. Again, when these situations are corrected, then porn should be just fine, and it will likely be very different from the current mainstream. Until then, I don’t support censorship, though I sure do wish there were less demand. And I don’t mind trying to get people to think about their choices in a likely futile attempt to reduce that demand.
“So how can I have sympathy for anti-porn feminists? Only because I remember how I felt just a few years ago. I remember that I felt so confused about my own sexuality; I remember how resentful I felt, that sex seemed so easy for men—that the world seemed to facilitate their sex drives so thoroughly, particularly by providing all this porn!I remember how hurt I felt by porn, because I believed that it represented “what men want”, and that therefore I was “supposed” to act like porn women—even though the way women acted in porn didn’t appeal to me at all. I remember how scared I felt, when I believed that rape porn reflected “all men’s desires”, and concluded that “all men secretly would love to commit rape”. The porn that I’d seen felt as though it set the standard for my sexual behavior, and I hated that standard, but I didn’t see a way out. Because even with all my liberal, sex-positive sex education, there were serious flaws in my knowledge about sex. Not to mention the fact that I hadn’t yet wrapped my mind around the concept of fully-negotiated, 100% consensual rape fantasy sex.
And that’s really the heart of the problem with porn: that is, the problem is not porn in itself at all. The problem is bad sex education. The problem is that all Americans are subjected to sexual mores that shame sex; that refuse to talk honestly about sex; that claim we shouldn’t be having sex at all. The problem is that millions of people are too ashamed and afraid and repressed to talk or think seriously about their sexual desires. That millions of people don’t recognize the diversity of sexual desire. And, therefore, that millions of people’s primary source of information about sexuality is highly stylized mainstream porn.”
— Sympathy For the Anti-Porn Feminists | CarnalNation (via sexisnottheenemy)
Those poor, clueless anti-porn feminists are just ashamed of sex and uncomfortable with their own sexualities. So different people have different sexual desires, and there are different types of porn out there? Time to reevaluate everything in light of this refreshing insight.
Is the problem that anti-porn feminists remain uneducated in a society that shames sex, and that they react negatively to depictions of ‘freaky’ sex? The author really only refers to rape fantasy porn. While porn viewing may not increase sexual violence toward women, rape cannot be 100% consensual by definition. A man fantasizing about rape is not fantasizing about a consenting woman, and a woman fantasizing about rape is more likely a sub fantasizing about complete domination. This is different from rape; women don’t get to choose their rapists. She’s not likely considering the leering STD-ridden uncle. So it seems reasonable that some feminists might have a problem with rape porn.
Is the problem instead that anti-porn feminists mistakenly believe mainstream porn represents all male desire? Of course different people have different desires, but those highly stylized images of women wouldn’t be ubiquitous if there weren’t a large demand. Positive feedback can create even larger demand from people repeatedly viewing those images. It’s possible that men viewing mainstream porn don’t transfer unrealistic desires to their partners. However, those women drastically altering their bodies and behaviors must be feeling pressure from somewhere, and it seems unfair to suggest that the fault lies only with them and their insecurities.
Or is the problem that everyone is uneducated about sex, and they thus take misguided cues from unrealistic mainstream porn? In that case, it only follows that porn is acceptable when everyone receives comprehensive sex education elsewhere. Furthermore, in a society that continually finds it funny to strip women of humanity, is the commoditization of women appropriate, even when consensual? One thing porn can do is enable both men and women to view uninvolved women as sex objects without their consent:
These findings are also consistent with a wide range of work showing that objectified women are perceived as less competent. Interestingly, research even finds that when men view sexualized pictures of women, they subsequently view a female experimenter as doing a worse job. In other words, men “carried over” their views of the sexualized women to another woman, who was not scantily dressed. (source and references)
If we actually lived in an egalitarian society, where women were truly viewed as social and intellectual equals, and their worths weren’t primarily judged by appearance and sexual potential, then all kinds of consensual porn would seem perfectly acceptable. But we don’t. Not yet.
![thedailywhat:
[image: reddit.]
I’ll gladly cook up my ova if philosoraptor bakes something with his nuts.
I ignore the cleavage and hottie links, and I don’t care for Katy Perry, but The Daily Wh.at is on a roll with the misogynist images today.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l9a6y2YAwu1qzpwi0o1_r1_500.jpg)
[image: reddit.]
I’ll gladly cook up my ova if philosoraptor bakes something with his nuts.
I ignore the cleavage and hottie links, and I don’t care for Katy Perry, but The Daily Wh.at is on a roll with the misogynist images today.
From this evening’s NBC Nightly News: For the first time women outnumber men in both the workplace (as men have been hit disproportionately hard by lay-offs) and at the nation’s universities as students. The wage gap between men and women is at an all-time low; women now make a record eighty-three cents for every dollar a man makes. White females have seen wages go up 32% in the last three decades, African-American females have seen wages rise 23% in the same period, and Hispanic women have seen wages go up 18%. For white men, wages have only increased 3% during the last thirty years, African-American men have seen no wage increases in the same period, and Hispanic males have seen wages decrease by 6% in the same thirty-year period.
What I’m trying to say here: Anyone bleating about male privilege can shove that notion up their ignorant, sexist ass.
Too frequently, the words “privilege” and “derailing” are thrown out to avoid addressing valid points and questions (though certainly not all points are valid). However, I’m unclear what that issue has to do with the first paragraph. The post is tagged “privilege myth”, so if the point is that male privilege is nonexistent because men and women are equal, then it seems important to point out that 83=/=100. If the point is that there is no benefit to being male, because women’s wages are rising while men’s wages are stagnating, then again it’s important to point out that men still make more money than women, even in an economy that has hit men harder.
This post, about women now earning more doctoral degrees than men, is also tagged with “privilege myth”. Both the increases in wages and educational attainment are great improvements for women. Does this mean that there’s no longer an advantage to being male? Why are more women than men going for graduate degrees? Perhaps women need to work much harder, including getting more advanced degrees, in order to earn the same as men. The most recent data from the US Census shows that the median income for men earning graduate or professional degrees is $79,276, while median income for women with the same level of education is $52,301. That’s about 66 cents on the dollar. And this is among wage earners, so no women quitting their careers to take care of a household. For women, this is somewhere between the median incomes of men with associate’s degrees and bachelor’s degrees.
The table also shows the distribution of wages for full time workers, with a well known higher proportion of men than women in the upper ranges. And it might still be fair to assume that most working women are also taking care of chores and any children. Seems ignorant to suggest that there isn’t still an advantage to being male in the US.
alexander ryking: Since the 19th Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution seems to be such a flash point because it wasn't perfect at the time...
…REALLY? Are you fucking kidding me!? So you think this is the appropriate response when women accuse you of “mansplaining”? REALLY?
I agreed with you when you were talking about the complaining in regards to the 19th amendment, I got where you were coming from, but this…
I don’t care about how you intended it. Grow the fuck up and move on. I’m sorry you felt ganged up on. I am. But posting this is absolutely offensive, regardless of your intent and it’s not really helping your first point.
I think it raises a good point: What DO women like the one who railed against the amendment want? To rehash historical wrongs ad nauseum? To dwell on the negativeinstead of embracing the positive? Is it impossible to appreciate something that’s imperfect? Is equality a joke and power a zero-sum game for all? Are white men going to be cast as the villain for the rest of eternity? Just. Fucking. Curious. — Ryking
I agree that sometimes it seems like things are never enough and no one can appreciate the accomplishments we’ve made (as in society, not women collectively) but posting this (even as a rhetorical joke) is not helping your argument and, to me, it made you look like a major tool. There’s nothing wrong with celebrating social accomplishments and there’s nothing wrong with reminding ourselves that more can be done to make the world better but making what boils down to a “sandwich joke” about revoking the 19th amendment isn’t helping your point about celebrating it when jokes like that are still made. And you (who argued we should celebrate it for the amazing accomplishment it was in the 1920s) perpetuating something like this is only helping undermine the overall accomplishment rather than celebrate it.
While I agree with many of your points, I don’t see how this sarcastic post can be taken seriously on its face (and can’t be bothered worrying about that because if I worried about people being offended I couldn’t write a fucking thing) and I don’t see that it makes me look bad but I think, despite the sarcasm, it asks a good question. Do some of the complainers think we’d be better off if the amendment never passed? I’d really like to know. — Ryking
It’s not about me being offended it’s about the damage perpetuating statements like this (regardless of intent) can do. If you really don’t see how something like this isn’t taken seriously, then you have never been to a facebook “sandwich” group, where misogynistic “jokes” like this are stated (and believed) by the men who run them. Perpetuating this idea is offensive to the passage of the 19th amendment and it implies that because women ganged up on you about your opinion they should therefore be stripped of the right to vote (in a completely joking manner of course, there’s no hint of retaliatory anger in reblogging this, it’s just a joke).
I’m not a “complainer” as you put it about the 19th amendment and brave-slut made it clear that no one was saying we’d be better off, even implying that that question was proposed is ridiculous. Women deserve the right to vote and be seen as equals, the “complainers” as you put it were merely pointing out that the passage of the 19th amendment did not include all women, which is a fact. The statement that you were originally mad about struck me the same way as it did you (I can’t remember how you put it exactly but somewhere along the lines of “I didn’t get mine so I don’t care that you got yours” or something). So, I can’t answer on behalf of the “complainers” as you put it (because I was not one of them) but reblogging this “sarcastic” question reeksof male privilege and you need to realize that. It’s undermining your original argument to reblog something somisogynistic, if you want to be listened to, if you don’t want to be accused of “mansplaining”, then reblogging shit like this is probably the worst way to go about it.
You know what? I can’t control — nor can I worry —- about what other people are going to think my “intent” was. So I don’t. Do you worry about offending anti-choice zealots? Do you curtail your arguments or refuse to stand up for yourself when someone disagrees — or even attacks — you?
And this post was not an offensive comment that was then “covered” by “just kidding” or one of the other nonsense defenses by some bigoted asshole, and if people can’t see that, that’s not my fucking problem. Again, I can’t control or worry about how people will perceive — or misperceive — things. If I did, I’d never be able to blog.
And a clarification: I wasn’t accusing you of being a complainer. As for brave-slut: She lost all credibility with me when she resorted to the gender-based insult of “mansplaining.” Don’t say you’re a feminist, decry negative behavior aimed at people on the basis of gender, and then engage in said behavior.
As for me reeking of male privilege? Everything I do will reek of male privilege in some people’s eyes; I will not let their perceptions and misperceptions of me govern how I live or how I behave on this blog. I am a gay man and will not be shoved into a closet by some humorless feminists who don’t even meet my definition of feminism, who want power and domination, not equality. I’m not talking about you, I’m talking about others.
Most Americans celebrate the Declaration of Independence each year in a parade of excess, though independence and equality were really only declared for white men. So should we put away the sparklers and bottle rockets? Probably, since fireworks are idiotic, but we would still agree that July 4th is worthy of note.
Nobody stated that the 19th Amendment was the end of feminism, that everything was achieved and we settled down happily. It was an important first step, and while women of color were mistakenly excluded, its passage helped open up opportunities for later women’s rights. Regardless of whatever is taught in schools these days, if anyone can take a look around this country and conclude that civil rights were achieved all around long ago, then he or she isn’t going to be open to much critical thought. The original quote stated, “Can we all just admit that today as the 90th anniversary of women’s right to vote is an absolute crock of shit. If all women were allowed to vote, would the 1965 Voting Rights Act have been necessary?” While it is important to note that not all women were given the right to vote, it remains important to acknowledge and appreciate the people who started the fight. A reasonable point was made that we wouldn’t be happy if the 19th Amendment were revoked. To dismiss these initial steps as a crock of shit seems a bit erroneous.
Furthermore, it seems erroneous to gang up on men who point out flaws in feminist arguments. It’s ludicrous to suggest that their arguments are invalid if they disagree with ours, simply because they come from privilege. If they make a logical point, then privilege can’t do anything to counteract that point. Like it or not, there are many white men out there, and there are a few that are thoughtful and constructive. Also, like it or not, in order for anyone to have equal rights, mostly white men will be making the decision. This certainly doesn’t mean we should bend to the will of these men, but it does mean that attacking rational thought with hysteria or cries of mansplaining aren’t going to be very helpful.
(Side note: if anyone else is frustrated that our interests may not be adequately represented, then look up range and approval voting. The 19th Amendment was an initial step, but there’s still a long way to go for representative vote reform.)
The problem with oft-reblogged catchy pro-choice slogans such as “77% of anti-choice campaign leaders are men” and “No Uterus, No Opinion” is that they arrive at the right answer completely erroneously, therefore hacking to bits any chance that an open-minded newbie to the question has of following their fallacious logic anywhere useful.
If 100% of anti-choice campaign leaders were women, would that be checkmate?
If everyone on the planet with a uterus decided you didn’t have control of your own, would that be enough?
Besides being morbidly interesting for the pre-converted, and completely telling signifiers of patriarchal influence, they are unhelpfully bereft of worthy target. Kyriarchy is the problem, not ‘men’. Because, while it reigns, we’re all conduits of kyriarchy - whatever our gender.
Nobody has the rights to your body.
Logical fallacies abound. The overused anecdote is also problematic. It may be helpful in swaying undecideds, but only temporarily. For every positive anecdote of the woman who never regretted her abortion, there is an equal and opposite anecdote of the woman whose unexpected child became the best thing that ever happened to her. Or the woman who aborted and went on to finish college, compared to the fetus that was spared from abortion and grew to become…President of the United States! Aggregate stats are very useful, but sentimental personal stories really only deepen the beliefs of those already holding a position (as they begin to ignore or discount the opposite stories). They also fail to articulate the most powerful point: nobody has the rights to your body.
“…there have been ‘more than 100 attempts to coin a gender-neutral pronoun over the course of more than 150 years’, including heesh, hse, kin, ve, ta, tey, fm, z, ze, shem, se, j/e, jee, ey, ho, po, ae, et, heshe, hann…”
Our language blog on the times when “he and she” just won’t do (via theeconomist)
The author argues “they” will win as the accepted gender-neutral pronoun, since it’s already in wide-spread use. Any completely new word (ze) will have to compete with it. Though “they” is plural and thus grammatically incorrect (and annoying), it could evolve to become singular and plural in grammatically acceptable usage before any other words take on real meaning. Just like “you” has become both a singular and plural second-person pronoun.
Sexy Women are Seen as Objects, Studies Find
This study is consistent with the work of University of Padova researchers. They found that when women were dressed sexually (compared to when they weren’t), people implicitly associated them more with animals.
Other research has found that merely focusing on a woman’s appearance (fully dressed) is enough for people (men and women) to dehumanize a woman. Specifically, we found that people assign female targets less “human nature traits” when focus is on their appearance. These traits are perceived by humans to separate people from machines, automata and objects.
Another study found that these women are seen as less moral (sincere, trusting) and less emotionally warm (likable, warm).
These findings are also consistent with a wide range of work showing that objectified women are perceived as less competent. Interestingly, research even finds that when men view sexualized pictures of women, they subsequently view a female experimenter as doing a worse job. In other words, men “carried over” their views of the sexualized women to another woman, who was not scantily dressed.
And lastly, research shows that men and women view sexualized images (of both men and women) as lacking “mind,” which is basically a denial of thoughts and emotions. In this work, people even had less concern for the sexualized people’s pain, compared to when they were fully dressed.
The picture truly is bleak when women (and in some cases men) are evaluated solely on their looks and/or sexualized.
don’t pretend to be surprised.
But no, porn is liberating and empowering for women; it promotes women’s roles in society rather than damaging them.
Maybe a bit premature.
Re: more on male obligations
Also, not wanting to raise a baby isn’t telling a woman what to do with her body. Yes.
I’m glad that you can see the potential for hypocrisy and unfairness. When something has been unbalanced for a long time and when many people still wish to revert to older, even more unjust routes, there is that risk to unwisely overcompensate in the stride towards equality.
I’ve always made it clear to women I’ve had sex with that I had no interest in children and I’ve flatly said that if they became pregnant and went through with it, the most they could ever get from me would be what the law forced me to give (and even then, there’s always Venezuela…). I always had a great fear, despite this proclamation and dating women that had little stated interest in having kids, that my girlfriend might change her mind if she actually became pregnant. At more than a few points in my life, it would have locked me into a life that would have been hard to climb out because of the financial drain, and all from a decision that I could not partake in. I can only imagine a woman might likewise feel so trapped if she didn’t have the option of a safe and legal abortion.
As you rightly pointed out, it doesn’t make sense to deride anti-choice people for insisting women made the choice when they chose to have sex, yet have no problems in insisting men made the choice when they had sex (and then should never have any say thereafter). It seems fair to me that men should have, at some point early in the process, a chance to opt in or out and after that they’d be locked in for support if they made that choice. Not making a choice would have to be implicitly understood as having chosen to support the child.
I really like the idea of some type of legally binding agreement soon after conception. It’s a sensible solution to the inequality of the biological reality, though it doesn’t encompass all situations (what could?). It would be much better to have that figured out before the pregnancy actually happens, of course. However, I’m not sure how many people would care for that discussion in the throes of initial passion. Pre-nups are hard enough to divorce from the romantic ideals of love. I’m strange though and it’d probably be a turn-on to be with someone that could bridge the gap between emotion and reason like that.
We need RISUG now! It’s a shame that men also don’t have many contraceptive options; they could avoid some of these undesirable situations if they had responsibility for their own birth control (condoms are not as effective as people want to believe). You bring up one reason why abortion access is critical: while men might have to suffer many years of financial obligation from unwanted pregnancy, women might have to sacrifice money, time, health, life goals, social and sex lives, etc. due to unwanted pregnancy.
I like the idea of a contract after conception; it would be too difficult to obtain one beforehand in the case of, say, casual encounters. After conception, she could first choose to terminate the pregnancy without notification, or she could discuss the options with the father and come to a legal agreement before deciding. Here, even if the man decides he doesn’t want a child, he should at least have an obligation to pay a share of abortion or pregnancy costs. If she goes through with birth without any consent from or connection to the father, she shouldn’t expect anything. I wonder if there might be fewer births if this were the law instead. There is the difficulty of a woman going through a pregnancy without inclusion of the father when he may actually want to be involved, but that might be a separate legal issue.
I love your diction here: “Pre-nups are hard enough to divorce from the romantic ideals of love.” I don’t have any money, and I don’t expect to know anyone with money, though I do know many people with enormous debt. If I decided to marry someone with all that debt, I’d have to demand some kind of legal agreement beforehand. Things don’t always work out, and there’s no way I’d want to carry someone else’s debt after a divorce. Romance isn’t going to overpower that kind of anxiety, but no, nobody thinks that’s a turn-on.
Re: more on male obligations
I agree for the most part, and love that you voice issues so often and well, but I have to say if a guy sticks it in, he has to be prepared that she may be pregnant and abort, and be pregnant and have it, which also means he needs to be ready to pay for it. The child isn’t off the hook because the father wants to do a dip, spit and run, and if the male didn’t want the risk, he shouldn’t have dipped. The only possible ‘signing off’ on the male’s part I can conceive (and still not agree with) is if it is signed off before the act of sex (and we all know signing consent forms is more mood kill than putting on condoms and would not be dealt with using clear and rational minds).
This sounds exactly like saying that if a woman doesn’t want the risk of having a child, she shouldn’t have sex. Why should it be different for men?
Yes, it is. I just don’t agree that taking that risk is in any way bad, and I agree that the woman has final say on her body (although, a little discussion between is ALWAYS encouraged). Either party doing the deed needs to be aware of the potential consequences, and ignorance or lack of caring is no excuse (nor is what you ‘want’, because the fact is that sex carries the potential for pregnancy). Whether the woman carries to term or aborts, she will have effects and consequences that may alter her entire life and health. The woman will have to pay for either outcome, so why should the man not?? The issue of ‘I don’t want it, abort it or support it yourself’ is just as ridiculous as ‘that’s my baby in there and you CAN’T abort’……….both are ways of telling a woman what to do with her body, and both are ways that the man tries to absolve himself of guilt and responsibility. Whether aborting or birthing, a woman has to face the gulit/responsibility/consequences/whatever, so she HAS taken on the potential for pregnancy every time she has sex, and there isn’t any signing off that she can do, so why can the man?? Allowing him to sign away responsibility (I guess, unless that’s what she wants too-for him to sign away all rights. If they both are in agreement, I’d say that’s a different case altogether) is the perfect example of allowing it to be different for men.
I fully agree that a woman has final say in what she does with her body. However, we can say that both parties should be aware of the consequences before having sex, but we know that’s frequently not what happens. People are going to fuck, and very few are really ready to be responsible for a child. I fully disagree that abortion carries long lasting effects for many women. It’s certainly not a joyful experience, but many women feel relief afterwards. This isn’t the same level of consequence as having to pay for years of child support while trying to start a life of your own. Also, not wanting to raise a baby isn’t telling a woman what to do with her body. If she wants it and he doesn’t, then she’s making a personal decision for herself and should be able to back it up herself. I agree it’s unfair that the woman will have to make the choice either way, whereas the man could get away without any responsibility if there were no imposed obligations. But I can’t agree that forcing parental obligations on men, when we abhor that idea for ourselves, is the way to even out these imbalanced choices.
Re: more on male obligations
I agree for the most part, and love that you voice issues so often and well, but I have to say if a guy sticks it in, he has to be prepared that she may be pregnant and abort, and be pregnant and have it, which also means he needs to be ready to pay for it. The child isn’t off the hook because the father wants to do a dip, spit and run, and if the male didn’t want the risk, he shouldn’t have dipped. The only possible ‘signing off’ on the male’s part I can conceive (and still not agree with) is if it is signed off before the act of sex (and we all know signing consent forms is more mood kill than putting on condoms and would not be dealt with using clear and rational minds).
This sounds exactly like saying that if a woman doesn’t want the risk of having a child, she shouldn’t have sex. Why should it be different for men?
Re: My thoughts on abortion and birth
First off, I’m totally pro-choice. For the following reasons, among others:
1) Any reasonable definition of personhood does not include an unthinking, unfeeling fetus. Fetuses can’t feel pain before 24 weeks and certainly do not have a sense of self.
2) An ovum is part of a woman’s body. A uterus is part of a woman’s body. With the exception of a single sperm cell (see discussion below), gestation is a process wholly under the domain of the woman’s body. Therefor, restrictions on abortion are restrictions on a woman’s body above all.
3) The human population is not under any risk of diminishing due to lack of reproduction. There are not enough parents for children currently up for adoption.
4) Most abortions are done by mothers who already have children. It is unfair to take resources away from these born children. Most abortions are not used to support a promiscuous lifestyle (although even if they were, that would not be sufficient reason to object).
5) Where abortions are illegal, abortion does not decrease, but abortion-related injuries do increase. Ultimately, legalized abortion is pro-life because it results in less mortality and morbidity overall.
As a fertile man, I think the responsible policy to have with regard to conception is not to have sex with a woman unless you are 100% okay with both A) her conceiving and having an abortion and B) her conceiving and having the child. Both scenarios are completely out of your control. Condoms reduce the chances, but they are not 100%. As the father of a child who beat both a condom and Plan B, trust me on this.
I do wish that men were able to sign away rights to children they do not want to avoid child support expenses. I’ve wavered on this subject, since it does create more burden for single mothers. However, I’ve also heard of too many stories of men being forced to pay for children they never wanted in situations where they have limited finances themselves and possibly responsibilities to others (including other children they did choose to have). Women do have options for terminating a pregnancy or giving up children for adoption, however difficult or unacceptable those options may be. It is unacceptable for men to have no option.
That said, current law can force any biological father to pay child support, so it is unfortunately necessary to act accordingly.
My initial reaction would be that men make their choice when they choose to have sex, but that sounds uncomfortably similar to anti-choicers arguing that a woman’s choice is whether or not to have sex. If we are struggling for equality, then there’s an obvious double standard here. So where should men have choice in this situation?
Being ardently pro-choice, I am grateful that men have no say in whether a woman has an abortion or not. But since men can’t force women into parenthood, women shouldn’t be able to force men. Women keeping children when the fathers are unwilling do so for personal reasons, and should thus take sole responsibility. It’s unacceptable for mothers of children with absent fathers to show up down the line and expect payment. However, many women probably go through pregnancy expecting the father to be supportive. Any man who pledges support during the pregnancy and later bails should absolutely be obligated to pay child support.
So maybe instead, if the woman doesn’t initially decide to have an abortion, there should be some sort of legal contract between the potential mother and father soon after conception. If the man decides to be supportive, making the woman more comfortable with continuing, then he should be obligated to continue support even if he changes his mind later. If he opts out, or is absent or unknown, then the woman has several choices. She can raise the child by herself without financial support from the man. If that’s too heavy a burden, she can terminate the pregnancy, and if that’s not a personal option, she can put the baby up for adoption.
Still not sure of this, and none of it deals with excluded men who want to be available fathers or fair distribution of parental rights for those providing support. But it’s clear that our laws regarding parenthood and marriage are messed up. Prenups and these sorts of parental contracts should be required before entering into legal commitments. I get the emotional aspect, but many people wildly make costly life-altering choices. These decisions have the most significant consequences, so there must be some practicality when making them.
"Tank top" is a gendered word
What?
If I could get serious for a minute, “wifebeater” as a culturally acceptable term for a shirt? That has made me uncomfortable since middle school when I first heard people throwing it around. Who was iconic for his bleached hair, white tank uniform back then? Eminem - notorious for his less than strained relationship with his ex-wife.
It’s a term I’ve never used and though I accept that people do and will, it makes me cringe any time anyone does.
Domestic violence isn’t a fashion statement.The term “wifebeater” has always bothered me.
“Wifebeater” and just plain “beater” bother the piss outta me. Its a damned “A-tank”, “tank top”, a shirt. Whatever. But NEVER call it a “wifebeater”. ::cringes::
One person made some dumb ass comment one time about “poor drunks who beat their wives wear them…thats why theyre called that.” “No, the guy is a wifebeater, the shirt hes wearing is a tank top. Shut up.”
Couldn’t really care less about fashion, but the use of language and logic by this Jezebel staff writer is hilarious (by which I mean sad). “‘Tank top’ is a gendered word, which could lead to confusion. Language is about clarity.” I agree that language should be clear, but here she is making an argument that “wifebeater” is the most appropriate term for an undershirt worn as an outershirt by men. Apparently, “wifebeater” isn’t a gendered term, but that point is lost here. She continues to dig herself deeper when readers respond that undershirts were typically worn by poor people, and referring to their lower class clothes as wifebeaters is indeed referring to them as abusive. ”…to me, it still rings as gendered. I wouldn’t want anyone accusing me of surreptitiously casting aspersions on The Situation’s manhood by saying he wears girl clothes. Besides, context matters. Anyone who seriously thinks calling a wifebeater a wifebeater refers in any way to domestic violence needs to have their head examined.” Yeah, what else could it possibly refer to? Better that the wearers are mistaken as abusive than as women.
Ordinarily, we can’t demand much intelligence in internet forums, so it’s pointless to mock the constant stupidity. But this person is getting paid to do this. She has a job as a writer on a sort-of-feminist(?) site. *Shrugs* I never actually heard the term “wifebeater”. Growing up, I always heard them called “dago tees”, which, um…yeah.
There isn’t a single girl or woman in this world who hasn’t been intruded upon and sometimes it’s relatively benign and sometimes it’s so fucking painful. But you have no idea what this feels like…and I’m going to decide when you can take those rapey cameras down…
The first time I was intruded upon by a boy, I was 6 years old. My mom dropped me off at my baby-sitter’s place and she had three boys, the youngest just one year younger than me. One day, I was sitting on the living room floor waiting for my mom to pick me up and he (the youngest boy) pushed me over, got on top of me and shoved his tongue in my mouth. It was so long ago that I don’t remember the details or how I stopped it or even if I did, but I remember being held down and used for his experimental curiosity. No consent, nothing. He took from me. He stole.
From 7 years old until I was 13, my grandfather would touch my breasts every time I hugged him. He was a lousy old drunk and only stopped this act after he stopped drinking. He smelled of alcohol every time I got near him. I now associate alcohol with filth. Maybe that’s why I don’t drink much.
Maybe I should lighten up, huh? Maybe it was all just a joke?
What you took, was it worth it?
I think, sadly enough, that every girly has a similar story. When I was in elementary school a group of boys in a grade above me shoved me down in a far corner of the playground and pushed my clothes up and off in order to grope me. They each took turns and all I remember is being so frightened that I had no idea what to do. Little “tattle tail” that I was, I told the teacher and the boys all got in trouble. But not enough to keep it from happening again, this time with bruises.
I’m not even going to go into the long story of the horrid things my father did (such as getting into the shower with me whenever mom was working the nightshift at the hospital when I was barely old enough to understand what was going on, then telling me never to tell a soul). The point is, for some unknown reason boys think they are fucking entitled to our bodies. And they either don’t know, or don’t care the effect that that has. The trauma that it leaves in its wake.The worst part is that every woman has story after story of being groped, frightened, harassed, assaulted, etc, and our focus is so fucked that many guys never come to understand and accept how widespread and pervasive this behavior is. It breaks my heart every time I hear, and my own childhood of physical and sexual abuse barely even gives me any sense of understanding of what women go through.
Bless you for sharing and explaining, because we NEED women to report any and al abuse, and when you share your story, when you demand to be heard and left alone and treated the right way, you pave the way for the next girl to know what is wrong to have happen. You let the next girl know that she needs to report, to refuse that treatment, to be vocal about what happens to her and around her.
(I’m not stating this the right way, blame the pills and/or pain I am in, but I hope you get me).
It breaks my heart too. I want to teach children to get fucking angry when people touch them without their consent. Because people view children as innocent and that “they’ll never remember this”. Yeah, except I’ll remember what happened to me until I die and it gets worse the less you think about it or talk about it. What happened to me was done by two people who had more power than I did. And they used it for evil. Thank you so much for your support and for talking about this with me :)
I’ve never thought that I have ever “truly” been intruded upon. But, while reading some fellow tumblrs, I realized what they consider intrusion is very similar to an experience I had as a child. He was a child, I was a child, we were neighbors and play-buddies. One day, I don’t remember what kind of game we were playing, but my younger brother was there too (he’s only 17 months younger than me and probably about 5 at the time). He suddenly told my brother to close his eyes. He did, because he probably thought it was a part of the game. Then, the boy started reaching his hand up my shorts. Being an innocent 7(?) year old,I let him because I didn’t know what was happening. Then he shoved his tongue down my throat. I kissed back,as much as a seven year old can. This kind of exchange happened almost every time we played. He always suggested playing Hide and Go Seek for this reason. He would grab me when my brother was counting, and shove his tongue down my throat some more.
On one occasion, he tried the same shit, and I told him no and that it made me uncomfortable. He said if I didn’t he wouldn’t be my boyfriend anymore, something that hadn’t even been established, so I gave in to him. If I were older and my partner had said the same thing but changed some words to, “if you don’t have sex with me, I won’t love you” or “if you don’t have sex with me, I’m breaking up with you,” and I gave in to his pressures, that would be rape. Simple as that.
I would say that my exeperience was relatively benign, but if the same thing had happened when I was older and with slightly different circumstances, it would have been much different.
Thank you for your story, and your honesty :)
In my post on emotivism, I showed that it was my perception of ethics that they should be expressed by instructions. I believe that the conclusions I have made are correct, and therefore encourage people to think in the same way. This includes atheism with an emphasis on Buddhist philosophy, because I think the reliance on the self rather than the external is essential for gaining lasting happiness.
Yesterday I came under fire for my prescriptivist attitudes of telling people what to do. It must be understood that this is how I think people should express their opinions. I do not respect people’s choices if I do not agree with their choices. Others think all choices should be respected, whereas I do not.
I am a blogger, not a politician.
With this in mind, I am not in a position to physically stop people entering the sex industry by legislation. I am not likely to put people in prison by what I write. I merely offer explanations of why people go into it, and it is often due to lack of financial alternative.
It is not my personal belief that choice is the conclusion of feminism.
Choice is essential to liberation. For women to be able to choose their livelihoods, and whether to stay at home or work, is what feminism was always trying to achieve. But I don’t believe in choice at the expense of equality.
I believe that the growing sexualisation of society is negative. I believe it has gone too far, and I believe it to be highly detrimental toward the image of women. I believe that participation in the sex industry escalates this process.
THIS IS MY BELIEF. If you do not agree with this belief, do not hold it.
To tell me I shouldn’t talk about this belief, that I should hail all choices I don’t agree with as you might, is to take away my right to free speech.
- I believe in expressing ethics through instructions (see my post on emotivism).
- I believe that the sex industry has perverted liberation and perverted sex, because it has increased the physical importance of sex rather than its human value.
- I believe that, when someone disagrees with something, they should speak against it.
- I do not believe that my opinion is just as valid as those who oppose me, otherwise arrival at a conclusion is pointless if everything is essentially true.
If you do not believe the above points, that is because your opinion of how people should express their opinions differs from mine. That doesn’t make you right, nor does it give you the right to tell me to change these beliefs.
This blog is where I talk about problems I’ve read about and how I think they should be dealt with.
If you disagree, then disagree.
But never tell me how to think or how to write.
See also: Sex-Positivism and Me.
People tell other people what they should or shouldn’t do ALL THE TIME. By telling someone that they shouldn’t tell others what they should or shouldn’t do, people are telling that person what he or she shouldn’t do. They can’t even see their own contradiction.
Liberals are most likely to believe that we should accept and respect everyone’s opinions, all EXCEPT those of conservatives, of course. An opposition to prostitution is a “conservative” opinion, thus subject to attack. I agree that choice should not be the conclusion of feminism, nor anything else. We tend to reject conservative choices when they become harmful to unwilling bystanders, and feminist choices are not immune to such externalities.
Should I have the free choice to dump my garbage in the stream behind my house? Of course not. Though it’s my garbage and my land, my choice restricts the freedom of others downstream to enjoy unpolluted water. Even if a woman freely chooses to enter the sex industry, she restricts the choice of other women not to be viewed as sex objects. Say a woman chooses to marry and stays home to raise a family, becoming financially dependent on her husband. In a society in which even willing women are regularly bought for male sexual pleasure, whether through prostitution or porn, what life would this married couple expect? Couldn’t he assume that he should receive regular sexual gratification for his money? Wouldn’t she, completely dependent financially and without many viable options, feel forced to oblige? It seems silly to argue that the choices of sex workers do not negatively impact nonparticipants. We can debate causality, as women have been objectified for a long, long time, though prostitution is also popularly referred to as the oldest profession in the world.
Perhaps one day when women are truly social equals, both men and women will be able to purchase sex from others without infringing upon anyone else’s free choices. In the meantime, to borrow a phrase on pornography from catbus, pro-prostitution arguments also seem to put the liberation cart before the sexism-smashing horse a bit.
