Girls going wild in red light district -- stop the traffik.org

Girls going wild in red light district

Posted in 2012 by DuvalGuillaume

Description from the Post:  
So you think you will dance? Sometimes things are not what they seem. Men, women and children are trafficked - tricked, forced and exploited in the sex industry. Awareness campaign created by Duval Guillaume Modem and produced by monodot in support of STOP THE TRAFFIK. Visit http://www.stopthetraffik.org/ to get involved. Music: a-shja by Raveyards vs. DJ Uinkxxx

Porn Star James Deen Speaks at Pasadena Community College

source: shalom life

On February 27th, porn actor, James Deen, gave a talk on pornography at his alma mater, Pasadena City College, in Pasadena, California. The event was organized by gender studies professor, Hugo Schwyzer. Although Schwyzer teaches history courses, I think it's fair to say that his main passion is feminism. One of the classes he teaches is a Humanities course which he has titled, Navigating Pornography. On the day of Deen's talk, Schwyzer posted on this website: 

I teach “Navigating Pornography” because I want to equip students with tools to think critically about a pornified culture. I want them to step into a safe space that is neither sexualized nor prudish, that is neither blithely celebratory of porn nor puritanically condemnatory. I want them to wrestle with a wide variety of texts, images, and persons so that they can better understand the role of porn in on our culture. I want them to become advocates for intelligent conversation. Speakers like James Deen, himself an immensely articulate and thoughtful speaker whom I’ve enjoyed interviewing in the past, bring a valuable perspective to both students and the general community.

Schwyzer is a man I respect highly. A kind person, an intelligent figure in academia, and a great writer who does good work. Whenever I read one of his pieces I am always impressed by his critiques and his even-handed delivery. Whenever I've brought up concerns about pornography he has always responded with grace. Grace is actually a perfect word to describe his way of interaction. 

Schwyzer will tell you that his views on porn have changed over the last several years. When I began following his work in 2004, he held the views of an anti-porn feminist. I did feel deflated when he became more accepting of pornography but he did so without a cemented foot on either side of the argument.

Before I get into the nitty gritty, I think it's important to make mention that PCC made a big hub-bub of Deen's arrival. Absurd. Despite the fact that I push against pornography and pornographic culture, I see no reason why the school created such a fuss. The event was meant to be a public one in which non-students and sources of media were allowed to attend. At the last minute Schwyzer was informed that he had to limit the audience to that of his students and the talk had to take place in his own classroom. Some news reporters and paparazzi were in attendance. 

PCC released a statement which insists that Schwyzer did not jump through the appropriate hoops to hold the event. The school feared controversy and protests which may affect the safety of the students. In the end there were no protests. Schwyzer has had other porn actors and antiporn figures speak in his classroom, without complaint. Schwyzer did point out that the fact that so many women were invested in this talk, proves that it is not just men who are interested in porn, and women too have libidos.

Schwyzer says that there is a lot of shame surrounding porn use. I would say that there is shame and praise. I wouldn't want individuals to experience either. I don't want porn users to feel shamed, but I do want them to have some insight into what they are doing. Porn users and porn stars are not bad people simply because they use or star. 

The NY Daily News quotes Schwyzer as saying, In this country, pornography is held responsible for sex education, and that's unfair, Schwyzer said. No one goes to see ‘Die Hard’ to learn about police work. Similarly, porn should not be held up as being responsible for teaching people about how to behave during sex. 

The point Schwyzer is trying to make is clear, however, he doesn't quite make it. Sex Ed certainly needs to improve and Schwyzer does good in utilizing his skills as an educator to conduct healthy discussions about sexuality. Deen himself made a good point when he said that sex education doesn't go beyond the mechanics of it and the mechanics are meant to describe how children come into the world. This may be appropriate for youths who are witness to this in elementary school, but as children become young adults, there is no open dialogue about what sex can be and not be for people -- what it might mean to have sex for the first time, to discovering one's own sexual orientation, to understanding boundaries of safety.

I feel that Schwyzer's statement misses the mark in that we view police work and sex in very different terms. Within the first quote at the top of this post, Schwyzer acknowledges that we live in a pornified culture. Sex is on our minds more often than police work and it affects in incredibly complex ways. Most people think about sex, daily and often several times throughout the day. We are bashed over the head with images via the media, which depicts women as figures that are only meant to cater to a heterosexual man's desire:this is amplified in pornography.  

Sex is a huge part of many of our lives and because it is so significant, corporations world wide, capitalize on it. We know this. Basic. So, although we shouldn't learn from pornography, so many do. I don't believe in censorship so I am not suggesting we remove the porn from a legal standpoint, but we can cease to utilize it as a tool and as a point of reference.  

Mainstream porn aka straight porn, insists that a woman's sexuality is reserved for men. When a woman screams with pleasure, that scream is meant to inflate the ego of a man who believes that his prowess is so great. This line of thinking travels into our bedrooms. Porn may or may not be at the source, but the idea did come from some form of patriarchy.  

Porn teaches us that a man inflicts something onto a woman rather than exploring an act of sharing. Man gives, woman receives. Man is dominant because he penetrates and woman receives simply because her body envelops. Within porn and within our world outside of it, this is what we are taught to think.

Although, many have applauded Deen's appearance at PCC, there have been some public push back. I knew with all certainty that one particular feminist figure would jump at this immediately. Gail Dines is a sociology professor at Boston's Wheelock College. She is an antiporn feminist, author, speaker and activist, and she is also the founder of the feminist organization, Stop Porn Culture.

Although Dines and I agree on many points, I often do not appreciate her delivery. Via facebook, Dines instructed her followers to; 

Email the president of the college (mwrocka@pasadena.edu) to complain that they are subjecting their students (a captive audience) to the ideas and messages of pornography. Porn is linked to sexual violence so Hugo Schwyzer is creating an unsafe space for women college students at Pasadena College. Ask the president how he is going to make his college safe for women. Do it NOW!!!

Dines' official letter to the president of the school is as follows. 

Dear President,

My name is Dr. Gail Dines and I am a professor of sociology and women's studies at Wheelock College in Boston. As an academic who studies the effects of pornography on young adult sexality, I must express my disappointment at Dr. Hugo Schwyzer's promotion of the porn industry in his class. Over thirty years of empirical studies have linked pornography to an increase in sexual harassment, assault and verbal and physical abuse of women. That a college provides a forum for such predatory speech is irresponsible and shows contempt for well being of female students. Dr. Schwyzer is a well know promoter of porn and is considered a very problematic person in scholarly circles.

Best, 

Promoter? That word doesn't sit right. He doesn't tell others to view porn or not. In his 2011 post, Are You a Controlling Shrew if You Don't Want Your Partner Using Porn, he says, I’m agnostic — really, I am — about pornography. 

Although I am not a student of Schwyzer's (just as Dines is not) and I do not have access to a syllabus, I know that Schwyzer understands that it would be unethical for him to sway his students one way or the other. Schwyzer is very active within the feminist community and very present within feminist internet communities. He is vocal about his views; an excellent confessional writer.  

In his own life, Schwyzer does not use pornography. His students know this, and he spoke openly about it in 2011 when he engaged in a civil debates with Feminist Current podcast host, Meghan Murphy. 

I don’t use pornography as part of my sexual life, and I don’t employ sex workers. Sex work is deeply problematic. At the same time, I’m confronted with the reality that a growing number of young women use pornography, and that there has been a concerted effort to create a genuinely feminist pornography – though the degree to which that’s a viable project remains a subject of contention. I reject porn use personally because it is incompatible with how I want to live my sexual life. I want my sexuality to be radically relational, where my arousal is inextricably linked to intimacy and partnership. I also want my sexuality to be congruent with my feminism, and for me personally, that means rejecting porn. 

Schwyzer went on to say; 

But I work with allies, overwhelmingly female, who are sex workers or advocates for sex workers. Some are the stereotypically privileged few who are outside the norm, but some who claim enthusiasm about sex work are from working-class backgrounds where financial necessity was the driving reason behind why they entered the industry. Nothing could be less feminist than for me to tell them, "No, you don't like what you're doing. Actually, you hate it and you're being exploited." The sine qua non of male feminism is the capacity to hear women's lived experiences. And when it comes to porn (both in terms of production and consumption) and other forms of sex works, women don't speak with one voice. I am committed to being an advocate for sex worker rights, committed to avoiding participating in sex work as a consumer, and committed to listening. 

Schwyzer takes a seemingly fair stance and I am on board with some of it. As an antiporn feminist, I would not take it upon myself to tell an a sex worker that they hate what they do. I imagine that may be the case for some, but I think there are overwhelming numbers of participants who indeed love what they do. Strippers, actors, pinups, escorts and more. My issue is with the whys behind their motivation.  

I have not had conversations with sex workers, and Schwyzer has. Even so, I can speak as a woman who exists within patriarchy. Porn caters to men -- women in porn cater to men. Porn tells us that women can only enjoy sex when they look the way women in porn do (alternative porn, that has become more mainstream, doesn't push the envelope much), make the same noises, respond the same way, and please men in the same way. Porn features women who are always willing, and always wanting more -- women who will affirm anything a man does and says. Women will never say no unless of course no means yes. If a woman says no, she will certainly change her mind, as the man's penis is almighty.  

Porn tells us that anything else is prudish. Many pro-porn feminists refer to themselves as sex positive feminists which leaves the rest of us out. I don't subscribe to the belief that all sex workers were abused in some way, and I think it unfair to suggest that all antiporn feminists adhere to hyper-religious views or are capable of only vanilla sex. 

If I had the chance, I would have attended Deen's talk. I think it is important to listen to both sides and this is what I have always done. I'd be curious to know what it must be like for Deen or any porn actor to have a job that consists of sex sex sex. How does that affect one's world view on a day to day basis? I imagine Deen's talk was informative. There are a few clips swimming around the internet. 

Dines and I differ in that, I feel it is not harmful for PCC's young people to listen to an actual porn star. I know many students were giddy to see Deen but I imagine not all of Schwyzer's students are pro-porn. Deen's talk may provide insight tacks on some weight, reaffirming either side of the argument. I imagine this exploration will (hopefully) be an on-going journey for Schwyzer's students that will not come to a halt after they have completed his course.

I was beyond shocked when Dines stated that Schwyzer is a very problematic person is scholarly circles. Dines has not specified what she meant by this and she did not provide examples. I have a hunch as to what she's speaking of, and if I'm right, I don't agree with Dines at all. I wince at Dines letter but she has every right to voice her view. 

From the images and comments about the event via social media, no doubt James Deen Day, was an enjoyable one for the majority of those who attended. If Schwyzer intends to rope in more porn stars to his classroom, I have no qualms about it. As long as he continues to fairly invite antiporn feminist folks; I think it's great. Although Schwyzer and I have split from our once shared views on porn, we are like-minded in that we are both committed to listening.

The Sexy Lie by Caroline Heldman at TED Talks: Breaking down how sexual objectification affects the daily functioning of women

Oh please, please, please; watch this. Is there a woman or a girl in your life? Have you ever set eyes ona woman or girl? If so, this is important; more important that you can imagine.

Caroline Heldman breaks down what sexual objectification really is and how it affects the functioning of women throughout their every day.

The Sexy Lie: Caroline Heldman - TED Youth in San Diego

TED Talks Description:
A leading advocate for spotlighting how the mainstream media contributes to the underrepresentation of women in positions of power and influence in America, Caroline Heldman offers straight talk and an often-startling look at the objectification of women in our society. She illustrates how it has escalated, how we have become inured to its damaging effects and what we can do individually and collectively to demolish the paradigms that keep us from a better world.

Chair of the politics department of Occidential College in Los Angeles, Dr. Heldman appeared in the acclaimed documentary, Miss Representation and is co-editor of "Madame President: Are We Ready for a Woman in the White House?" She is a frequent commentator on radio and television and a regular contributor to Ms. Magazine.

In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)

Men Who Think They Can Compartmentlize Porn and Reality

(source)

"I’m not a biologist or a psychologist, but it seems perfectly plausible to me that the desire to look at lots and lots of naked women isn’t just a function of culture, but may also be a function of physiology. 

But so what?  Lots of things are natural — and natural is not, despite the claim of some health food stores, invariably a synonym for "good."  It’s natural for us to defecate on ourselves; using the toilet is a learned behavior that involves controlling an instinctive urge.  I think we’re all deeply grateful to have learned to control this natural instinct.  I’m not interested in suggesting that feminist men shouldn’t want to look at porn; I’m suggesting that he should overcome what may be for him a very basic instinct.  In other words, what makes a man a pro-feminist is not the absence of desire, but his commitment to work to redirect that desire.

Ultimately, the great tragedy of porn is that it teaches the men who use it to pursue "everlasting novelty."

~Hugo Schwyzer (gender studies professor at Pasadena College in California). Excerpt from The Average Guy Who Can Compartmentalize, Disconnect, and Then Come Back: A Response to Ethan On Porn.

G-Spirits Sells Alcohol Poured Over the Breasts of Female Models

Maximilian Goldbach via YouTube
Hungarian Playboy Playmate; Alexa Vargas

G-Spirits is a German liquor company promoting an alcohol line that is supposedly poured on the breasts of models.

According to the NY Daily News, G-Spirits founders had this to say about their product: "It's not just the taste which makes you enjoy a drink fully. Good flavour is the basis, the conveying feeling, the highlight. However, for us there is nothing more than the erotism of a beautiful woman."

Maximilian Goldbach via YouTube  
Amina

Would you drink it?

Women's bodies are often used to hawk product. I can't speak to the motivation of these women, but it would be irresponsible to refrain from questioning. There are plenty of women who cater to men by behaving in ways that they believe will appeal to them. In return there is some sort of payoff. I suppose that payoff is different for each individual. An all too common reason is a feeling of perceived empowerment and flattery.

It's nice to feel admired and wanted, but some are willing to go further than others. I have no interest in pushing men to eroticize the idea of consuming me in some way. For others; perhaps it is the ultimate compliment. 

It's not always easy to agree to disagree and it has nothing to do with pride. Women using their bodies to sell product affects me in that it promotes the on going belief that women are expected to make themselves available to men in this way.

Facials, Feminism & Performance: On Fucking Men in a Patriarchy by Meghan Murphy. Murphy's Response to Emily McComb's Article; "Why I Like Facials (the dirty kind)."

Meghan Murphy of Feminist Current responds (in a spectacular way) responds to Emily McCombs' XO Jane piece, "Why I Like Facials (The dirty kind): My Orgasms Are a Political Free Zone." 

Murphy speaks to how politics actually do enter our bedrooms. Below is the article. Although I have linked to the article which sparked Murphy's, I have posted McCombs' article beneath it, for easy reading.

Facials, feminism, & performance: On f**king men in a patriarchy

August 29, 2012

Blog, Sex & Sexuality

As feminists, sleeping with men is always going to be a little fraught.
Not getting to the actual act, per se – jumping into bed with people we feel like jumping into bed with can be pretty straightforward – rather the politics surrounding feminists having sex with men within the context of a patriarchy as well as, of course, the maintenance of a sexual relationship with a man in the long-term.

 

Applying the phrase, ‘the personal is political’, seems particularly difficult when we are talking about an act that can be very private and very personal. Certainly sex is one of those things that can make us feel extremely vulnerable. Including politics or even acknowledging that, in one way or another, there is a larger context to our behaviour when it comes to sex, leaves something to be desired. Particularly for women, who work so hard to shake the inner and outer critic that says: ‘you’re not good enough’, ‘you’re not hot enough’, ‘you’re too slutty’, ‘you’re not slutty enough’ – I get why we might want to avoid opening ourselves up to (further) public critique in the form of feminism. ‘Get the fuck out of my bedroom’ does strike me as a remarkably reasoned response.

That said, I’m not one to take individual acts as simply individual acts.
Recently, Emily McCombs posted a piece at xojane.com about her love of facials (no, not the kind you get at the spa). She wrote:

No, I don’t feel degraded by it, nor do I think my male partners’ enjoyment of said act means they hate women.  I mean, if they did, there are faster ways to oppress us than one shot in the face at a time.

She adds: “My orgasms are a politics-free zone.”

So ok. I also want politics to stay the hell out of my orgasms. BUT OH THEY JUST WON’T. I can’t help but acknowledge that sometimes the things we do or want or say in the bedroom are not entirely free of ‘politics’. Being aware that the larger context that, for example, might create a desire for a man to cum on our faces might possibly include, well, porn for one, doesn’t make you a bad person for enjoying that act. I think that it’s possible for an act to be symbolically degrading without an individual necessarily feeling degraded by that act in all circumstances. Feeling degraded isn’t necessarily necessary in order to acknowledge that often our desires are shaped by a larger culture that has worked very hard, for a very long time, to sexualize the degradation of women. And that acknowledgment does not mean the same thing as saying: “you are bad and wrong and unfeminist and ruining feminism for everyone because of the things that turn you on in bed.” Nope. Not the same.

To me, I just can’t see the point of being a feminist if I’m not going to ask ‘why?’ about most everything. I ask why I keep shaving my legs, why I’m unable to eat food for the entire day before a first date (I get nervous, you guys!), why I think buying shoes will make my life better, and I ask why I feel or think or do the things I do in bed with a man. Sometimes I even think about why I go to bed with men in the first place. Is this biological or social? Would I be a lesbian if I hadn’t been conditioned towards heterosexuality? Some of these questions I have answers to, others I’m not quite sure about. But I know this: much of my sexual history and behaviour has been determined by factors including my growing up a girl in a man’s world.

My thoughts, desires, insecurities, and behaviours are not suddenly cordoned off from a larger culture once I close the bedroom door. I also don’t believe I’m being degraded every time I have sex with a man, though many accuse feminists of holding this belief. I actually don’t know a single feminist, in person, who believes that.

Like McCombs, I don’t see semen as “dirty or offensive”  — though I’m not convinced that that’s what Dworkin meant when she said:

The ejaculation on her is a way of saying (through showing) that she is contaminated with his dirt; that she is dirty.

First off, I think there is a difference between the images we see in pornography, which is what Dworkin is referencing in this quote from her 1993 speech Pornography Happens to Women, and what we do as individuals in the bedroom (though these two may well be connected). When we see a man ejaculating onto a woman’s face in pornography, it is reasonable to view that act as representative of women’s subordination. Mainstream pornography is generally, as Dworkin describes, about things happening to women’s bodies. Things are done to their bodies. Men are the actors, and male fantasies are projected onto the bodies of women.

In film theory everything has meaning. Everything is symbolic. Similarly, in pornography, as Dworkin points out “everything means something.” Gender means something, bodies mean something, body parts mean something, the acts done to women mean something. Getting a facial in your bedroom doesn’t necessarily have the same meaning as a woman getting a facial in a porn movie does and, in fact, the relevance of whether or not the individual actress in the porn appears to be ‘enjoying’ the cum shot to her face is less important than the larger meaning of the image on screen. I am not at all surprised that “the majority of porn shows women basking in and positively loving receiving a facial” or that “a lot more straight porn features women happily accepting facials than reacting with disgust and evident humiliation” because women in porn are presenting a fantasy and that fantasy is that women enjoy being objectified, cum on, gang-raped, called whores and bitches, whatever. Porn is about male fantasy. The fantasy is that women like everything you do to them, as man.

So how does this translate into real life? Women spend a lot of time and energy trying to please men. We learn early on that we are being looked at – that we are to be looked at. That we are performers. It took years before I actually started enjoying sex. YEARS. I think what I enjoyed most about sex, when I was younger, was the feeling of being desired. The actual sex part was super boring for the first while.

We learn, as girls and women, that the performance is more important than the actual feeling. Do you know how many women can’t actually relax during sex because they are so self-conscious about whether or not their stomachs look flabby? A lot. Read Cosmo (which actually suggests facing away from your partner during sex if you feel self-conscious about your body!?). HOW THE HELL ARE WOMEN SUPPOSED TO HAVE ORGASMS WHEN THEY ARE WORRYING ABOUT WHAT THEIR STOMACHS LOOK LIKE? And in other news, are men everywhere having trouble relaxing and cumming while they are in bed with women because they’re concerned their pecs aren’t muscly enough? Sigh.

What I’m saying is that, when we feel that sex is a performance it impacts, well, our performance. And the reason we see ourselves as performers in the bedroom, the reason that we’re thinking about our appearances, and the sounds we’re making, and our facial expressions, is in large part because of the porn/pornified images we have seen onscreen.

So same goes for facials. It’s more than likely that women learned this was hot from porn. And that is troubling. Because I think emulating porn doesn’t help us enjoy our bodies or sex, nor does it help us relax and have pleasure in bed. In fact it inhibits it in many ways.

All that said, I actually completely agree with McCombs when she says: “We can recognize our influences while still liking what we like.” We don’t have to have sex in any prescribed way simply because we are feminists. But to say that “sexism doesn’t get to dictate what I can and can’t enjoy” isn’t entirely true. Because in many ways it does and it has. All the fucked up ways I behave in my life were, as far as I can tell and in one way or another, determined by my experience being socialized in a patriarchal society. That doesn’t mean I need to hate myself for it. It doesn’t even mean I need to stop behaving in those ways or thinking those weird, unhealthy things about my face/life/body/boyfriends. But it sure doesn’t hurt to recognize how sexism factors into the equation. In fact, I think that understanding the way that sexism has messed with my head is the only way to overcome it (eventually).

Feminism has made sex better for me. Not worse. Feminism hasn’t limited me, it’s helped me to understand me. It’s helped me understand what I’m comfortable with, who I’m comfortable with, and what I’m comfortable doing. It hasn’t made me ashamed. What made me ashamed was the not knowing. The trying to fit into some pornified version of the me I thought I was supposed to be. Why didn’t I like all of the things I thought I was supposed to like? Without feminism I thought I just wasn’t liberated enough to enjoy degradation. That was a whole bunch of bullshit. I don’t need to dress up in cheesy lingerie and put on a strip show in order to prove how empowered I am because I don’t actually need to prove anything to anyone. Thanks feminism!

This isn’t to say that I’m constantly having perfect, empowered, multiple-orgasm, insecurity-free sex either. It doesn’t mean that I don’t catch myself performing at times. The sexism is still there folks! Inside the bedroom. Inside my head. But I’m done trying to enjoy or pretending to enjoy things that feel boring/painful/degrading because I feel like that’s what sexy girls do.

So I don’t particularly want politics in my bedroom either, but they’re there. Whether we like it or not. As long as we’re feminists and we’re living in a patriarchy, it’s very likely that we’re going to desire or enjoy things in the bedroom that might make us uncomfortable or confused or uncertain. We might wonder why sometimes we feel as though we are performing, why we asked to be spanked, or why we love getting facials.

I’m never going to tell anyone to stop liking those things but I’m also not going to pretend as though that facial isn’t symbolic. You aren’t fucking in a bubble and yet you also can have your desire. Have it without shame. No one’s here to police the sex you are having but as we move forward in this world and on our paths as feminists, so long as we are sleeping with men, politics will be in the bedroom, in one way or another.

But yes, you can keep your orgasms.

-------------------------------------------------------

As promised, below is the article written by Emily McCombs.

Why I Like Facials (The Dirty Kind)

My orgasms are a politics-free zone.  Emily Aug 28, 2012 at 2:00pm 

 

Nope! Not this kind...

How do I put this delicately? I like having my face cum on.
Yep, 90 percent of my sexual encounters end with a big face-full of splooge. (See, delicate!) No, I don't feel degraded by it, nor do I think my male partners' enjoyment of said act means they hate women.  I mean, if they did, there are faster ways to oppress us than one shot in the face at a time.

I started Googling intellectual feminist analyses on the topic while writing this piece and nearly psyched myself out of writing this, but you know what? Fuck it. I'm not the only dirty bitch out there who likes to push the boundaries during sex and as a grown-ass woman, I shouldn't have to be ashamed of whatever kind of sex I like to have. When I interviewed artist Marilyn Minter for this site, she wore this awesome shirt she'd had made up herself, reading "There are no politically correct fantasies." I'm sure there are women who are lucky enough to be turned on by erotic, lady-empowering lovemaking, but there are a hell of a lot of the rest of us who want to get cum shot in our faces sometimes and who have rape fantasies.

And that's one of the things I love about sex -- done well, with someone you trust, it's a boundaryless Never Never Land where cool, smart, and careful melt into sheer sensation. I don't care if your fantasies revolve around fisting or sibling role play -- exploring them together, crawling into each other's weirdo sexual psyches, is half the fun. My orgasms are a politics-free zone.

Thusly, this title is something of a misnomer -- why I like facials is less important than the fact that already do.
I like the feeling of anticipation, of waiting for the moment that first hot spurt will splatter my cheek. (Yes, "hot spurt" is the single most embarrassing phrase I have ever written for publication.) I like looking up, begging, while he chokes out a whimper and makes that face like something hurts a little. It makes me feel powerful. It makes me feel sexy. It just turns me on.

"Degrading," the number one catch phrase of those who are anti-facial, literally means, "causing a loss of self-respect." Facials can do that, as can lots of other kinds of sex, but not without your consent. Facials may very well feel degrading to you, and I don't doubt that their visibility in porn has led to women feeling pressured or coerced into doing them when they don't want to. Let me reiterate that to you: If facials or any other sex act makes you feel bad, gross uncomfortable or degraded, then you should not do it ever. That is wrong. But men aren't the only ones who like things they see in porn. In my case, there's nothing degrading about receiving a desired sex act I've asked for as a consenting adult. Sex acts are degrading when they make you feel degraded -- and nobody gets to decide that but you, not even feminism.

Nor do I think the act is inherently violent or malicious. I don't see semen as dirty or offensive, ala Andrea Dworkin, who has said, "The ejaculation on her is a way of saying (through showing) that she is contaminated with his dirt; that she is dirty." Nor do I believe that the giver of the facial is by definition trying to humiliate, cause harm or discomfort. Sure, there are movies where women sputter and grunt through a shower of ejaculate, but the majority of porn shows women basking in and positively loving receiving a facial. Of course these are paid performers who may or may not actually enjoy the act, but my point is that the fantasy narrative isn't primarily about hurting women. I read it as more of a yearning for a woman who is so hot for you that she wants your semen all over her.

And in the cases where the erotic appeal is in perceived degradation? That's OK, too. A lot of us like it that way. And participating in an erotic fantasy of degradation doesn't actually degrade me, anymore than playacting a rape fantasy means I was raped.

I received a classic second-wave education as a women's studies minor at NYU. An esteemed professor that went something like this: My mother once told me that she honestly likes to vacuum. I explained to her that she thinks she likes to vacuum, but it's only because she's been trained to like vacuuming.
Even at the time, I found this story dismissive, although I couldn't have articulated why. Now I know why: It underestimates women. It assumes that we are too ignorant or unintelligent to recognize the context in which our lives take place.

Maybe part of the reason I like facials is because I was groomed by a sexist society to enjoy being objectified. Maybe part of the reason someone else hates them is in direct opposition to that same message. We can recognize our influences while still liking what we like. The answer isn't for us all to stop liking everything that some man might sexistly want us to like, whether it's shoes or vacuuming or anal sex or having 25 babies. Sexism doesn't get to dictate what I can and can't enjoy.

Because vacuuming itself is not the problem. It's just a chore that needs to get done. The real problem is that all of our choices (to vacuum or not) lead us in the same place as second-class citizens. In the utopian feminist future, where all choices are weighted equally, there are still going to be women who like to vacuum, and who like cum on their faces. It's just that nobody will care one way or another.

That's the real myth that holds us back -- that making "patriarchy-approved" choices is somehow better or safer for women than choosing against them. It's not. They both suck. Being a porno fantasy doesn't make your life easier or better, and neither does being a Stepford wife. Rejecting the system is hard, but participating in it doesn't win you any prizes either. The goal of feminism is to make life better for women, whatever choices we make.

And we can be trusted to make those choices. Because after "degrading," the number one phrase I kept coming upon in my Googling on the topic was this: "Some women say they really like this, but I don't believe them." And discounting women's stories, just flat-out rejecting them when they don't fit your political narrative, is something I will never, ever get behind.

One final word while we're on the topic. Everything I've said here about facials goes out the window the first time you hit me in the eye with your cum. That shit burns for the rest of the day.

-------------------------------------------------------

Needless to say, I am in favor of the views expressed by Murphy. That being said, McCombs' article is definitely thought provoking and I believe part of a necessary discussion about patriarchy. Good work, ladies.

Don't Do This To Us

I'm too sensitive for your sexism.

Hustler Photoshops an Image of a Conservative Columnist with a Penis in Her Mouth

The below is a Hustler piece which features a photoshopped image of conservative columnist S.E. Cup with a penis in her mouth.

The publication reads.

"S.E. Cupp is a lovely young lady who read too much Ayn Rand in high school and ended up joining the dark side. Cupp, an author and media commentator who often shows up on Fox News programs, is undeniably cute. But her hotness is diminished when she espouses dumb ideas like defunding Planned Parenthood. Perhaps the method pictured here is Ms. Cupp’s suggestion for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy."

Hustler makes certain to mention that the photo has been doctored and that it is all in good humor.

This image is not uncommon for an overt misogynistic media source and nor is it an uncommon trend that a woman should be degraded or humiliated for the sake of making a point. When I say "trend" I do not mean to suggest that this concept is a passing fad. It is quite trendy or popular to foist harmful and compromising images of disagreeable women, aka "bitches". It has always been this way; hence a patriarchal society.

I vote Democratic and am not in favor of this woman's Conservative views. Certainly I harbor ill feelings towards her politics, but I do not applaud with the idea that all this woman needs is a "dick". This image is a depiction of dominance and naive submission. In this photo, Cupp is being downplayed to something that is less independent, less autonomous, and less confident as she has a penis stuffed inside her. The thought is that she is being taken down a peg as she is silenced by genitalia. She is being shown who's boss.

How often do we see a man being silenced by a vulva in his mouth? Not often. I would not advocate an image like this, but my point is made quite easily. The image of Cupp stems from patriarchy. It's no surprise being that Hustler is a pornographic magazine but many share the idea that unfavorable women need to be degraded in order to be taught a lesson. Whether the woman be a political columnist, a co-worker, a relative, a lover; a stranger.

The image of Cupp speaks to a larger mentality of hating women. It is doubtful that a man or woman from the Hustler empire would admit outright that they hate women. But there are plenty of individuals who deny their hate for women while simultaneously engaging in hateful practices. This is one of them.

Hustler; feel free disagree with this woman's politics to your heart's content. I disagree with her too. But my heart isn't blackened as yours is.