Comments | cruelbitch: A schadenfreudal orgasm.

cruelbitch

A schadenfreudal orgasm.

Feb 18, 2009 19:12

Delightful.

Author's Note: This lengthy diatribe was inspired by a sf-drama post -- a forum I do not attend, nor do I desire becoming invested in -- which elicited a severe twitch of irritation within me. I, very reluctantly, said nothing. After all, why would I, somebody who devotes massive amounts of their time into Dare-I-Say-PC research, ever want to ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

neverbeeneasy February 19 2009, 10:35:19 UTC

During the entire sf_drama wank, I had a pretty kneejerk reaction to a bunch of people on the internet comparing their asexual oppression to the ones homosexuals face. There is a scope, a magnitude of (often ignored) violence and systematic oppression that homosexuals face in which I feel it is not comparable ( ... )

cruelbitch February 19 2009, 12:56:52 UTC

I'm going to reply to your series of comments in a rather disjointed fashion. My actual first response to you is here.
"We also talked about the stupid notion that we are somehow repressed as a society, and I wish that people would understand that sexuality has no 'natural' state. It's directed and shaped and packaged and sold for everyone in all kinds of ways. Who knows what sexuality would look like without any societal influence, if it were to just ~exist naturally~."
What's interesting is that I can interpret this both ways. Upon watching a documentary about The History of Sex (which was, essentially: "Here's a List of All the Impossibly Destructive Abuses We've Inflicted Upon The Female Species and Masqueraded it as the Natural Evolution of Lust; How Marquis de Sade Was Sinisterly Awesome to Sexologists"), I noticed that beneath the pile of bizarre devices, contraptions, mandates, and clinical phrasing of the carnal actions, that we've, presently, really just given historical practices a different name. We've also only minutely ( ... )

neverbeeneasy February 19 2009, 13:24:44 UTC

"... What's interesting is that I can interpret this both ways. Upon watching a documentary about The History of Sex (which was, essentially: "Here's a List of All the Impossibly Destructive Abuses We've Inflicted Upon The Female Species and Masqueraded it as the Natural Evolution of Lust; How Marquis de Sade Was Sinisterly Awesome to Sexologists"), I noticed that beneath the pile of bizarre devices, contraptions, mandates, and clinical phrasing of the carnal actions, that we've, presently, really just given historical practices a different name.

...I don't believe these dilemmas within the heteronormative collective are rooted in hatred of sex, but rather rooted in associated contempt with the female body"Agreed, 100%. The sex men have (unless it is homosexual sex, which is threatening to the order of trying to control women through sex, and shows the innate entwining of power and sex that seems to come with masculinity) had throughout history has gone through completely different 'regulations' than women ( ... )

neverbeeneasy February 19 2009, 13:24:58 UTC

Women's bodies seem loathed. A woman's agency seems loathed. As we've discussed, this phenomena of women 'hating other women' is actually something that works to boost their 'tough' status amongst men and women alike. Male agency is invisible in a way because it seems so natural, so default, so THERE. Which is why the woman's choice is always debated. Her 'gatekeeper' choices on sexuality, the way she dresses, her reproductive choices, her choice to be a Mother or not, her choice in how she reacts to the invisible males that invite her for drinks. It's like that story on the Iraqi woman who arranged the rape of 80+ Iraqi women and then their suicide bombings. Sure, what she did was disgusting and heinous and I officially revoke her Female Membership Card, but what of all of the invisible men that raped those women? Yep, they are just that, invisible. No need to talk about what they did ( ... )

neverbeeneasy February 19 2009, 13:41:59 UTC

And now I keep coming back to what you said about the female body, and how the heteronormative collective is not rooted in the hatred of sex. You said women are the centerpiece expression of What Is Sex. The words ring true for me, while men are the centerpiece expression for What Is Power (or things associated with men, since females can have power by being associated with them - war, violence, sex ( ... )

cruelbitch February 19 2009, 15:20:46 UTC

See, I enjoy this writing because it covers all the salient bases and compartmentalizes them within a neat rhetorical framework, while still giving legroom to conjoin it with the collective. It's haphazard, like mine, but yet ... not. It's roundabout.

Within heteronormative society, people -- even within the queer community -- are frequently attempting to conceptualize everything in terms of the gender binary. In other words, everyone often tries to make homosexuality as heterosexual as possible; proponents of this essentialist ideology, in addition, also have the vast majority of their straightness centered around these constructions. (This, for the record, ties into your explanation of how socially-constructed gayness is just as plausible as socially-constructed straightness.) Gay men are quite obviously "feminized": because in which other way could their desire to be fucked by men -- the homophobe's way of refining what their orientation must be rooted in -- be rationalized? Lesbian women, alternatively, are "masculinized" -- ( ... )

cruelbitch February 19 2009, 15:27:29 UTC

Unrelatedly, don't forget the uncanny fixation with the nebulous g-spot within straight relations. Stimulating a woman, after all, must be internal; it's natural, you see, far more natural than that "prostate" thing."What exactly is the line between asexual and someone with a very low sex drive? In a sense, I believe it's similar to how I don't really feel there's the 'natural' homosexual and the 'natural' heterosexual. I don't think that many asexuals are pure 100% bona fide asexuals that have no desire whatsoever, but many probably have little sexual desire or are more autosexual. They probably get sexual arousal, but don't want other people to really take care of it, and don't see it as a means to engage in something they're not interested in, and deal with people's attitudes on the subject that they are not interested in. The entire culture of sex must be so off-putting to asexuals."
You've got it covered perfectly here."I admit, I'd know more what it's like for a woman to be asexual and the resulting stigma and obsession with ' ( ... )

Back to all threads