I looked around some of those sites and read shit like "all sex is tainted by the patriarchy" which is pretty fucked up.
It reminds me about an issue of shaving armpits where a woman was pressured to stop shaving to "stick it" to the patriarchy, but who's personal preference of comfort was to have shaved armpits.
Basing your actions against this patriarch entity or, anything else for that matter, whether in opposition or compliance is to base part of your own identity on the patriarchy (or whatever else). The only type of empowerment for any sex/orientation/race/religion that is truly progressive is universal individualism.
I also get the feeling that "Twisty" doesn't understand that the desire to provide sexual pleasure for someone you love is natrual, but that's just speculation.
Basically, the article links to a series of feminist blog posts triggered by one from a blog titled "I Blame the Patriarchy." The original author responded to an advice column on how to give fellatio without gagging, saying that of course one would gag, given that blowjobs are inherently demeaning, misogynistic, and gross. Much argument then followed across the blogosphere (my, how I hate that word) about the feminist ethics of blowjobs, with supporters on either side and some writers deeming the whole thing ridiculous.
Personally, I feel that intent is more important in any sex act than the act itself. For some, a seemingly degrading act like bondage can actually be empowering; in other circumstances, the simple act of lovemaking can be damaging if the man involved hates women. But while I think the original poster was hyperbolic and reactionary, I'm still a fan of any debate that forces us to take a definite perspective on something we take as a given.
Comments 4
It reminds me about an issue of shaving armpits where a woman was pressured to stop shaving to "stick it" to the patriarchy, but who's personal preference of comfort was to have shaved armpits.
Basing your actions against this patriarch entity or, anything else for that matter, whether in opposition or compliance is to base part of your own identity on the patriarchy (or whatever else). The only type of empowerment for any sex/orientation/race/religion that is truly progressive is universal individualism.
I also get the feeling that "Twisty" doesn't understand that the desire to provide sexual pleasure for someone you love is natrual, but that's just speculation.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Personally, I feel that intent is more important in any sex act than the act itself. For some, a seemingly degrading act like bondage can actually be empowering; in other circumstances, the simple act of lovemaking can be damaging if the man involved hates women. But while I think the original poster was hyperbolic and reactionary, I'm still a fan of any debate that forces us to take a definite perspective on something we take as a given.
Reply
Leave a comment